sant with these materials; an official document of a General Synod of the whole Unitas Fratrum; the distinguished exile-bishop, whose literary fame was wide as Europe, and of whom Gindely testifies that he had studied the history of his forefathers with the most devoted care;”[1] 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 Bohemian Waldenses to the Bohemian Brethren: and further, that the present Archivist of Bohemia, a Roman Catholic Professor, who has made their history his particular and favorite study; the Roman Catholic Encyelopædia, the modern standard in that Church on ecelesiastical history and cognate questions; and an intensely Lutheran author who, with much research, tries to unravel the true relationship 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.
CAMERARIUS’ 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 au exhortation to them strenuously to pursue the way of the truth, of heavenly doctrine, and of discipline agreeable thereto, which they had entered. And they laid their hands on them, blessing them after the manner of the Apostles, for the sake of confirming 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
