- a
4I~




j [t/


"-U


Yr~o
L1 Cend 113ie onwW








I




-1




II
r1




A VIEW


OF THE
ORGANIZATION AND ORDER
OF
THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH,
AS PRESENTED IN
SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY,
TO THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY:
WITH THE
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION TO THE PRESENT DAY.
BY THE LATE
REV. A. B. CHAPIN, D. D.
NEW HAVEN:
PUBLISHED BY HENRY H. BABCOCK.
1873.




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by
A. B. CHAPIN,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Connecticut




TO
THE RIGHT REVEREND
THOMAS CHURCH BROWNELL, D.D. LL.D.
BISIOP OF CONNECTICUT,
WORTHY SUCCESSOR
OF
SEABURY      AND    JARVIS,
THIS AWORK
IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED,
IN TOKEN
OF REGARD FOR HIS OFFICE AND CHARACTER,
BY THE AUTHOR.




"0 ALMIGHTY GOD, who hast built thy Church upon the
foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, JESUS CHRIST himsel' being the head Corner Stone, grant that all thy children
may be so joined together in unity of spirit, by their doctrine,
that we may be made an holy temple, acceptable unto lTee,
through JESUS CHRIST our LORD. Amen."




PREFACE
TO THE STEREOTYPE EDITION.
THE favorable reception with which the View of the Organization and Order of the Primitive Church has been received, since its publication in 1842, has induced the author
and publisher to put it in a permanent form, by having it
stereotyped. In preparing the present edition for the press,
no pains have been spared, which would tend to enhance its
value, or increase its usefulness. The whole work has been
thoroughly revised, both as it regards the facts, and the manner of representing them. In doing this, the author has
availed himself of whatever assistance might be derived
from a careful comparison of authorities, from the suggestions of friendly and the cavils of opposing reviews, and
from the views and opinions set forth in the many works
which have appeared within the last three years, on some of
the topics treated of in this volume.
The principal changes to which these have led, have been
the omission of a few unimportant considerations, the condensation of some arguments that were carried out more in
detail than seemed necessary, and the expansion of some
others that were too brief to be well understood. But, in no
S instance has it led to the omission of any fact which was
before deemed important, or to the modification of any conclusion whatever. Several important facts have been added,
chiefly in notes. But, in regard to the early translations of
the word baptize and baptism,, and in regard to the consecrations of the cons if~rt^' of thd i'Ar4 hops of Canterbury
2 i.?_,7     )




8


PREFACE TO THE STEREOTYPE EDITION.


from Augustine to Cranmer, and in a few other instances,
important matter has been added to the text.  The last
chapter of the previous edition, on the relative strength of
Christianity now and fourteen hundred years ago, has been
omitted; not from any doubt of the correctness of the opinions there expressed, but because the brevity with which it
was necessary to consider the subject in a work like this,
necessarily impaired the force of the arguments adduced.
He trusts the evidence on this point, may some day be presented to the public in a more satisfactory manner. The
important words from foreign languages, on which any argument depends, have been printed in the appropriate letter.
The principal points which distinguish this work from all
others on the same subject, are: (1,) It is not a book of controversy, as most works on this subject have been, but an
inquiry into the early organization of the Church, as a simple matter of history. (2,) It is confined to a consideration
of that organization and worship, as it existed previously to
the commencement of the third century, and before there
could have been any considerable departure from the Apostolic practice. And, (3,) it has brought out more fully than
any preceding work, the evidence that the succession of ministers, established by the Apostles, has been continued in the
Church of England, as an independent Church, to the present day. Its importance has, therefore, been in no degree
lessened by the books which have recently appeared; but is
rendered the more necessary, to fill up a chasm, and supply
a desideratum, which no other has attempted to fill. And
that it may tend to do this, while it advances the Apostolic
order of the Church, is the sincere prayer of
THE AUTHOR.
New Haven, March 10, 1845.




EPISTLE TO THE READER.


No apology need be offered for an inquiry into the subject
of this volume: for, next in importance to that of personal
holiness, is the question, How shall that Gospel, which has produced this holiness in us, be best preserved and perpetuated,
that it may produce the like holiness in generations yet to come?
Nor is this duty to be made out by inference alone, for we
are commanded, to " walk about Zion, to go round about her;
to tell the towers thereof; to mark well her bulwarks, to consider her palaces; that we may tell it to generations following." (Ps. xlviii. 12, 13.) But the reasons for considering
this subject, the reasons for presenting the public with a new
work upon a topic already so fully discussed, may not be
uninteresting.
The substance of this work was written several years
since, under the following circumstances. The author was
born and educated among the Congregationalists; and it was
not until he had entered upon the duties of a professional
life, that the subject of the organization and order of the
Church attracted his attention. He then resolved to examine
the question thoroughly, according to principles of legal evidence, drawing his conclusions according to the same, not
dreaming of its producing a change in his own views on the
subject. For this purpose he read the New Testament
through, with the utmost care and attention, marking every
passage that seemed to bear upon the organization or order
of the Apostolic Church. These he classified under their
appropriate heads, arranging them according to their several




