EDMUND Dl^ TC1^KE1^MVZ 
 
 ^ . ■ ^-i! 
 
T II E 
 
 Moravian Episcopate 
 
 BY 
 
 EDMUXD DE SCHWEINITZ 
 
 PASTOR OF TOE CHURCH AT BETHLEHEM, PA. 
 
 BETHLEHEM : 
 MORAVIAN PUBLICATION OFFICE, 
 
 A. C. CLACDER, PRIMER, 
 18G0. 
 
NOTE. 
 
 The following paper was originally written for " The Moravian," the- 
 weekly journal of the Moravian Church, and appeared in its issu« of the' 
 30th of November, 1865. 
 
THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATK 
 
 We have been repeatedly asked to give a critical account of the 
 Episcopate of the Moravians. It forms an interesting; subject of 
 inquiry. In the popular histories of the Church its origin is set 
 forth, but an examination into its validity would have been foreign 
 to their purpose. An history whose province it would bo to discuss 
 this point, and, in general, to bring forward the authorities which 
 exist for the current narratives of the founding of the Church and 
 the institution of her ministry, has not yet appeared iu the English 
 language. Indeed it is well that a work of this kind remains to 
 be written, for in recent times only have the most important records 
 come to light, and but a few years ago, through the researches and 
 publications of Bohemian antiquaries, have they been made more 
 generally available than they were when first discovered. 
 
 We need scarcely say that this article is not meant to subserve the 
 interests of exclusivism, nor ba.sed upon the idea that episcopal 
 ordination only is valid. The founders of the Moravian Church 
 in the fifteenth century secured what is commonly called " the 
 apostolical succession" because they believed that an episcopal 
 form of government would be the best for them, would give them 
 stability and unity, and, above all, would help them maintain their 
 protesting position over against the Romish Hierarchy and the 
 National Church of Bohemia ; hut they did not hesitate to fraternize 
 with the Reformers of Gerrfiany. On the contrary, it was one of 
 their highest aims to bring about a union among all evangelical 
 Christians. As they were the leaders of the Protestant world in ^| 
 translating the Bible into a vernacular and publishing hymns and • ' 
 introducing a holy discipline, so also in the furtherance of this ^ 
 V- great duty. And such has remained the principle of the Church 
 to the present day. Her episcopacy is essential to her existence; it 
 
4 
 
 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 is the historic form of her organic life; it enabled her to come 
 forth from a time in which her visible structure was destroyed 
 with tlie stream of that life uninterrupted ; it conferred upon her 
 the riyht to renew her ecclesiastical constitution and reoccupy her 
 ancient place in (Christendom. But, at the same time, she glories 
 in the catholic standpoint of her fathers ; and instead of presuming 
 to unchurch other bodies of believers who have no episcopacy, 
 upholds a close fellowship with them. 
 
 Nor do we intend to give a polemic treatise, although we shall 
 take notice of a paper against the validity of the Moravian 
 episcopacy written, in iSof), by Rev. A. P. Perceval, of England, 
 and occasioned by a pamphlet published in 1833, entitled "Apos- 
 tolical 8ucce.s.sion Examined,'" in which the episcopate of the 
 Moravians was exalted above that of the Anglican Church.' We 
 shall do this, first, because it is, in so far as we know, the only 
 critical attempt over made to disprove with a show of ancient au- 
 thorities the lawfulness of our episcopacy, and, second, because 
 it has lately been republished in this country. Our chief purpose, 
 however, will be to meet the wishes of members of the Church 
 desiring information upon this subject, as expressed to us long 
 before the api)earanee of that republication. 
 
 In order to a pniper comprehension of our narrative, it will be 
 necessary to present a somewhat detailed statement of the sources 
 of early Moravian history. 
 
 IUST01U(!AL SOUJICES. 
 
 In the very nature oi' the case some obscurity with regard to 
 that history must be expected. This will be manifest from the 
 following consiilcrations : 
 
 In the first place, the Bohemian and Moravian Bi'Cthren were 
 an oppressed and persecuted people ; the rack and the stake beset 
 them on every side. These were not circumstances favorable to the 
 
 1. Fn 1841, a Moravian Clergyman of England having published a 
 letter addressed by him to Rev. Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, upon the 
 sul)jpc t of the Moravian episcopacy as n( kiiovvlc<lKed by the British Par- 
 liament, in 1749, Dr. Hook, in the way ef reply, lejirinted Perceval's paper 
 with additions in the September number of the " Christian's Miscellany," 
 of which he was editor, entitling it " An Enquiry into the Episcopacy 
 of the Moravians : occasioned by a letter frona a Presbyter of that com- 
 munity to the Ilev. Dr. Hook." 
 
THK MORAVIAN E P I S C () P A T K . 
 
 5 
 
 collectioD of materials for the histoiian. " Of what sort our records 
 must be amidst such great disquietude aud persecutions," writes 
 Bishop Nigranus, in 155G, to the well known Reformer, Flacius 
 Illyricus, thou mayest safely judge. Moreover, both the law 
 of self-preservation and the rule of Christ taught them to combine 
 the wisdom of the serpent with the harmlessness of the dove. 
 Hence they intentionally concealed seme occurrences that would 
 have inflamed the wrath of their enemies. Bishop Blahoslav 
 writing, in 1571, to Ijasitius, who was preparing an history of the 
 Church, says: "He (J]saias, his pupil, by whose hands he sent 
 the letter) will indicate to thee the reasons which have led the 
 Brethren to prefer that their aifairs should remain unknown rather 
 than be published iibroad. They do not wish to extol themselves 
 and make themselves the subject of their own praise : they prefer 
 peace and tranquility to all thinus, being, namely, men cast down, 
 oppressed and greatly afflicted. 
 
 In the next^pjace, their earliest archives, which were deposited 
 at Leitomischl, in IJohemia, together with the private library of 
 Bishop Augusta embracing most valuable records, totally perished, 
 in 1546, in a conflagration which swept away that entiretown.^ 
 
 And, finallj^, the great mass of their numerous publications which 
 were issued at a later period fell a prey, in the Bohemian Anti-re- 
 formation, to the fury of Jesuits and imperial dragoons sent through 
 the country to search out and burn every vestige of evangelical 
 literature. I'pon this point the Homan Catl olic historian, tiindeiy 
 — of whom more hereafter — while carefully withholding the true 
 cause, which would stigmatize his church, is nevertheless con- 
 strained to acknowledge : The writings of the Brethren in 
 particular seem to have been devoted to annihilation. We are not 
 astonished that, as a general thing, but one or two copies of works 
 in manuscript have come down to us from former days : but 
 that printed works, circulating by the hundreds and thousands 
 scarcely two and a half centuries ago, have in part altogether 
 
 1. Gindely's Quelleii ziir Gescliklite tier Bohmistbeu Brueder, Vienna, 
 1859 p. 278. 
 
 2. Ibid p. 327. 
 
 3. Ibid p. 278 : also the Preface p. ix : furtber, Die Katechismen der 
 Waldenser und Bohmischen Brueder, by Dr. von Zeschwitz, Erlangen, 
 1863, p. 135. 
 
6 
 
 THK, MORAVIAN K l> I S (' () P A T K . 
 
 disappeared aud in part are extant in not niore copies than if they 
 were manuscripts — this is so remarkable a fact that it becomes 
 credible only because it cannot possibly be denied."^ 
 
 It is, therefore, not surprising that a partial obscurity rests upon 
 the first era of the history of the Brethren, including the period in 
 which they received the episcopacy. It is, rather, surprizing that 
 at this late day we can, in ijpite of the disasters and persecutions of 
 former times, give so clear a view of their origin, and bring forward 
 .so many and ^nch solid authorities. 
 
 After the burning of lyoitomischl, the Brethren began (about 1550) 
 to gather materials for new archive.s. This important labor was in-, 
 trusted to various Bishops, of whom the most active were Nigranus 
 and Blahoslav. By their exertions there were brought together 
 fourteen folio volumes of manuscripts relating to the history of 
 the Church and her correspondence with the Ileformers, and con- 
 taining duplicates of some of the lost records.''^ Until the year 
 1620, these second archives were preserved at difi'erent places in 
 Bohemia and 31oravia. Then, amidst the storms of the Anti-re- 
 formation, pious hands conveyed them for safe-keeping to Lissav,a 
 town of what is now Prussian Poland, not far from the Silesian 
 frontier,"* where they remained for two hundred and twenty-two 
 years,* and were, at length, entirely torgotten^ in as much as Ja- 
 blonsky und Sitkovius, the last Bishops of the Ancient Church, 
 passed awny without informing the Kenewed Church of their exist- 
 ence. Perhaps they wore themselves not aware of it. 
 
