thought of an episcopal consecration, but merely of a fraternal communion; with this he collates Adrian Wengersky’s narrative, cited above, and is then led, speaking mildly, to affirm that 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 and published by Camerarius.”[1]
Now remembering that Perceval was unacquainted with Blahoslav and Lasitius, excepting the eighth book of the latter on the Brethren’s Discipline, pablished 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 Geschichte der Bœhmischen Brueder” appeared; and finally, that he was ignorant of and hence misconceived the circumstances under which 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: first, that Camerarius undertook the history of the Brethren at their own 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:”[2] second, that every 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