10


EPISTLE TO THE READER.


subordinate topics, upon principles hereinafter detailed. This
forms the Scriptural evidence, as drawn out, except on the
single topic of Baptism, not only before the author entered
the Ministry, but before he had conformed to the Episcopal
Church. His conclusions, therefore, are to be regarded as
those of a layman, who, up to the time of compiling the evidence embodied in this work, had no partialities in favor of
Episcopacy; but whose prejudices, partialities, and supposed
interests, were all in opposition to it. In this examination, it
was designed to bring together all the Scriptural evidence;
and thus to develop, A Scriptural Draught of the Apostolic
Church. Hence, no time was spent in discussing the peculiarities of existing denominations, nor any allusion made to
their principles or practices, except as they fell necessarily
within the scope of the inquiry. Thus, controversy with all
preceding writers, and with all existing sects, has been avoided.
To the Scriptural evidence, thus drawn out, A brief Historical view of the Church, to the end of the second century, has
been added, in which the author has endeavored to examine
all the evidence, afforded by the extant writings of the Primitive Christians, within that period. It has been his design,
under both heads, to give all the direct evidence there is on
this subject, whatever might be its weight; and also, to add
such presumptions as bear upon the subject under consideration. Consequently, the reader will find that while some arguments are strong, others are, comparatively, less so. The
author's plan required him to notice all the arguments, weak
or strong;-to bring forward all the evidence, direct or indirect, that the whole might be judged of, in connection. And
it is in this way, he asks that it may be judged. To enable
the reader to do this, with more clearness and certainty, the
principles upon which all investigations of the kind must be
conducted, have been stated and explained. In this way
alone, can we ever arrive at any certain conclusions.




EPISTLE TO THE READER.


11


To these topics, the author has added a few chapters on
other subjects, growing out of the preceding, which seemed
necessary to give application to the principles discussed, and
the conclusions drawn. Without these, it was impossible to
connect the Church of the present day, with the Church in
the times of the Apostles. And unless this were done, one
end of our inquiry would be lost. These chapters, the author flatters himself, will often be found of peculiar service
to Churchmen, under a great variety of circumstances; and
he hopes they will not be devoid of interest to others.
In conclusion, the author would remark, that he neither
courts nor deprecates criticism. But he may be permitted
to say to those who differ from him, that, if they attempt
either to review, or reply to him, they ought to show,
(1,) that the principles he has proceeded upon are unsound;
or, (2,) that he has departed from those principles in the investigation; or, (3,) that the mass of evidence has been misrepresented or misapplied. It will not be enough for them
to show, that he may have been mistaken on some points,
even could that be done, if the principles on which he has
proceeded are sound. Or, (4,) they ought to show that he
has omitted to mention other important proof, sufficient to
outweigh all the evidence adduced. Unless one of these
four points can be shown, the conclusions drawn in this volume, must be received as proved. If the author has failed
upon any one of these points, he will be much obliged to
those who will point it out to him, in that spirit of kindness
and charity, with which this work is presented to the public.
Truth has in some instances required the author to state
facts that will not be acceptable to all; but he has endeavored to do it in the way that would be the least offensive to
such brethren as dissent from him.
In order to put it into the power of every one who desires
to test the accuracy of thefacts stated in this volume, as well




12


EPISTLE TO THE READER.


as the soundness of the conclusions drawn from the facts, the
author has given full and careful references to his authorities,
and, as far as possible, to the original authorities. He has
thus put it into the power of those who wish, to subject his
arguments to the most rigid scrutiny, with the least possible
labor, while at the same time it furnishes the reader with a
sort of guaranty, that the facts are fairly stated, on sufficient
authority. The author also trusts, that in addition to other
advantages which may be derived from this volume, it will
be found a general index to the authors from whom all facts
and arguments on this subject must be drawn.
That those who are unwilling to lay aside the prejudices
of early education; or who are not resolute enough to ask
unhesitatingly, " What is truth?" nor bold enough to dare
fearlessly to follow it; or who are unwilling to relinquish
the pride of opinion, or the interest of place: that those will
be convinced, is not expected. But it is hoped, that the sincere inquirer after truth will find essential aid in this volume;
and that he who is anxiously seeking to know what is that
Church which hath been declared to be " the body of Christ,"
will be helped forward in his investigation. That it may do
this; and also tend to lead "those who profess and call
themselves Christians, into the way of truth, and to hold the
faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life,"-until the whole of GoD's elect shall be
knit together in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of his Son our LORD," is the hearty prayer of


THE AUTHOR.