 The principal writei-s of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 
 who treated of the history of the Brethren, and, either directly 
 or indirectly, drew their information from these archives, are the 
 following : 
 
 1. John liusitius, a Polish nobleman of the Befornied Church. 
 Traveling in Bohemia and Moravia, he became an ardent admirer 
 of the Brethren, examined their records and produced their history, 
 
 1. (iindely's Quellen /,iir Opscliichtp d. Boh. Briierler, Preface, p. vi. 
 
 2. Gindcly's fjdii'lloii, I'renico, p, i.^ iiiid .\. 
 
 3. Ijissii lies about loiiy-lwo inilos S. W. of I'oscn, and is one of the 
 station,s on llic railroiid from thitt cily to lircslau. It was the original 
 seat of tlic Ijcczinski family, ancestoi'.s of Stanislaus, King of Poland, 
 
 4. Gindely s Quellen zurGesch. d. Boh. Bruedor, Preface p. x. 
 
T UK MO H A V 1 A N K V I .S C (> I' A T K 
 
 written in Latin in eight books, between the years 1560 and 1570.^ 
 In 1586 he sent it to their Bishops for publication ; but fearing 
 that it might seem to extol their Church above measure, they did 
 not print it. One of their number, however, Bishop Turnovius, 
 enriched it with marginal notes. In 1649, xVmos Comenius issued 
 the eighth book, the rest of the work was never published. Four / 
 Manuscript copies of it are extant, namely : two in the Moravian; 
 Archives of Ilerrnhut, Saxony ; one in a Library of Prague ; an4 
 one in the University Library of Goeltingeu. 
 
 2. Joachim Camerarius, the well known humanist and professor 
 at Leipzig. At the request of the Brethren themselves he wrote 
 their history,'^ between 1570 and 1574, in which latter year he 
 died. But it was not given to the world until thirty years after 
 his decease, and then, not the Brethren, but his own grandson, 
 Louis Camerarius, had it printed at Heidelberg (1605) with addi- 
 tions of his own.^ Camerarius never visited Bohemia and per- 
 sonally never consulted the archives of the Brethren. His principal 
 authorities were Lasitius' M. S. History, and Blahoslav's Historic 
 Treatises, of which latter we will speak more at length hereafter. 
 These had been sent to him by the Bishops from Bohemia. 
 
 3. John Amos Comenius, that illustrious Bishop of the exiled 
 Brethren who never ceased to hope that their Church would be 
 resuscitated, and zealously labored for this consummation. He 
 published at Lissa, in 1632, the Ratio Disciplinae Unitatis 
 Fratrum which had been ofl&cially drawn up by the Bishops, and 
 adopted by the General Synod held in 1616, at Zerawitz, in Mo- 
 ravia. It embraces a very complete account of the ministry, con- 
 stitution and discipline of the Church, and Comenius added a 
 concise but exceedingly important history. A second edition of this 
 work appeared in 1660, at Amsterdam, with the eighth book of 
 Lasitius prefixed. This edition Comenius intended as a legacy for 
 posterity in the event of a renewal of the Church, and dedicated 
 
 1. The title of this work is: Lasitii Origo, Progressus, Res prosperae 
 quam adversae, nec non Mores, Ins/itula, Consuetudines Fratrum. 
 
 2. Gindely's Quellen, p. 343 and 347. 
 
 3. The title of this work is : Historiea Narratio de Fratrum Orthodoxorum 
 teeleaiis in Bohemia, Moravia et Polonia. 
 
8 
 
 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 it to the Church of England, to whose fraternal care he commended 
 the Brethren of a future age.^ 
 
 4. Adrian Weugersky, an exiled minister of the Brethren. Un- 
 der the assumed name of Kegeuvolscius he issued, in 1652, at 
 Utrecht, an history of the Churches of Slavonic origin in Bohemia, 
 Moravia and Poland.^ In 1079 a second edition came out at Ams- 
 terdam, with his real name. 
 
 After the renewal of the Moravian Church (1722), these four 
 secondary sources — we omit several minor ones because they are 
 mere compilations from those we have mentioned — constituted, for 
 a period of one hundred and twenty years, the only sources open 
 to writers on the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, whether they 
 were friends or foes. By these Cranz, Loretz, Holmes and John' 
 Plitt ^ were guided ; on one of these Perceval mainly relied. Of 
 the existence of original records they know nothing. 
 
 In 1842, lio\vevi'i\ a 3Ii.iavian clergyman, on a visit to Lissa, 
 accidentally discovei eil ihuse in the vestry-room of one of its churches. 
 Thirteen volumes of the ancient archives were there, intact, and 
 in a state of excellent preservation.* They were purchased by the 
 Church, placed in the Library at Herrnhut, and are now technically 
 known as the "Jjissa Polios." 
 
 These invaluable documents have thrown new light upon the early 
 history of the Brethren. They have been examined with much 
 care by Anton Gindely, a lioman Catholic Professor of Prague, 
 and one of the most distinguished antiquaries of Bohemia, who has 
 quite recently been appointed Archivist of that country ; and by 
 Franz Palacky, also a Roman Catholic, the great Bohemian historian, 
 
 1. A third edition was published at Halle, in 1702, by Buddaeus, who 
 wrote a lengthy introduction to it, and embodied with the work Co- 
 menius' Treatise on the Amelioration of the Human Race. Of .this 
 edition, the following is the title ; Jo. Amos Cometui, Eccl. F. F. Boh. 
 Episcopi, Hisloria Fratrum Bohrmorum, eorum Ordo et Disciplina ecchsiastica, 
 ad Fcclesiae Rcctc Cnnstitiu ndai' Exemplar, cum Ecclesiae JJohem. ad Angli- 
 canam Fararnesi. 
 
 2. liei/envolscii Si/xliiKd liixUii ini-chronologicum ecclesiamm Slavonicarum. 
 
 3. In 1828, Rev. John I'lilt wrote the best and most erudite history of 
 the Boh. Brn. which existed prior to the discovery of the original 
 sources. It was, however, not intended for publication, but as a guide 
 for lectures in the Theological Seminaries of the Church. Hence it re- 
 mains in manuscript. 
 
 4. The 14*h folio has since been found in the Bohemian Museum at 
 Prague. 
 
TUK MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 9 
 
 whose "Geschichte von Boehmen" has now reached nine vqlumesj 
 and forms the most learned and exhaustive work which has ever 
 appeared upon that subject. Both these writers consider them of 
 paramount importance for the history not only of the Brethren, but 
 of Bohemia in general/ and hence Gindely is now having them 
 copied entire for the National Archives at Prague.^ Nor have they 
 failed to make use of them. The seventh, eighth and ninth vol- 
 umes of Palacky's History contain frequent references to them; 
 while Gindely, who has taken up the history of the Bohemian 
 lirethren, in spite of his Koniit h views, with an enthusiasm which 
 can be explained j'roui the stand-point ol' a i'ellow-naticnality only, 
 says that his " Gescliiclito der Builimischeu Bruodcr" (i'raguc, 
 1857j is based substantially upon these records. This work, of 
 which two large octavo volumes have appeared and a third is ex- 
 pected, is the most complete history of the Brethren that has been 
 published in ancient or modern times, although its Romish bias 
 greatly mars its value.3 This is not the case, however, with its 
 supplemental volume, entitled " Quellen zur Geschichte der 
 Bochmischen Brueder vornehmlich ihren Zusammenhang mit Deut- 
 schland betreffend" (Sources of the History of the Bohemian 
 Brethren particularly in relation to their correspondence with 
 Germany) : for it consists of a literal publication of many of the 
 Latin, and of German versions of a number of the Bohemian 
 manuscripts of the Lissa Folios. Dr. Gindely deserves the thanks 
 of the whole Church for this magnificent contribution to her litera- 
 ture.* 
 
 1. Gindely's Geschichte d. Bochmischen Brueder, Preface, p. iv : also 
 his Quellen, Preface, p. vii. 
 
 2. Palacky's Gesch. v. Boehmen, vol. ix, p. 432, note 335. 
 
 3. The thorough research upon which this history is based, is worthy 
 of all praise, but the mode of representation is often faulty in the ex- 
 treme. Nor can it be otherwise. Gindely occupies, as the article, in Her- 
 zog's EDcyclopacdia, on the Renewed Brethren's -Church well says, a 
 standpoint which is inwardly and therefore fundamentally foreign to that 
 of the Brethren. 
 
