« EelmineJätka »
Besides all this, it is the work of regenerating Africa brought to our own doors, without its romance, and without its terrible fatalities. It is the work of training up Missionaries of the Cross, and messengers of Christian Civilization, who shall forth to do that for Africa, and in Africa, for which Nature and Providence have specially fitted them; and which mission to their own native land we believe to be one of God's great and wise purposes in their past history in our own.
NOTE. Since the above was written, the following language from the Rt. Rev. Bishop McIlvaine, of Ohio, in a speech at Detroit, Mich., has been published:
"Bishop McIlvaine said that no subject could be of more importance to the Church than that of affording relief to the Southern clergy. They all knew how decided had been his stand during the war, but through all, and especially now in their misfortunes, he entertained the kindest feelings toward his brother clergymen of the South. His heart had been stirred in him by the distressing facts which he had just heard, and by similar ones which he had learned through other sources. He wished the Domestic Committee to send agents to canvass the whole Church for relief, believing that they would meet with great success, and be attended with the most blessed results. He would like to stand by the agent in every parish and help him with all his might. He considered the union of the Church the great thing to be accomplished, and the more we show that we are laborers with them, the more will be accomplished. He said that we cannot hope to supply the Spiritual wants of the South by sending agents there from the North. In fact we could do nothing in that way, but we must work through those who are already there. We must help them on their feet and render them all the asssistance in our power.”
ART. VI.-SCHWEINITZ ON THE MORAVIAN EPISCOPATE.
The Moravian Episcopate. By EDMUND DE SCHWEINITZ, Pastor of the Church at Bethlehem, Pa. Bethlehem: Moravian Publication Office. 1865. 12mo., pp. 28.
Our reprinting of Perceval on the pretensions of the Moravians to the Apostolic Succession, seems to have stirred up that very respectable denomination very considerably. In addition to various little skirmishings in the way of abuse, they now come forward with their proofs. The Rev. E. De Schweinitz, pastor of the Church at Bethlehem, gives the above pamphlet as the argument in favor of the Apostolic Succession of the Moravians.
Our readers will remember, that the especial pinch was in the case of "Stephen, Bishop of the Waldenses," who is asserted to have given them the Episcopacy. Who was he? And who gave the Episcopacy to him? These questions Mr. De Schweinitz answers in this way :
"In their native valleys of Piedmont, the Waldenses were never an Episcopal but always a Presbyterian Church. The best authorities. prove this, and the most 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 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 France, came by way of Germany to Bohemia, and settled near Saatz and Laun." (pp. 12, 13.)
That is to say, the Waldenses always were Presbyterians up to the time of the Apostles. But they got the Episcopacy quite providentially for the sake of the Church of the Moravians.
"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." (p. 12.)
We shall find, by and by, that they were ordained by Roman Catholic Bishops !
Now, here is the statement.
"The Calixtines lent a willing hand, and upon their recommendation two Waldenses, Frederick Nemez and John Wlach, were ordained priests, on the 14th of September, 1433, in the Slavonian Convent 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 Clergy consecrated Bishops by 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 Wlach, could legitimately transfer it to the Brethren." (p. 14.)
Here is the authority.
"For this account of the origin and validity of the Bohemian Waldensian Episcopate, the following are the direct authorities:-1. A 'Narrative of the origin of the Unitas of the Brethren,' in the Lissa Folios, written in the year 1605, and probably by Bishop Jaffet. It gives facts and dates as we have presented them above, and that under circumstances forming a most indisputable guarantee of their correctness. For, as clearly appears from internal evidences, this 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 cunning Jesuit, who tried his utmost to render the Unitas Fratrum-no longer an obscure community but a powerful Church-contemptible in the eyes of his countrymen, by disparaging, 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." (p. 15.)
That is to say, a narrative written in A.D. 1605, "probably by Bishop Jaffet," is sufficient proof that, in A.D. 1433, a
Legate of the Roman Catholic Church ordained, as Priests, two
In regard to Orders, the English Church gives real documents. The registers at Lambeth, with regard to Parker's Consecration, have names, dates, everything. These are "original documents." We know where they have been since the first. They were made at the time. They are of authority. Any one can see the difference at once.
We must be excused, therefore, from believing this Consecration until bonâ fide records are produced. For, upon turning to Gieseler's Church History (Vol. iii, p. 184), we find, that there are, both published and in manuscript, profuse records of the Council of Basle, in Mansi's Collection of the Councils, also in seven volumes of MSS., in Paris, and much also in the Library of Basil. Here, then, is the source from which we ought to have records of such a fact as this, if there be any records! We recommend our Moravian brethren, when they assert that "Waldenses were consecrated by Roman Catholic Bishops at the Council of Basil," to search the acts and
records of the Council, to give us the documents that testify to the fact, if it ever took place. The Council of Basle was bold enough, as against the Pope. If they really ordained two Waldenses in a public Convocation, they had it recorded. Let us see the records. The English Church gives us real records of Consecration, as against Rome, so that Roman Catholics, like Dr. Lingard, acknowledge them. Let us have the records here.
Next, we have Palacky in his history of the Bohemians.
"Palacky, who, in his Geschichte von Boehmen' (vol. vii, p. 492) says, treating of the Bohemian Waldenses:-The narrative given in an old manuscript, is not improbable, namely, that in the autumn of 1433 Bishop Philibert, as Legate of the Council of Basle, dained Waldensian P sts in 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 time, was meant as an example and encouragement for the Bohemians, that they might be the more ready to agree to the Compactata of the Council.'" (p. 15.)
Now, we simply ask, is not this "old manuscript," "the Narrative written in 1605" of the Lissa Folios? Is not Palacky's evidence simply an opinion, "that he does not think it improbable ;" and really no evidence at all?
Thirdly, we have Gindely;
"Who, in his Geschichte de Boehmischen Brueder' (vol. i. p. 37), describing the acts of the Synod of Lhota, says :- It may on this occasion have become known to the Brethren that the (Bohemian) Waldenses of that day claimed a valid Episcopate, and they certainly knew that their superintendents made use of the Episcopal title. In particular did they hear of Stephen, the head of these Austrian Waldenses, who was said to have been consecrated by a Waldensian Bishop that bad, in 1434, himself received consecration at the hands of a Roman Catholic prelate a statement which the Calixtines of Bohemia pronounced correct.' (p. 15.)
"It may have become known," he says, "that the Waldenses claimed a valid Episcopate." Mr. Gindely is no more. certain than Mr. Palacky. Has he any other evidence than the Lissa Folios ?
Now, we simply say to the American Church, here are the Moravians claiming an Episcopacy-that is to say, when they