VIEW


OF THE
PRIMITIVE CHURCH.
CHAPTER 1.
STATE OF THE QUESTION.
FROM the days of the Lutheran Reformation to the present
time, the question; What was the organization and order of
the Apostolic Church, has excited much discussion and interest among the various religious denominations, each claiming to be exclusively patterned after the Apostolic model.
A large proportion, indeed, believe this model to be binding on succeeding generations. Even the few who deny it,
show by their endeavors to prove their conformity to that
model, that they consider its sanction very dosirable. Since
this subject is deemed by Christians to be o.  ' such magnitude, its consideration cannot fail to be both iiieresting and
useful.
This examination, it should be remembered, is one of mere
history, and must be considered like any other question of
that nature. Consequently, we have nothing to do with the
supposed tendency of any organization; nor with existing
organizations, unless to compare them with the results obtained.
In this examination there are two kinds of evidence, independent of each other-equally relevant;-the Scriptures,. 2




14


POINTS TO BE PROVED.


and the writings of the primitive Christians, usually referred
to by the appellation of the Fathers. The writings of the
Fathers are equally pertinent with the Scriptures, in an inquiry into the organization of the primitive Church, when they
speak of facts within their own knowledge, provided they
were honest men; and that they are so considered, is sufficiently proved by the fact, that all Christians appeal to their
testimony to ascertain what should constitute the canon of
Scripture. But there are some, at the present time, who deny
the relevancy of the testimony of the Fathers; and insist
that we must confine ourselves entirely to the evidence of
Scripture, in attempting to determine the Constitution of the
Apostolic Church.  Out of respect to the feelings of those
entertaining this opinion, we shall confine our examination to
such points as may be made out by Scripture, citing the
Fathers merely in confirmation, and as proof of what was
the Constitution of the Church, in the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles. For the samje reason, we shall
confine ourselves to the time when it is acknowledged that
the Church remained uncorrupt; that is, to the two first centuries. The full object of our inquiry is, (1,) to ascertain,
What is the Scriptural account of the Apostolic Church; and,
(2,) What is the historical account of the primitive Church, to
the end of the second century;
Before proceeding to examine the evidence in the case, we
must acquaint ourselves with three things: (1,) The things to
be proved; (2,) The manner of proving them; and, (3,) The
testimony by which they are to be proved. But in every subject which men discuss, or examine, there must be certain
things which are assumed, or agreed upon, by all parties.
These, like axioms in mathematics, are the starting points of
the argument. Their necessity is self-evident, for if men do
not agree upon certain first principles, they cannot reason together at all.




CASE ILLUSTRATED.


15


One of the points thus assumed, or agreed upon in this mat.
ter, and which the common sense of every person must approve, is, that the Apostolic history, as contained in the Acts
of the Apostles, was written to inform us that the Gospel was
preached, and Churches were formed; but not to detail peculiarities of organization;-that the Apostolic Epistles were
written to confirm the Churches in the faith, not to give a
platform of Church organization and order. Hence, we might
infer, as we know the fact to be, that the New Testament gives,
in no one place, a detailed account of the organization and order
of the Apostolic Church. This point being assumed, it is necessary to assume another, before we can proceed:-that the
Apostolic Churches, when fully established, had a uniform
system of organization; and that the Apostles, in their writings, allude to, and speak of that form, with sufficient distinctness, to enable us to determine what it was.
It will be seen from this, that the scriptural evidence on
this subject, is, mainly, of that indirect kind, which will render some portions of the examination rather difficult. The
precise nature of it may be best illustrated by an example.
Suppose a man, born and educated in one of the South Sea
islands, grown up without any communication with, or knowledge of, any civilized nation. Put into the hands of such a
man, the military correspondence of Washington, during the
American Revolution, and require him, from that alone, to
determine the organization of the American army; and we
should impose upon him a task of no small magnitude. It
is true, he would find letters to and from the officers of the
army, accounts of acts performed by various persons; but
nowhere, an enumeration of the ranks and grades of officers;
nowhere a distinct account of the power and duty incident to
each; and for a very satisfactory reason-both the writers of
the letters, and the persons to whom they were written, were
familiar with every rank and grade, with all the power and




16


NATURE OF PROOF.