 4. Besides these two works, Gindely has also written a Life of Bishop 
 Amos Comenius; the Dogmatical views of the ffohemian and Moravian 
 Bvn.. with some notices respecting the history of their origin (1854); 
 and the "Oekrctcn der Brueder Uiiitict" (Prague, JSCr)). With these 
 works, which we h:iv e not yet been ;ibie lu jirocure, we are not acquainted. 
 Hence Gindely, having devoted no k'ss thau five works, one of them of 
 three vols., to the Bohemian Brethren, might well be called their historian 
 
10 
 
 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 Of Moravian works these Folios have called forth a manuscript 
 volume of x\ddenda to Plitt's MS. History ; a concise account 
 of the Brethren's Church by Rev. Henry L. Reichel, formerly 
 President of the Continental Theological Seminary ; and Bishop 
 Croeger's latest " Geschichte der Alten Bruederkirche" (Gnadau, 
 1865). 
 
 And, last but not least, they have brought to light the Historic 
 Treatises of John Blahoslav ; the one written in Latin, in 1556,^ 
 the other in Bohemian , somewhat later, but more in detail.^ These 
 Treatises are the oldest Histories of the Brethren, and the first 
 was composed expressly in order to give the Reformers of Germany 
 a correct account of the origin and ministry of the Church. Their 
 importance cannot be over-estimated. 
 
 With such newly discovered original sources, then, to serve as a 
 complementto the former secondary ones, we proceed to consider the 
 Moravian Episcopacy. 
 
 THE PLAN OE THE BRETHREN TO SECURE THE EPLS- 
 COPACY EUOM THE BOHEMIAN WALDENSES. 
 
 During the first ten years of their existence (1457 to 1467) the 
 Bohemian Brethren were a Society rather than a Church. Occu- 
 pying an isolated retreat — the Barony of Lititz in the North 
 Eastern part of Bohemia — they endeavored to carry out among 
 themselves the reformatory principles of John Huss, and edified 
 one another in the Ijord. Their ministers were pious priests or- 
 dained in the Calixtiue or National Church. Gradually, however, 
 they felt the necessity of a total separation from the Establishment 
 and of a regular ecclesiastical organization of their own ; and yet 
 
 /)ar ezfcHence, if be were uot iinfortuufttely a son of Rome. It is certainly 
 remarkable, t'ovvever, that that Church which crushed the Brethren ia 
 the lYth century,^ is, through the works of one of her most learned 
 writers, doing what she cau to malse their memory known in the 19th 
 century. 
 
 1. It is entitled, Summa qiuicdam brevissimc collecta ex varih Scriptis Fra- 
 iruni, qui fiilfo Viildcitst^K vel I'kcardi voeantur^ de corundem Fratrum origine 
 el aclis, and found in the viiith Lissa Folio. We have in our possessiott 
 a copy of this Treatise, made in I84G, from the Folio by the then Arch- 
 ivist of the Brethren's Church. 
 
 2. Dr. Gindely has made a German tianslatiou of this Bohemian Hist, 
 for the Continental Theo. Sera. 
 
THE m'oRAVIAN episcopate. 
 
 11 
 
 they hesitated to take this step without unmistakable evidence 
 that it would be in conformity with the will of God. On the 
 occasion of a Synod, therefore, convened in 14G7 at Lhota, in 
 the Barony of Reichenau, the decision was left to the Lord by the 
 lot, agreeably to the example of the apostles. Nine candidates were 
 chosen and twelve lots put into a vase, nine being blank and three 
 inscribed with the word Est. These lots were drawn singly by a lad, 
 named Prokop, who presented one to each of the candidates. Three 
 lots remained in the vase. It is evident that these three might 
 have been the ones marked with Est, and that all the candidates 
 might have received blanks, in which case the Synod would have 
 accepted the result as a divine intimation that the time for insti- 
 tuting an independent ministry was not come. But the lots having 
 been simultaneously opened, those with Est were found in the 
 hands of Matthias of Kunwald, Thomas of Prelouc, and Elias'of 
 Chrenovic. Thus God both approved the creation of a separate 
 ministry and designated its fir.=^t candidates.^ 
 
 But how were they to be ordained ? Should the priests present 
 at the Synod proceed to do this and thus establish presbyterial 
 ordination ? It was a question which, even prior tn the meeting 
 at Lhota, had caused the Brethren no little anxiety. " Their 
 minds," says Comenius, " were agitated by the tear whether an 
 ordination would be sufficiently legitimate if a presbyter and not 
 truly a bishop were to create a presbyter ; and in what manner, in 
 case of controversies, such an ordination could be defended either 
 among themselves or against others."^ And now that the Synod 
 was assembled, the subject was fully and earnestly discussed. The 
 result of these deliberations is given by Adrian Wengersky (Regen- 
 volscius Book I Chap, viii) : " That in the times of the apostles 
 there had existed no diiference between a presbyter and a bishop; 
 that the distinctive prerogatives of a bishop did not rest upon 
 explicit instructions of the Bible, l)ut upon a provision of the 
 ancient Church ; but, that, in order, to prevent in future all doubts 
 
 1. Blaloslav's Summa quaedam collecia cVc, Vlllth Lissa Folio ; Lasitiug 
 II, 47, 48 (quoted by Plitt) ; Camerariusp. 93 and 94 (quoted by Plitt) ; 
 Regenvolsius Book l Chap, viii; Comenius Ratio Disc/plinae, Sections 59 
 and60;Gindely".^ Geschiclite der Bffilimisclien Brueder I, 33-35; Zeschwiti 
 
 'Die Katechismen d. Waldenser u. Bcuhm. Brueder" 160. 
 
 2. Comeuiu.s jK<i//o Dsciiplinae, Sectiou 59 p. 17. 
 
12 
 
 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE 
 
 on the part of the Brethren themselves and all objections on the 
 part of their enemies, the anciently established principle and 
 usage must be maintained." From this point of view, therefore, 
 the Synod resolved to introduce episcopal ordination by securing 
 the apostolical succession. To apply for it to the Calixtines would 
 have been useless. They were reconciled with Rome, and whatever 
 they might have been willing to do ere they had agreed to the 
 Compactata of Basle, they would have spurned such a request 
 now that these were adopted. But, providentially, there lived on 
 the Moravian frontier a colony of Waldenses with two Bishops 
 who had received the legitimate consecration. Of these Bishops 
 the senior was Stephen, the name of the other is not known. To 
 them a deputation was accordingly sent, composed of Michael 
 Bradacius, theretofore the principal minister of the Brethren, and 
 two other of their priests. ^ 
 
 That the object of this mission was to seek not fraternal encour- 
 agement, or ordinary communion with religionists of like mind, but 
 absolutely episcopal ordination and such episcopal ordination as 
 Romanists and Calixtines would have to acknowledge, is so clearly 
 shown by the extracts we have given from Comenius and Regen- 
 volscius that we need add nothing more upon this head. Hence 
 we go on to inquire whether these Waldenses on the Moravian 
 frontier possessed a valid episcopacy and could confer the succession. 
 
 THE VALIDITY OF THE BOHEMIAN WALDENSIAN 
 EPISCOPATE. 
 
