occasion of the former Synod, were ordained, Matthias of Kunwald bishop, Thomas and Elias priests. At the same time, a regular form of episcopal government 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 occupying the position of counsellors, ruled the young church. Ever after, the episcopal succession was carefully preserved, 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 Disciplinae 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 Disciplinae 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 hook 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 Disciplinae. It would lead us too far to furuish citations; they would fill pages. The reader will find the substance of this document in Holmes’ Brethren’s History, Vol. I. Sect. III, 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-deceivers.
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 unfortunate 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-