duty of every office and officer in the army, of which they
were speaking.
But this supposition does not present a parallel to the case
we are to consider, inasmuch as the subject of the supposed
letters is the same with the question to be determined. But
suppose further, instead of the military correspondence, this
man should receive only the letters written by Washington to
such familiar friends, during the same period, as had left the
army, and were residing in a remote part of the country, accompanied by afew proclamations, issued by the General to the
army. The task of determining the constitution of the army,
would now be far more difficult; and yet, such a man, under
such circumstances, would be situated very much as we are,
when attempting to determine the entire Constitution of the
Apostolic Church,from Scripture alone. This will be evident
upon slight reflection, for it will not be believed for a moment, that General Washington, when writing to men who
had been soldiers or bfficers under him, and who were as familiar with the organization of the army as himself, would
enter into a detail of facts, with which he knew them to be
conversant; nor is there any greater reason for believing,
that the Apostles would give a detailed account of the organization and order of the Churches they had established, when
writing. to the members of such Churches. The nature of
the evidence in the two cases is similar; and what would be
proof of the Constitution of the American army, to a South
Sea islander, situated as supposed, must be proof to us of the
Constitution of the Apostolic Church.
Hence the necessity of ascertaining, with as much certainty as possible, the precise nature of the evidence to be
considered, that we may confine our attention to questions of
history. For this purpose, we shall reduce these fundamental principles to propositions, that we may refer to them
without difficulty.




RULES OF EVIDENCE.


17


PROPOSITIONS.-1. It is agreed, then, that the Churches
planted by the Apostles, when fully established, had a uniform system of organization.*
2. That, whatever this form was, it must have been tangible and visible; known to all the members of the Churches;
and, therefore, could not be mistaken or forgotten.
3. For this reason, the Apostles did not address Epistles to
the Churches in relation to ecclesiastical organization; that
being a subject about which there was no possibility of mistake. But they did address Epistles to the various Churches,
on matters of faith and doctrine, which not being visible
and tangible, but depending on recollection and memory for
their transmission, were liable to be forgotten or misremembered.
4. These Epistles contain allusions to that organization,
sufficiently distinct to enable us to determine what it was.
5. That form only can plead the authority of Apostolic
sanction, to which these allusions are all applicable.
CHAPTER II.
RULES OF EVIDENCE.
THE truth of the propositions contained in the foregoing
Chapter, will not be doubted or denied, by those giving their
assent to the correctness of the view we have taken, and
the nature of the evidence by which it is to be determined.
Indeed, it is only by supposing them true, that the subject
can be discussed at all; since, if the organization of the
* This is denied by a few Independents, but their number is too
small to require any notice.
2*




18


NATURE OF EVIDENCE.


Apostolic Churches was not uniform, all inquiry concerning
it is useless; for, unless they were so, we could not quote
an Epistle to one Church, to prove what was the organization
of another.  Hence, unless we allow this uniformity, the
Epistle to the Corinthians would be no evidence of what was
the organization of the Church at Ephesus. And so of the
rest. And further; if the Apostolic writings do not allude
to that organization, with sufficient distinctness to enable us
to determine what it was, all attempts to ascertain the fact
from Scripture, are visionary.
Having ascertained those general principles, upon which
all are agreed, and which must, therefore, form the basis of
all argument, we must establish some rules of evidence, or
principles of interpretation, which will enable us to give to
each circumstance the precise force it deserves.
We can not, perhaps, better illustrate the necessity and
nature of these rules, than by resuming our former supposition. We may then imagine our South Sea islander, reading the familiar correspondence of Washington, and there
finding accounts of a Major General commanding two or
more Brigadier Generals; a Brigadier General commanding
two or more Colonels; a Colonel commanding two or more
Captains, and so down to privates. The most natural, and
the only reasonable inference he could draw from these accounts, would be, that the officer who commanded two or
more officers, was of a higher rank or grade than those over
whom he had command; and consequently, that a Major
General ranked higher than a Brigadier General, a Brigadier General higher than a Colonel, and so on. By carefully
collating and comparing the passages in which the various
officers were spoken of, or alluded to, he might determine
the rank, grade, and duty of every officer in the army.
But he would need some rules for weighing the evidence
contained in those letters, that he might decide correctly as




NATURE OF EVIDENCE.


19


to what was proof of a fact in reference to the organization
of the army. Satisfied that the person writing the letters,
and the persons to whom they were written, were well acquainted with its organization, and that the writer was honest,
he would see that it was impossible for him to state facts, or
allude to things which did not exist; and, therefore, that the
bare mention of an office, officer, custom, or regulation, as
existing in the army, and forming a part of it, was conclusive evidence of its existence. He would also find things
directly alluded to, when not expressly mentioned; and indirect allusions to what he would have reason to suppose
formed a part of the same.
Hence, he would classify his proof into express mention
of facts in reference to the organization of the army, and
into direct and indirect allusions to them. The first of these
would be conclusive evidence of the fact thus mentioned;
the second, or direct allusions, would be, unless contradicted
or explained, proof of the fact; and the third, or indirect
allusions, would raise a presumption of the existence of the
fact apparently alluded to, liable to be confirmed or contradicted. If, however, the fact apparently alluded to, existed
in the army, it never could be contradicted by the correspondence of Washington.
At first, it would be difficult for him to determine, whether
a thing spoken of was part of the ordinary discipline and
practice of the army, or some peculiar and extraordinary
service, performed by special command. To do this, however, it would only be necessary for him to bear in mind,
that as the persons to whom these letters were written, were
at a distance from the army, acquainted only with its ordinary
duties and discipline; it would be necessary for Washington,
when speaking of any thing extraordinary or unusual, to tell
what it was, and for what purpose ordered; or he would be
unintelligible to his correspondent. If, therefore, he found