 In their native valleys of Piedmont, the Waldenses were never 
 an episcopal but always a presbyterian Church. The best authorities 
 prove this, and the mo.st recent discoveries of Waldensian documents 
 in the University Library of Cambridge and elsewhere serve to 
 corroborate it. To teach, as has been frequently done, that the 
 Italian Waldenses had a succession of bishops stretching back to 
 the apostles' times, and independent of that perpetuated through 
 the Roman Catholic Church, is treading , upon most unhistoric 
 ground. In no way can such a position be established. As early 
 as the first quarter of the fifteenth century, however, we find 
 
 1. Some of the authorities mention only two deputies. 
 
THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 13 
 
 Waldenses in Bohemia,^ and their ecclesiastical development was 
 wholly different from that of their brethren in the valleys. Paul 
 Stransky, a Bohemian historian of the seventeenth century, says 
 that they were expelled from the South of Trance, came by way 
 of Germany to I5ohemia, and settled near Saatz and Laun.^ 
 was a period of extraordinary developments in church and state 
 By the execution of John Huss Rome had sown the wind and 
 was reaping the whirlwind. The Hussite War raged with terrible 
 fury. However incongruous the elements among the Bohemians; 
 they were a unit in their national, although by no means doctrinal, 
 opposition to the Hierarchy. These circumstances, on the one 
 hand, rendered Bohemia a safe refuge for the Waldenses, on the 
 other, laid a snare for them. The Hussites were divided into two 
 factions: the Calixtines. who contended, mainly, for the privilege 
 of the cup in the Lord's Supper, and the Taborites, who desired 
 a thorough reformation of the church. The former were the 
 aristocratic, the latter the popular party. Learned Doctors of the 
 University of Prague guided the one, enthusiasts of the tented 
 city of Tabor the other. Coming into contact with both these 
 factions, the Waldenses shaped their course so as to give offence 
 to neither. They associated with the Taborites,^ they were on 
 friendly terms with the Calixtines, and, in course of time, openly 
 fraternized with them even at the mass.* Men like Rokycana 
 
 1. Herzog's Real Eucyclopaedie vol. xvii. 510 and 520. Giesler's Kirch- 
 engeschichte ii, 4, 432. 
 
 2. History of Bohemia, by P. Stransky 6. 6. (quoted by Plitt). 
 
 3. Herzog's Real Eucyclopaedie vol, svii, 530. 
 
 4. This statement is established by very positive and abundant testi- 
 mony, both ancient and modern. Blalioslav in h\B Summa, &c., (Lissa Folio 
 viii) says: "It seemed that the doctrine of the Waldenses was taken 
 from the H. S. even as is ours. Nevertheless, they (the Brethren) dis- 
 covered certain practices which are unworthy of true disciples of Christ 
 and deserve ^ensure :" and then goes on, at considerable length, to 
 specify these practices, amongst the rest, attendance at mass. Come- 
 nius Rat. DiscipHnae Sect. 62, p. 18, says : " The purity of their (Wal- 
 denses) doctrine and their endeavor to lead christian lives greatly 
 pleased them (the Brethren). But they were displeased that they should 
 hide and not openly confess the truth; and that for the sake of avoiding 
 persecution they should frequent papistical temples and take part in 
 idolatrous worship." Zeschwitz in his Katechismen der Waldenser u. 
 Bohm. Brueder p. 161, corroborates this: "What the Brethren censured 
 in the conduct of the Waldenses was, above all, that, although they re- 
 cognized in the Pope the Antichrist, they yet did not openly proclaim 
 their protest, but even took part iu the Romish mass." And Herzog in 
 his article on the Waldenses (Encyclopaedia xvii, 520) repeats the same 
 charge, and adds that this sort of accommodation the Waldenses every- 
 where allowed themselves. 
 
14 
 
 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 and Martin Lupac, leadinj^ Calixtine divines, the one afterward 
 elected Archbishop of Prague and the othei his Suffragan, were well 
 disposed toward them, and esteemed Stephen especially as an 
 excellent man.^ Nor did such relations cease when the unprece- 
 dented route of the papal and imperial crusaders at Tauss, in 
 1431, which filled all Europe with amazement, forced Sigismund 
 to confess that the Bohemians^ were invincible, and that the Council 
 of Basle, then in session, must immediately open negotiations with 
 them. On the contrary, the intimacy grew so close that the 
 Waldensis turned it to their own advantage. It so happened that 
 their priests had nearly all died, and that a renewal of their ministry 
 was desirable. This the Calixtines could not only effect, but could 
 thereby also give them a far more influential position than they had 
 as yet enjoyed. The Calixtines lent a willing hand, and upon 
 their recommendation two Waldenses, Frederick Nemez and John 
 Which, were ordained priests, on the 14th of September, 1433, 
 in the Siavoni;ni (Jonvcnt of Prague, by Bishop Nicholas (Philibert), 
 a Legate of the Council of Basle. In the summer of the following 
 year (1434), these two priests were sent to Basle, where the Council 
 was at open variance with the Pope, and in a full convocation of 
 clerrjy consecrated Bisfliops hy Bishops of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. It was done again at the instance of the Calixtines and 
 out of regard for them, the Council being anxious by all possible 
 means to gain their confidence. Thus the Bohemian Waldenses 
 obtained the apostolical succession, and Bishop Stephen and his 
 colleague, who had been consecrated by Bishops Nemez and 
 Which, could legitimately transfer it to the Brethren. 
 
 For this account of the origin and validity of the Bohemian 
 Waldensian episcnpate the following are the direct authorities : 
 
 1. A "Narrative of liio origin of the Unitas of the Brethren," 
 in the Jjissa_^Folips,. written in the year lt)05, and probably by 
 Bishop Jafiet. It gives facts and dates as we have presented them 
 above, and that nn()(-r i-ii cunistances forming a most indisputable 
 guarantee ol' tlicir rdnccfiicss. For, as clearly appears from 
 internal cvi<lencos. tiiis Narrative was one of the controversial 
 writings with which the Bishops of the Brethren were, at that 
 time, officially meeting the assaults of Wenzel Sturm, a learned and 
 
 1. Palacky Geschrehte v. Boehiiien vol. vii, p. 494. 
 
TlIK MORAVIAN K 1' I S C (>!' A T K . 
 
 15 
 
 cunning Jesuit, who tried his utmost to render the Unitas Fratrum 
 — no longer an obscure community, but a powerful church — con- 
 temptible iu the eyes of his countrymen by dispuniging, amongst 
 other things, its ministry. Consequently if this account of the 
 origin of the Bohemian Waldensian episcopate had not been 
 authenticated beyond all doubt, the Bishops would not have ventured 
 to base upon it their refutation of Sturm's charges, as he might 
 at once have proven it false, which he never attempted to do. 
 
 2. Palacky, who in his '-Geschichte von Ba^hmeu" (vol. vii p. 
 
 492) says, treating of the Bohemian Wuldeuses : 
 
 "The narrative given in an old manuscript is nut improbable, namely, 
 that in the autumn of 1433 Bislii]p Philibert, as Legate of the Council 
 of Basle, ordained Waldensian priests iu tlie Slavonian Convent of Prague, 
 of whom several, it is said, were in the following year (1434) elevated, at 
 Basle, even to the dignity of bishops. For it is possible that such an act, 
 just at that tiiue, was meant as an example and encouragement for the 
 Bohemians, that they might be the more ready to agree to the Compac- 
 tata of the Council. ' 
 
 3. Gindely, who, in his "(<e.>5cliichtc der Bcclniiischeii Bruedcr" 
 (vol. i, p. 37), describing the acts of the Synod of Lhota, says : 
 
 "It may ou this occasion have become known to tlie Brethren tliat the 
 (Bohemian) \Valdenses of that day claiineil a valid ejiiscopale, and they 
 certainly knew that their superintendents ni:nle nsr of the episcopal title. 
 In particular did they hear of Stephen, the lie;i.l '.if ilu .-e Austrian Wal- 
 denses, who was said to have been consecrated Ijy a W.ildensian liishop 
 that bad, in 1434, himself received consecration at the liamls of a Roman 
 Catholic prelate — a statement which the Calixtiues of Bohemia pronoun- 
 ced correct.'' 
 
 This direct testimony of an original document and of two modern 
 Komish authors would be amply sufficient even if it were all that 
 we had. It is, however, not all. For the authorities which we 
 shall bring forward to prove our next point will be found to offer 
 such overwhelmiusi: collateral evidence as to leave no room even for 
 a quibble. 
 