20


NATURE OF EVIDENCE.


a distinct statement of the performance of an act, unaccompanied by any intimation that it was unusual, he would
conclude it was an ordinary practice, or a regulation of the
army. Thus, suppose he should find Washington, in one
of his letters, telling his friend, that he was "awoke that
morning, by the beating of the revellie;" and in another
place should say, he " awoke at daylight;" and there should
De no further allusion to the " revellie" in all the letters, our
South Sea islander would necessarily infer, that it was a
custom or regulation of the American army to beat the
revellie at daylight. Again, suppose that, among the proclamations submitted to his examination, he should find one
addressed to a branch of the army, in which mention was
made of their disorderly and mutinous conduct, concluding
with a command, that all tiings should hereafter be done
according to rule; the inference would be, that certain rules
existed, well known to the persons whom he addressed, the
transgression of which had made them obnoxious to the charge
of disorderly conduct.*
All this is most emphatically true, in reference to the
Epistles of St. Paul, from which we are obliged to gather
nearly all the evidence on the subject. This has been so
clearly and forcibly stated by Mr. Locke, in his Essay for
the Understanding of St. Paul's Epistles, in reference to
another point, that we can not better express our ideas, than
by copying a passage from him.
"The nature of epistolary writings in general, disposes
the writer to pass by the mentioning many things, as well
known to him to whom his letter is addressed, which are
* An attempt has been made to evade the force of this illustration,
by pretending to carry out the supposition, and applying it to the present sectarian division of the world, (New Eng. I. 396, 397.) But that
is to substitute a question of sectarian gloss, for a question of pure
history.




RULES OF EVIDENCE.


21


necessary to be laid open to a stranger, to make him comprehend what is said; and it not seldom falls out, that a wellpenned letter, which is very easy and intelligible to the receiver, is very obscure to a stranger, who hardly knows
what to make of it. The matters St. Paul writ about, were
certainly things well known to those he writ to, and which
they had a peculiar concern in; which made them easily
apprehend his meaning, and see the tendency or force of his
discourse. But we, having now, at this distance of time, no
information of the occasion of his writing, little or no knowledge of the temper and circumstances those were in he writ
to, but what is to be gathered out of the Epistles themselves;
it is not strange that many things in them lie concealed to
us, which, no doubt, they who were concerned in the letter,
understood at first sight."
It can not be necessary for us to pursue the subject further. Every reader will see the parallelism of the evidence
to be relied on by the South Sea islander, in his attempts to
discover the organization of the American army, from such
materials, and that to be employed by us, in attempting to
determine what is the Scriptural Draught of the Apostolic
Church. The evidence is of the same general nature; the
circumstances under which it was written, in the main,
analogous, and the difficulties to be encountered in the investigation, exactly similar.
It will be convenient for future reference, to reduce the
foregoing illustration to propositions, applicable to the question under consideration. We also add a few, growing out
of the subject, so plain and obvious, as to require no argument in their support; and which every writer does, in effect,
assume, in every similar inquiry.
RULES OF EVIDENCE.-1. The references made in Scripture to the form of the organization of the Apostolic
Church, are of three kinds; positive statements, direct allu.




22


RULES OF EVIDENCE.


sions, and indirect allusions; each possessing a different degree of force.
2. A positive statement, in regard to any office, officer, or
regulation in the Apostolic Church, as forming a part of it;
is conclusive evidence of its existence.
3. A direct reference to any office, officer, or regulation in
the Apostolic Church, as forming a part of it, is prima facie
evidence, that is, full proof, unless contradicted or explained
away, of its existence.
4. An indirect allusion to any office, officer, or regulation
in the Apostolic Church, as forming a part of it, is presumptive evidence, but not of itself, proof of its existence.
5. Evidence of an inferior, may confirm, but can not contradict, that of a higher degree.
6. Several presumptions, arising from different sources,
tending to prove the same fact, uncontradicted by other evidence, are sufficient to establish the existence of the fact.
7. No name designates an office in the Church, unless
some particular power be assigned to, or some person to
whom it is applied exercised some power, or performed some
duty in the Church, by virtue of it.
8. The nature of an office in the Apostolic Church, can
not be learned from its name, but must be determined by the
nature and extent of the power ascribed to the office; or exercised by the officer filling the office.
9. The grade or rank of an officer, is to be determined by
the extent of power appertaining to the office, or exercised
by the officer.
10. The application of several names to the same person, is
not evidence that they all designate the same, or a similar
office.
One other subject deserves notice in this place, the reason
and extent of the relevancy of the testimony of primitive
writers on this subject. This may be illustrated by an ex



MODE OF INTERPRETING SCJIPTURE.


23


ample. Polycarp of Smyrna, one of the writers we quote,
was the disciple of St. John. He must have known, therefore, from St. John, what was the order and faith of the
Apostolic Churches. Irenaeus of Gaul, who flourished from
A. D. 175 to A. D. 200, was the disciple and pupil of Polycarp, and must have known, from Polycarp, what was the
faith and order of the Church, in the time of the Apostles;
and from personal observation, what was the faith and order
of the Church, in his own day. In regard to the latter-the
order and organization of the Church-it was impossible he
could be mistaken. It was a thing of public notoriety, tangible and visible, and about which there could be no dispute.
The testimony of Irenaeus, therefore, as to the order of the
Church in his own day, is conclusive evidence on that point;
and that which he received from Polycarp, was conclusive
on the same point, in his day. Ignatius, another writer
whose writings will be employed as evidence, was also the
disciple of St. John, and a fellow pupil with Polycarp. Justin Martyr, another, was conversant with those who had
lived in the days Of the Apostles, and so, also, was Hegesippus, both of whom lived in Palestine.
CHAPTER III.
MODE OF INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE.
WE are now ready to proceed in our examination by a
rigid application of the principles and rules of evidence already established. It must, however, have been obvious to
the most casual reader of the New Testament, that there is
not only a dearth of facts, in reference to many things in the
Constitution of the Apostolic Church; but also, that in some




24


NEW TRANSLATIONS.
I


cases, the language is such as to render it doubtful to what
the Apostles intended to refer. In many instances, however,
much of the ambiguity may be removed, by a more full and
free translation of the original. But as this generally involves some disputed point, it is difficult to give a version
which shall satisfy all. Inasmuch, however, as we have
consented, out of respect to the feelings of others, to leave
out of consideration some important testimony on the subject, that might be drawn from the general consent of the
Fathers of the third and fourth centuries; for the same reason, we shall take the interpretation of one of their own
men, in those instances where a deviation from the common
version is made. In other words, where we find occasion to
propose a translation different from the standard version, we
shall follow the " Greek and English Lexicon of the New
Testament, by Edward Robinson, D.D., late Professor Extraordinary of Sacred Literature, in the Theological Seminary at Andover, Mass.;" a man whose acquaintance with
the Greek, and with what has been written in Germany, on
the peculiar Greek of the New Testament, qualify him, in
an eminent degree, to judge of the exact meaning of the language of the New Testament. If any have a right to complain of this course, it is certainly not those whose opinions
on this subject are similar to Prof. Robinson's.
As a general rule, however, Scripture must be its own interpreter; and no reference will be made to any existing
form of Ecclesiastical organization, unless by way of illustration. Nor can any appeal to human opinions be allowed,
except to determine the sense of words and phrases made
use of by the writers of the New Testament. Nor shall we
appeal to the Old Testament, as authority on this subject,
except in those cases where the New contains some reference
or appeal to it; or where both treat in common of the same
subject, as is the case in regard to the character of our Sa



THE CHURCH ONE FOLD

25


viour; or where the writers of the New have used words
and phrases which have a determinate Ecclesiastical meaning in the Old Testament. Bearing these things in mind, we
shall now proceed to inquire,
1. What was the Apostolic Church?
2. Who composed that Church?
3. What were the powers and duties of its members?
4. What were its officers? and,
5. What were the qualifications required of, and the power
and duty belonging to each?
CHAPTER IV.
THE CHURCH A REGULARLY ORGANIZED SOCIETY.
WE proceed now to inquire, What was the Apostolic
Church? We answer, a regularly organized society.* This
appears from the language of Scripture.
1. It is one fold, having one shepherd.  This is expressly
declared by the Great Head of the Church himself, (John x.
16,) " Other sheep I have, which are not of this [the Jewish]
fold; them also I must bring, and there shall be onefold and
one shepherd." And in another place, (John xvii. 21-23,)
Christ prayed that his disciples might be one, "even as he
and his Father were one." So Paul, in his Epistle to the
saints at Rome, assures them, that though many, they " were
one body in CHRIST," (Rom. xii. 5,) and he proclaims to the
Ephesians, that CHRIST has broken down the-wall of partition
* Recently attempts have been made to overthrow and set aside this
position, but as seems to us, entirely without success. Indeed, if the
language of Scripture under this head, does not imply unity and organization, we know not whtonstruction to give it.
/         3
')~    %;o