 Ere taking up this point, a few words more with regard to the 
 Bohemian Waldenses. Admonished by the Brethren, who sent a 
 second deputation to them and fraternally reproved them for their 
 ktitudinarian practices, they grew bolder in confessing the truth. 
 Persecutions were the consequence. Their Ualixtiue friends, who 
 had long since relapsed into indifference upon the question of 
 reform, forsook them ; liishop Stephen, arrested while laboring 
 among the Germans, was carried to Vienna and burned alive at 
 the stake; his flock iu Bohemia scattered and disappears from 
 
16 
 
 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 history. 1 Thus the Bohemian Walden.sian episcopate became 
 extinct after but a short duration. May we not assume that God 
 had permitted it to be instituted as a necessary factor in the organi- 
 zation of the Church of the Brethren, and that this having been 
 completed its mission was done ? 
 
 THE CONSECRATIOiN OF THE FIRST MORAVIAN 
 BISHOPS. 
 
 We now continue our narrative. The three deputies of the Synod 
 of Lhota arrived among the Wajdenses, met with a cordial reception, 
 and were consecrated Bishops by Stephen and his colleague. It 
 was not, as Perceval asserts,^ " an imposition of hands" " in token 
 of fellowship and agreement, and for the confirming of their minds," 
 there being " of any idea of consecration not a whisper" — but it was 
 a coimrration of hiahop^ hi the JuUcM srnsfc of this title and in the 
 strictdit mriininfj of thix ojjivc. We establish this position by the 
 evidence here following : 
 
 1. Blahoslav's Smnma &c., (Lissa Folio viii) says : 
 
 " Our countrymen were informed that somewhere near Austria lived 
 certain ones of the nurnberof the Waldenses, of whom it was reported 
 that they had the pure doctrine of Christ, neither had given place to 
 simony : that they had also brought together among themselves both 
 grades of the ministry, namely, the episcopal and the priestly. Two of 
 our people were sent to their Bishops, or Seniors, of whom two were 
 found. Our deputies lay before them their [lurpose, and narrate to them 
 all that had been transacted (at the Synod of Lhota), and what God 
 had done for the Brei hren, and they ask their opinion concerning this 
 thing. The Waldenses say that the thing is of divine authority and good 
 (rem sanctam et piam), strongly (vehementer) commend it, and with the 
 greatest joy confirm them in their design. And immediately, having 
 acknowledged them to be truly ministers of Christ chosen and sent by the 
 Lord, they consecrate them with the imposition of hands, and declare 
 them to be their associates in the Lord and fellow- bishops (imposita capiti 
 manu illos benedicunt atque socios in Domino et Co-Episcopos appellant) ; 
 and having been further exhorted to go into the vineyard of the Lord, the 
 deputies returned to their own." 
 
 2. Lasitius distinctly aflBrms (Lasitius II, 45,quoted by Plitt), 
 that the priests sent by the Brethren to the Waldenses were 
 consecrated Bishops by the Waldensian Bishop Stephen. 
 
 1. Blahoslav's Summa &c., Lissa Folio viii ; Comenins' Ratio Disciplinae 
 Sect. G2, p. 18 ; Palacky Gesch. v. Bohmen vol. vn, 494; Zeschwitz Ka- 
 techismen &c., p. 161. 
 
 2. The Christian Miscellany, London, September, 1841 p. 4. 
 
THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 17 
 
 3. The General Synod of Zerawitz (1616), in the official pre- 
 face to the Ratio DisclpUnae, (p. 3 and 4) says : 
 
 '• And iuasnuich as the Waldenses, wbom we mentioned before, affirmed 
 that they had legitimate Bishops, and a legitimate and uninterrupted 
 succession from the Apostles, they, in a solemn rite, created Bishops of 
 three of our ministers, and conferred upon them the j)Ower to ordain " 
 ministers." 
 
 4. Coinenius (Ratio Discipliuae, Sect. 61, p. 18) says: 
 
 ■' Knowing that there were certain Waldenses on the confines of 
 Austria and .Moravia, the Brethren sent to them Michael Zambergius 
 (the other uame by which .Micliacl Bi-adacius was known, from the village 
 of Zamberg in which he lived,) with two others, in order that they 
 miglit fully provide for conscicutious scruples (namely, on the subject 
 of ordination) among their own people and among others, both for the 
 present and (mark !) for the J'ului e. These should tell them what had 
 been done, and ask their opinion with regard to it. They find their 
 Bishop Stephen. He having called the other Bishop and several of 
 tlieir ministers, these set forth riieir origin, the articles of their doctrine, 
 and what horrible things the Waldenses had thus tar snfiered in Italy 
 and Gaul. On the othtr hand, they listen to the accuiiiit which our 
 deputies give concerning our secession from the Pope and the Calixtines, 
 approve of it and congratulate them upon it; and wiiat is more, con- 
 ferring upon these three the power to make ministers, they create them 
 Bishops with the imposition of hands, and send them back to their own 
 (quinimo tribus illis Ministros creandi potestate collata, raanuum impositi- 
 one Episcopos creant, et ad suos remittunt). 
 
 5. Adrian Wengersky (Regenvolscius, 1, 8, p. 33), to quote the 
 translation which Perceval has himself given, says: 
 
 "And whereas the aforesaid Waldenses affirmed that they had lawful 
 Bishops, and a lawful and uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, 
 they, in a solemn rite, created Bishops of three of the ministers of the 
 Brethren, who had been already elsewhere ordained, and conferred on 
 them the power of ordination." 
 
 6. &indely, in his Geschichte dar Boehmischen Brueder" (vol. 
 I, p. 37), says : 
 
 "To this Stephen the Brethren re.'^olved to send Michael, that he might 
 be consecrated a Bishop. Michael, accompanied probably by Matthias, 
 proceeded on his journey, found Stephen, obtained what he had come 
 to seek, and returned to his own." 
 
 7. The Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia, one of the greatest 
 
 modern works of the Romish Church — " Kirchen-Lexicon, oder 
 
 Encyclopaedic der Katholischen Theologie und Kirche, von Wetzer 
 
 undWelte. Freiburg, in Breisgau, 1848 " — which called forth 
 
 the Protestant Encyclopaedia edited by Herzog, in its article on 
 
 the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren (vol. II, p. 65), says : 
 
 "The Brethren living scattered through the country occasionally met 
 ID council for the purpose of mutual deliberations. One subject, which 
 at such times particularly engaged their attention, was the manner in 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 whichtjiey should supply the want of ministers which they already begau 
 to feel. After long consultations, about seventy of the'most influential 
 of the Brethren from Bohemia and Moravia met, in the year 1467, and 
 chose by lot three men, Matthias Kunwald, Thomas Prelautscb andElias 
 Krenov, who were recopjnized as set apart by God for the ministry of 
 the Brethren. And as a body of Walden.ses had settled on the Moravian 
 Austrian frontier.of whom the Brethren knew 'hat they had legitimate 
 Bishops, descended from the Apostles in an unbroken "succession, they 
 caused those tliree elected candidates (this is evidently an inaccuracy, 
 it should be, three previously ordained priests) to be consecrated Bishops 
 with the imposition of hands, by the Waldensian Bishop Stephen, who 
 was afterward burned at Vienna." 
 
 8. Zeschwitz, a Doctor of the University of Eriangen, of Mo- 
 ravian parentage, hut himself a^bigoted Lutheran, in his recent 
 worii, which we have repeatedly cited, which is wholly devo- 
 ted to the relation subsisting between the Waldenses and the 
 Bohemian Brethren, and which contains, as was to be expected, not 
 a few unfavorable opinions concerning the latter, says, speaking of 
 the consecration of the first Moravian Bishops by Stephen : 
 
 " It is a fact that does not admit of a doubt, and has lately been 
 established in so surprising a manner, by a writer" of Herrnhut, that 
 nothing remains to be said upon it."l 
 
 9. The Brethren's earliest enemies and persecutors, whose tacit 
 acknowledguieufc of the validity of their episcopacy is a most re- 
 markable evidence. Never did these bitter controversialists and 
 bloody men call it into question. Kokycana denounced the institu- 
 tion of a separate ministry, and heaped woes upon the heads of 
 
 jthe Brethren, not because he could say that they pretended to 
 ^ have lawful bishops, but because they had consecrated unlearned 
 
 ! laymen, and inducted them hito so holy an office.^ If he had 
 known that the claims of the Waldensian episcopacy were invalid, 
 as he would have known in case they had been invalid, is it credible 
 that he would have remained silent upon this subject? 
 