26


ONE BODY-MANY MEMBERS —


between Jew and Gentile, and " has made both one."  (Eph.
ii. 14,) or, as in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 13,) were "baptized
into one body," i. e. "the Church." (Col. i. 18.) So also
St. Paul assures the Church of the Romans, that they are a
wild olive-tree, grafted into the root of that true olive, which
before had been the Jewish Church. (Rom. xi. 13-24.)
2. It is one body, having one head. In Ephesians, (i. 22,)
CHRIST is said to be "head over all to the Church."  In Colossians, (i. 18,) he is called "the head of the body-the
Church," and in Romans, (xii. 4,) the Church itself is called
"one body." So in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 13,) it is said that
Jews and Gentiles are " baptized into one body," that is, into
the Church. (Col. i. 18.)*
3. But having many members. This is asserted in Romans,
(xii. 4,) "We are many members, IN ONE BODY;" and also
in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 12,) " For the body is one, and hath
many members, and all the members of that one body are
one body." And again, (xii. 20,) "Now are they many
members, but ONE BODY."
4. The members having various offices. Thus St. Paul says
to the Romans, "we have many members in the same body,
but all members have not the same office." (Rom. xii. 4.)
And in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 18,) he writes, " GOD hath set the
members in the body, as it pleased him," every one to perform some distinct office, or appropriate duty. And reasoning in the same manner in reference to the Church, (comp
1 Cor. i. 2; xii. 12, 27,) he calls the Church one body, in
which; " GOD hath set, first, Apostles; secondarily, Prophets;
thirdly, Teachers; after that, miracles," &c. (vv. 28, 29.)
So in Ephesians, (iv. 11, 12,) he declares, that "he gave
* This doctrine of the Church's being the body of CHRIST, was universally prevalent. Ignatius says, (Ep. Smyr. c. 8,) "where JESUs
CHRIST is, there is the Catholic Church." Tertullian (De Bap. c. 6,)
calls the Church, " the body of the three" persons of the Trinity.




A PERFECT BODY.


27


some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists,
and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the
saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the
body of CHRIST;" i. e. "the Church."
5. But having " one faith, one baptism,vne Lord and Father
of all."  (Eph. iv. 5, 6.)
6. Again, The head is called a king. Gen. xiv. 18; Ezek.
xxxvii. 24, 25; Hos. iii. 5; Matt. xxi. 5; John i. 49; xii.
13-15, and elsewhere often.
7. And the Church itself is called a kingdom. That the
phrase, " the kingdom of heaven," and the phrase, " the
kingdom of GOD," often denote the Church of "the living
GOD," will be hereafter shown, so that we shall only enumerate some of the passages referred to by Prof. Robinson,
(p. 130,) where it is so used. Matt. vi. 10; xii. 28; xiii.
24, 31, 33, 41, 47; xvi. 28; Mark iv. 30; xi. 10; Luke
xiii. 18, 20; Acts xix. 8, etc.
The common practice of the Apostle, of comparing the
Church to the human body, seems to have been designed to
intimate that it is deserving of careful consideration. If the
Church be "one body," having "one head," "with many
members," the members having "various offices," we should
expect to find it attended by the following particulars:
(1.) The head would be the eye, that is, the overseer of the
body. This follows, both from the analogy of the Apostle's
figure, and from the office and object of the eye. Hence the
duty of overseeing can reside nowhere but in the head.
(2.) The head would be the ear of the body. And if the
ear, must have the power of hearing, and consequently of
judging all matters relative to the wants and duties of the
body.
(3.) The head would be the mouth of the body. And if
the mouth of the body-the Church-must have power of
speaking on behalf and in the name of the Church.




28


NATURE OF THE CHURCH.