 Omitting the numerous Moravian writers of modern times, whose 
 evidence might be added, and summing up merely these nine 
 points of testimony, we find : that the most ancient historian of 
 the Brethren, appointed to collect materials for their history; the 
 Ileformed author in point of time next after him, and fully conver- 
 
 1. Die Katechismen der Waldenser u. Bohmischen Brueder als Doc- 
 umente ihres wechselseitigen Lehraustausches. Von Gerhard von Zesch- 
 witz, Dr. u. Prof, der Theologie, Eriangen, 1863, pag. 163. 
 
 2. Palacky Gesch. v. BcBhmen, vol. vii, p. 489. 
 
THK MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE 
 
 19 
 
 sant with these materials ; an oflBcial docutneut of a General Synod 
 of the whole Unitas Fratrum ; the distinguished exile-bishop, 
 whose literary fame was ivide as Europe, and of whom Gindely 
 testifies that '• he had studied the history of his forefathers with 
 the most devoted care and his companion in exile, who had 
 closely examined the original records as his many references prove 
 — therefore all the ancient authorities, except Camerarius, unite in 
 affirming that the apostolical succession was given by the Bohe- 
 mian Waldenses to the Bohemian Brethren : and further, that the 
 present Archivist of Bohemia, a Roman Catholic Proftssor, who 
 has made their history his particular and favorite study ; the Roman 
 Catholic Encyclopaedia, the modern standard in that Church on eccle- 
 siastical hisfory and cognate questions; and an intensely Lutheran 
 author who. with much research, tries to unravel the true rela- 
 tionship between the Bohemian Waldenses and the Bohemian 
 Brethren — explicity corroborate this affirmation : and, finally, 
 that the very oppressors and persecutors of the Church silently 
 do the same. 
 
 But why cannot Camerarius be added to the list of witnesses ? 
 ■Let us see. 
 
 >OAMERARIUS' VERSION OF THE CONSECRATION OF 
 THE FIRST MORAVIAN BISHOPS. 
 Joachim Camerarius, speaking of the mission of the Brethren 
 to the Waldenses, represents it as follows, to adopt the translation 
 of Perceval : 
 
 " To them came the emissaries of the Brethren, and laid before them 
 their affairs and accounts ; all things were approved of by them, who 
 professed singular joy at the knowledge of the piety and religion of the 
 Brethren, and affirmed that the things that were done by them were 
 agreeable to the institution and administration of Christ and the Apostles, 
 and right in themselves: to which they added an exhortation to them 
 strenuously to pursue the way of the truth, of heavenly doctrine, and of 
 d.iscipline agreeable thereto, which they had entered. And they laid 
 their hands on them, blessing them ^fter the manner of the Apostles, for 
 the sake of con6rming their minds, and in token of fellowship and 
 agreement. "2 
 
 This extract is the mainstay of Perceval's whole argument upon 
 historic grounds ; this shows, he imagines, that there was no 
 
 1. Gindely s Quellen, Preface p. x. 
 
 2, Christian Miscellany p. 3 and 4. 
 
20 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 thought of an episcopal conseciation, but merely of a fraternal 
 cppimunion ; with this he collates Adrian Wengersky's narrative, 
 cited above, and is then led, ''speaking mildly, to affirm thai 
 these incongruous accounts present very great difficulty in arriving 
 at the truth of the story :" this induces him to explain the Anglican 
 recognition of the Moravian Episcopacy by saying : •' Possibly 
 they (the English prelates) knew only the accounts of Regenvolsch 
 and Comenius, and had not noted the totally different accounts 
 to be found in the earlier histories and documents collected aud 
 published -by Camerarius."' 
 
 Now remembering that EQJ"Cfl.yal was unacquainted with Blahoslav 
 and Lasitius, excepting the eighth book of the latter on the 
 Brethren's Discipline, published by Comenius; and. further, that 
 he wrote his paper in the "Christian Miscellany" one year before 
 the discovery of the Lissa Folios, sixteen years before the researches 
 of Gindely and Palacky were given to the world, and eighteen 
 years before the " Quellen zur Geschichteder Boehmischen Brueder" 
 appeared ; and finally, that he was ignorant of and hence miscon- 
 ceived the circumstances under whicli the work of Camerarius 
 was compiled — let us inquire what weight, if any. the conflicting 
 evidence of this ancient writer has in the present aspect of the case. 
 
 In former parts of this article it has been shown : ^tjt, that 
 Camerarius undertook the history of the Brethren at their ©wn 
 request, as is obvious from the original correspondence between them 
 found in the Lissa Folios and recently published by Gindely, and 
 as we may now substantiate — although testimony other than that 
 correspondence will hardly be demanded — by Zeschwitz, who 
 says, " Heretofore writers depended almost exclusively on the 
 work of Camerarius, but they seem to have been little acquainted 
 with the fact that this Lutheran historiographer compiled his 
 delicately drawn narrative at the direct instigation of the Brethren 
 themselves.and was enabled to do this by the sources which they sent 
 him second, thatevery page of his work proves that these sources 
 were principally Blahoslav's Summa &c., and Lasitius' History, 
 which point we may again make good by our Lutheran witness^ 
 Zeschwitz, who writes, "Every page of the book demonstrates 
 
 1. Ibid p. 7. 
 
 2. Zeschwitz Die Katechismen &c., p. 136. 
 
THE MORAVIAN K P I S C O I- A T K 
 
 21 
 
 that Camerarius drew his information chiefly from Biahoslav and 
 Lasitius third, that Biahoslav. whose very words we have 
 adduced, and Lasitius, as quoted hy Plitt, both positively declare 
 that the deputies of the Brethren were consecrated Bishops by the 
 Waldensian Bishops. Consequently the conclusion is self-evident, 
 that Cdmcroriu!' fulstficd Kusfc/N/. > 
 
 He" did not give an account, as Perceval for want of better 
 knowledge would have us believe, drawn from " histories and doc- 
 uments earlier" than those which Coraenius and Regenvolscius had, 
 and disproving their narrative, but with precisel}' the same " earlier 
 histories and documents" before him that guided them, he changed 
 the truth, whereas they faithfully reproduced it. 
 
 Nor is it diflScult to divine the motives by which he was actuated. 
 Camerarius wrote from the standpoint of the (ierman Reformers, 
 who rejected_ episcopacy, ke was a warm friend and admirer of </^^ • 
 the Brethren, but this feature of their ecclesiastical constitution 
 neither accorded with his views nor presented itself to his mind '' 
 as important. It would rather, he thought, tend to awaken mis- 
 trust among his fellow-Reformers, to whom he was anxious to 
 commend the Brethren. For these reasons, which he deemed to 
 be sufficient, he laid aside, in this instance, the exalted character 
 of an honest historian. Is it surprising that, under such circum- 
 stances, his work remained in manuscript for thirty years after his 
 death, and was at last publi,«ihed, not by the Brethren, but by 
 his own grandson ? 
 
 The conflicting testimony of Joachim Camerarius is, therefore, ^ 
 proven to be wholly without weight, a mere idiosyncratic whim. 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPACY. 
 
 Having critically investigated the origin and validity of the 
 Moravian Episcopacy, it yet remains for us to consider its develop-^ 
 ment and preservation, and the transfer of the succession to the 
 present Church. 
 
 After the return of the newly consecrated Bishops from the Wal- 
 denses, a second Synod was held at Lhota, in the midst of which 
 the three candidates for the ministry, designated by lot on the 
 
 1. Ibid. p. 137. 
 
22 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATK 
 
 occasion of the former Synod, were ordained. Matthias of Kunwald 
 bishop. Thomas and Elias priests. At the same time, a regular 
 form of episcopal govornuient was instituted. The four bishops 
 formed an ecclesiastical council over which Bishop Michael, as 
 primate, presided, and which, in conjunction with a body of ten 
 elders occupyino; the position of counsellors, ruled the j'oung 
 church. Ever after, the "episcopal succession was carefully pre- 
 served, and when the Brethren had extended their bounds, divided 
 into two lines, the Bohemian-Moravian and the Polish. The three 
 grades of deacon, presbyter and bishop, were as carefully kept 
 distinct. In the course of time classes of acolyths. or candidates 
 for the ministry, were established, and assistant bishops consecrated. 
 The Ratio DUciplinae gives a complete account of the character 
 and functions of these grades, and of the manner in which 
 ordination to each of them was performed (Comenius, Ratio 
 Dii^ciplivar p. 7—92). 
 
 That, in spite of all this, Perceval tells us (Christian Miscellany 
 p. 6), " the terms minister, consenior, senior and bishop did but 
 express different offices of one order, as among us the offices of 
 vicar, rector, rural-dean and archdeacon, are all held by clergy of 
 one order, even presbyters," basing this view upon misinterpretations 
 of extracts from the eighth book of Lasitius, which extracts show 
 the exact converse, is a disingenous argumentation and involves a 
 palpable absurdity. A more explicit statement of the distinctions 
 of the three grades of the Christian ministry was never given, 
 than that found in the Ratio DiscipJinae. It would l«ad us too 
 far to furnish citations ; they would fill pages. The reader will 
 find the substance of this document in Holmes' Brethren's History, 
 Vol. I, Sect. Ill, p. 64—91. To suppose, therefore, that the 
 assembled bishops and ministers of the Unitas Fratrum would 
 publish to the world a full account of the three ministerial grades 
 established among them, when there really existed but one, is to 
 suppose that they were a body of arch-deccivers. 
 
 That Perceval , furthermore, flings out the charge that " none of 
 their (the Brethren's) writers exhibit any succession of consecrations 
 beyond a few at first" (Christian Miscellany p. 6), is truly unfortu- 
 nate for his general credibility as an author. For Regenvolscius. 
 whom he repeatedly quotes and whose work he must have had before 
 him, presents in his Third Book, Chapter, x, p. 315-382, a com- 
 
TMK MORAVIAN 1 1' I S C 0 P A T K . 23 
 
 plete succession from the beginning to his own time (1644) j and 
 this succession is reprinted in "Cranz'sBrueder Historic" (p. 91-99) 
 — a book also, several times cited by Perceval — and brought down, 
 in accordance with Jablonsky's letter of 1717 to Dr. Wake, Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury/ to the times of the. present Church.^ The 
 same succession is given by Gindely, in an Appendix to- his 
 " Quellen" (p. 450-453). TheVuccession in the present Church is 
 set forth by Plitt from the official records in the archives at Herrn- 
 hutjand the entire succession from 1467 to 1859 is printed in 
 the Moravian Manual" (p. 129-l.?3y embracing one hundred 
 and sixty bishops, since which time six more have been consecrated. 
 
 That, finally, Perceval argues against the 3Ioravian episcopacy 
 from the circumstance that the newly created bishops of 1467, and 
 their successors in the old Church, were generally called Seniors ' 
 and not Bishops, will but provoke a smile; for himself declares - 
 that tbe title was rejected on account of the abuse of it among the 
 adversaries. So far, therefore, from its being hard to conceive 
 that men should have been careful to preserve that, the name ot 
 which they shrank from owning" — it is preci.sely what we would 
 expect from a body of Christians protesting, with all the fire of 
 their first love, not against the cxisfence of bishops in the lloman 
 Catholic and Calixtine churches, which was acknowledged to be 
 an ancient and wise institution and hence adopted among them- 
 selves, but against the misuse of that holy office. Moreover the 
 title of bishop (episcopus) is constantly employed in the Ratio 
 Disciplinae, and in the voluminous Annotations with which Co- 
 menius has enriched that document, he disapproves of the position 
 the fathers had in this respect occupied, pronouncing it to have been 
 a needless scruple (Annotata ad Caput 1, Q, p. 71). 
 
 THE PRESERVATION OF THE EPISCOPATE. 
 
 When the Bohemian Anti-reformation had swept the Church of 
 the Brethren from her original seats, she continued to exist, for 
 some lime longer, in Poland, where she had been previously 
 
 1. Published in PfaflF's Dissertatio de Sitccessione Episcopali, 1721, under 
 the title of De Successione Ordinis Epucopali in Unitate Fratrum Bohemorum. 
 The substance of it is given in English, in the Acta Fratrum. in Anglia.^. 
 112—115. 
 
THK MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE. 
 
 established, aud where a number of the exiled ministers now 
 sought refuge. These, iu conjunction with their Polish brethren, 
 held a S^nod at Lis.sa, in 1632. The victories which Gustavus 
 AHolphus, the champion of ProtestantisEi, was gaining, filled them 
 with the confident hope of a speedy restoration to their native 
 land, an I suggested the idea of perpetuating the Eoheniian-JMoraviaa 
 line of Bishops.*^ One representative of it, Bishop Gregory Erastus,* 
 was still living, while the Polish succession was vested in Bishops 
 Daniel Micolajevius and Paul Paliurus. The.se three, accordingly, 
 consecrated Laureiitius Justinus, 31atthias Procopius, and John 
 Amos romeiiius, for Bohemia and ^Moravia, as also Paul Fabricius 
 for Poluud. In the following year (1638), Paul Paliurus having 
 died, Martin Oruiiinus and John Ptybinius received consecration 
 at Ostrorog ; and eleven years afterward (1644 j — Gregory Erastus, 
 Daniel Micolajevius and Matthias Procopius being no more — 
 IMaruu Gerticljius and J olm Byttner. at fjissa. Twenty-two years 
 passed away, and the only Bishops that remained were John Amos 
 Oomeuius, an exile iu blollaud, and John Byttner, in Poland. The 
 sanguine auticiiiations of the Brethren had not been fulfilled; 
 the Thirty Years' A\'ar had left Bohemia and Moravia under the 
 heel of the Austrian oppressor. But still they hoped against 
 hope, and by the advice and with the episcopal concurrence of 
 the now venerable Cumenius given in writing, in as much as the 
 infirmities of old age {)revented him from being present, Bishop John 
 Byttner, at a Synod held at Mielencin, (1662), consecrated 
 Nicholas Gertichius and Peter Jablonsky, that the successiojft 
 might not be lost. But the latter died January 12th, 1670 — in 
 which year Comenius was also gathered to his fathers, — and Nich- 
 olas Gertichius, May 24th, 1671. Thereupon, although the scat- 
 tered Brethren had greatly decreased, and the Polish branch of the 
 Church was being absorbed by the Reformed, John Byttner, the 
 sole surviving Bishop, still anxious to preserve the episcopate in 
 the event of a future resuscitation, and mindful, in particular, of 
 the prophetical hopei of Comenius, consecrated Adam Samuel 
 Hartman, on the 28th of October, 1673, at Lissa. Byttner dying 
 soon after, and on his death-bed designating John Zugehoer as the 
 next bearer of the succession, he was consecrated, in the presence 
 of a number of his brethren, by Bishop Hartman, on the 13th of 
 August, 1676, in the Church of St. Peter and Paul, at Danzig. 
 
TI!i: MORAVIAN I) P 1 S C 0 I' A T E . 
 
 25 
 
 Again, upon the death of Hurtman in 1691, Bishop Zugehoer 
 continued the succession by consecrating Joachim Gulichius, on 
 the 2Gth of June, 1692, atJjissa; and l^isiiop Gulichius transferred 
 it, at the same place, after the death of Zugehoer, to John 
 .Tacobides and Daniel Krnst Jablonsky, (the grandson..of Conienius 
 and Court-Preacher at Berlin), on the 10th of IWarchj 1699. The 
 former died in 1709. whereupon JJishop Daniel P]rnst Jablonsky 
 con.secrated Solomon Opitz, the Uth of July, 1712, at Zulchow, on 
 the Polish confines of Prussia, and David Cassius and Christian 
 Sitkovius, the 4th of November, of the same year, at Thorn. ^ 
 
 In this vfiiy the sucee^ion was carefully and piously preserved 
 even in that period ni which the Moravian Church remained a 
 " hidden seed." These bjshops did not make use of their title ex- 
 cept when they met the remnant of their Brethren at occasional 
 Synods, held here and there, for the confirmation of their hopes 
 and the amelioration of their sufferings. T hey were ministers in 
 the Reformed Ch urch, but with the consent of the same, and of 
 their respective sovereigns, received consecration as Bishops of the 
 Unitas Fratrum in order lhat the succession miyht not die out. 
 Hence the difficulty di.'-appears which Perceval tries to create by 
 assuming that Jablonsky's episcopal character could neither have 
 been known nor recognized even in his own time, because candi- 
 dates fi>r the ministry went from Prussia to England in order to 
 be episcopally ordained, and because there was an active corres- 
 pondence between the courts of Berlin and St. James's with the 
 view to obtaining episcopal cou,secration (Christian Miscellany p. 
 6). Not that he might officiate as a bishop in the National 
 Establishment of Prussia, nor that he might make it an episcopal 
 church, had he been admitted into the Moravian Episcopate. To 
 do either would have been entirely contrary to the purpose for 
 which it was maintained. Let us hear his own account of the case. 
 In a letter to Count Zinzendorf, dated the 13th of August, 1729, 
 he writes : 
 
 "The Bohemian Brethren's Church in Great Poland is steadily decreas- 
 ing by reason of the uninterrupted oppression of its enemies, but she 
 Entertains the hope that God, in His great and marvellous mercy, will 
 
 I. The above e.vposition of the succession since the times of Come- 
 nius, is given by Jablonsky in liis letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 Acta Fratrum in Anglia,\^. W'iiini^ 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 XUE MORAVIAN KPISCOPATE. 
 
 sustain her, yea and even cause her again to extend and spread. M\ 
 parents were born in this ('liiirch ; my Father l)e};ot me in his exile. In 
 this snnie ("hiirch 1 \v:is lirouizlit ii|),":ni(i my li.ve to her I imbibed with 
 my nii'tlirr's ll lins, imh I'd, ploii-cil ih" i;, sepanite nie from 
 
 hei* in the \uu\y hni llinr \i ;i j u.-- 1 i c^, ill. Imu._', who rests in God, 
 
 and the rci^iiiiig l\iun-, h:i\ c most gfacii)usl\ ihoiiubl proper to allow me 
 to take part in the administration of her bishoi)riek.''l 
 
 A subsequent letter, dated Octobei' 81st. of the same year, 
 adds : 
 
 ' -''By the most gracious permission of our picids Priticc, then known as 
 the Elector Fredericjc iii, but since 17b" as King Frederick 1, 1 received 
 episcopal consecration iif 'the yvnr 1699, on the 10th of March, tit a~Synod 
 held at Lissa, in Great Poland. On account of my absence from that 
 country, there were two Bishops there, the one, David Cassius, at 
 Lissa, the other at Zychlin ; but as the latter died last year, \te speak 
 of soon consecrating another in his ])lace, that the succession may 
 continue to be perpetuated. Abont twelve years ago, it happened ii' 
 England that certain enemies of all evangelical churches on the Continent 
 took occasion to assert and, even to publish through the press, that the 
 Bohemian Brethren had never had, and had not then, lawful bishops. The 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. William Wake, thereupon wrote to me 
 and asked for information upon this snbject. I replied by giving him 
 the circumstantial succession, with which he declared himself to be. 
 perfectly satisfied. Neither I, nor the Bishops in Poland, however, make 
 iTse of the episcopal title, because we think proper fo avoid the ofFen- 
 s'iveness of it, it being Unusual among Germaii Protestants, and calcu- 
 lated to be a stumbling block rather than to promote edification. "2 
 
 THE TRANSFER OF THE El'ISCOPATE TO THK J>RK- 
 SENT MORAVIAN CHURCH. 
 
 In the year 1722, the prnyers and hopes of the aged Comenius 
 were at last fulfilled, although in a way different from what he 
 had anticipated. At Ilerrnhut, on an estate of Count Zinzen- 
 dorf, in Saxony, the ancient Church of Bohemian and Moravian 
 confessors was renewed. That this was a legitimate renewal, that 
 the Moravian immigrants who had there found a refuge were the 
 spiritual descendants of his own spiritual fathers, Jablonsky joyfully 
 acknowledged.^ Hence when the Brethren laid before him a 
 formal request to transfer to them the venerable succession, pre- 
 served amidst perils, persecutions and exile, he willingly con- 
 sented, and, at Berlin, on the 13th of March, in the year 1735, 
 
 1. Koelbing's Nachricht von der Bischoefiichen Ordination in de>' 
 Brneuerten Bruederkirche p. 22. The original letter is in the Herrnhf** 
 Archives. 
 
 2". E'oelbings Nachricht &c., p. 26. 
 
 3. Koelbing's "Nachricht," &c., pp. 27 and 2&. 
 
THK MOR/AV^AN B PI S C 0 1 A T E . 
 
 solemnly consecratcd^with the concurrence of Christian Sitkovius^^ 
 the other suj-ylsdn^^ Bishop, David Nitschma^n^ to be the first 
 Bishojj^ of the Renewed (Jhurch of the Brethren. Two years 
 afterward (May 20. JJgy, ) he and Bishop Nitschmann, again with 
 the concurrence of Sitkovins, and also with the permission of the 
 King of Prussia, consecrated Count Zinzendorf to be her second 
 Bishop. And now both Jablonsky and Sitkoviut^ deemed the 
 purpose accomplished for which the succession had been thus far 
 upheld, and neither of them consecrated any more bishops. They 
 had given the episcopate to the resuscitated Church of their hopes 
 and love, and conferred upon the new Bishops all the functions 
 which belong to this office. 
 
 In the archives of the Moravian ('hurch at Bethlehem, Pa., where 
 Bishop Nitschmann died and lies buried, is preserved the original 
 certificate of his consecration, in Jablonsky's own hand writing, 
 and signed with the ancient episcopal seal, which is the same as 
 ^hat in use at present. . This document, by way of conclusion, we 
 here present in an English dress : 
 
 In the name of the Triune God blessed forever : to whom be honor 
 iind (jlory from everlasting to everlasting. Amen. 
 
 Whereas it has pleased the Eternal God, whose name is Wonderful, to 
 suffer his faithful confessors, the Bohemian-Moravian Brethren, to fall 
 into circumstances so grievous that many of them are necessitated to 
 leave their native land, and to seek other places where they may serve 
 God with a free conscience, and confess His truth, whence it hath come 
 to pass that they are scattered in part to the northernmost countries of 
 Europe, and in part even to the American Continent, and to several 
 islands near the same: and whereas this Allwise God hath put into the 
 heart of the high and noble born Count and Lord, Lord Nicholas Lewis, 
 Count of Zinzendorf and Pottendorf, in a fatherly manner to care for ' 
 these Bohemian Moravian Brethren in their dispersion, and to make pro- 
 vision for their temporal and spiritual well-being, but especially for 
 their well established, ancient. Christian statutes and Church discipline: 
 and whereas, with the knowledge and consent of their congregation, 
 he has adopted the godly resolution'to have consecrated, in the old Mo- 
 ravian manner, as a Senior and Bisiiopof the said, and of future colonies, 
 together with all their churches and pastors, — the Reverend Mr. David 
 Nitschmann, one of the first of those Moravian witnesses in America 
 who must venture all upon God, and to whom the Lord hath given the 
 first converts from the heathen : 
 
 Therefore, upon proper request to this effect tome made, I, the under- 
 signed, oldest Senior and Bishop of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren 
 in Great Poland, with the knowledge and sanction of my colleague in 
 Great Poland, the Bishop Christian Sitkovins, have ordained the said 
 Mr. David Nitschmann, on the I3th day of March, IT35, in the name of 
 tjrod, and according to our Christian method, with the laying on of 
 
28 
 
 THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE 
 
 hands, and with prayer, to be a Bishop of said Churches and have given 
 him power to hold the necessary visitations, to ordain the pastors and 
 servants of the churches, and to fulfill all the functions which belong to 
 a Senior and Bishop. 
 
 The faithful Savior, to whose service he has dedicated himself, power- 
 fully support him ; grant him courage and strength; and accompany his 
 apostolical office with the fullness of blessing^i to the honor of God, and 
 to the salvation of many souls; so that he may, in the vineyard of ihe 
 Lord, bear much fruit, and his reward may be great in eternity ! 
 
 The above I have myself written, signed, and sealed with our Church^ 
 seal. 
 
 Given at Berlin, ^ , . 
 
 the 14th day of June, 1737. " f '- J ' ' • ' ' 
 
 " Daniel Ernst Jablonsky, 
 
 . , — »— X , Royal Court Preacher, Church Counsellor, Counsellor of the 
 1 S L I ^'■•1 ^'''^ oldest Senior and Bishop of the Po- 
 
 1 "1 hemian Moravian Brethren in Great Poland. 
 
0