From the foregoing it follows, that in every Apostolic
Church we should expect to find a head, having the power
of overseeing, hearing, judging, and speaking, for and in behalf of the Church. No Church, therefore, can be formed
after the Apostolic pattern, to which these allusions are not
applicable, or which has not such a head, having these
powers, and performing these duties.
(4.) It would also follow, that if every Church must have
such a head, then there can be no such thing as a. head over
these heads. Each head must be the highest authority, on
earth, over the body. Hence, the doctrine taught by some,
that Christ has one visible head on earth over all Churches,
is opposed to the opinion of St. Paul, and therefore can not
be true.
Thus much the language of the Apostle clearly authorizes
us to infer. It is, indeed, a positive statement of facts, which
inevitably leads to this conclusion; and as he has nowhere
limited the application of the figure, we may not take it upon
ourselves to do so. If any are unwilling to rely on this as
proof, they can not object to its introduction, as assisting to
develop the Apostolic idea of the Church.
It may be asked, whether the Apostle's language necessarily supposes any head of the Church on earth? We think it
does, clearly so. Thus he says, (1 Cor. xii. 12,) " For [or
according] as the body is one, and hath many members, and
all the members of that one body, being many, are one body;
so also [i. e. in like manner] is Christ:" by which, as appears from the same chapter, is meant the body of Christ,
(v. 27,) which in Colossians (i. 18) he calls ".the Church."
And again he says, " The eye can not say unto the head, I
have no need-of thee; nor again, the head unto the foot, I
have no need of you." (xii. 15-17.) This language naturally, if not necessarily, implies, that the head was of the
same nature as the eye, the ear, the foot, and the hand. Hence,




ONENESS OF THE CHURCH.


29


although Christ is the Great Head of the Church, (Eph. i.
22; iv. 15; v. 23; Col. i. 18,) and "the Bishop of our
souls," (1 Pet. ii. 25,) still he hath constituted visible heads
of his visible Church, to act as his representatives and ministers here on earth.
The propriety and appropriateness, if not necessity of this,
will be seen more clearly by attending to the nature of the
Church. It appears on reading the New Testament, and
especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the Apostolic
idea of the kingdom of heaven, or of the Church, was, that it
included all the actual and professed subjects of the King
of heaven, whether on earth or in heaven. And further,
they seem to have regarded the visible things of the Church,
in some sense at least, as types of the invisible; and not only
as types, but also as means of producing the things of which
they were types. This idea seems to have been copied from
the Apostles by the primitive Christians, and to leave formed
the basis of their systematic theology. Not that they ever
embodied these ideas in so many words, but, that a perception of them, as existing in the mind, lay at the foundation of what they wrote upon the subject. From these
general principles the following system was developed:The Church is one; but two fold in its nature;1. Outward and visible:-THE CHURCH MILITANT:-a type
of, and designed to prepare us for2. The invisible and spiritual:-THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.
I. The Church is one. This is a prime article of faith with
the greater part of Christians. In the Creed called Apostolic,
we profess our faith in "one Catholic (or Universal) Church;"*
* The phrase "the Catholic Church," first occurs in the Epistle of
Ignatius to the Smyrneans, A. D. 107, (c. 8.) It is also used in the
Circular Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, A. D. 168, Itd. and c. 16,
and in Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 180, (Stron. vii. p. 764,) in Cyprian, and in numerous later writers.
3*




ONENESS OF THE CHURCH.


and in the Nicene Creed, in "one Catholic and Apostolic
Church." That this is the doctrine of Scripture, has already been shown; to which may be added, the following
testimonies:-" The disciples were all of one heart and one
soul," (Acts iv. 32; xiii. 11; Phil. i. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 8;
Rev. xvii. 13;) "being one body," (1 Cor. x. 17; xii. 13,)
"espoused to one husband," (2 Cor. xi. 2,) having "one
faith, one Lord, one baptism, one GOD." (Eph. iv. 5, 6.)
This language is decisive of the oneness of the Church.
This was the sentiment of the primitive Church, as we
shall see in the course of this inquiry. We shall, therefore,
only quote a passage from Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage.Thus he says,* " The Episcopate; it is a whole, in which
each enjoys a full possession. The Church is likewise one,
though she be spread abroad, and multiplies with the increase
of her progeny; even as the sun has many rays, yet one
light..... Thus the Church, flooded with the light of the
Lord, puts forth her rays through the whole world, yet with
one light, which is spread upon all places, while its unity is
not infringed." There is also other language of Scripture,
which implies the same thing. This is clearly evident from
the Scripture usage of the phrases, " the kingdom of heaven,"
and "the kingdom of GOD."  These are applied1. To the Church on earth. "They demanded when the
kingdom of GOD should come." (Luke xvii. 20.) "The
kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good
seed in his field; but while men slept, the enemy came and
sowed tares among the wheat." (Matt. xiii. 24.) "The
kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." (Mat. xiii. 47.) And again: "I will give
you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. xvi. 19.)
2. The Church in heaven. "I will drink no more of the


* Unit. Church, c. 4, Ep. 55.




TWOFOLD IN ITS NATURE.


31


fruit of the vine, until I drink it new in the kingdom of God."
(Matt. xxvi. 29.)  "The unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God." (1 Cor. vi. 9.)  "Extortioners shall not
inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. vi. 10.) "Flesh and
blood can not inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. xv. 50.)
By the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven, is meant,
therefore, all the actually, or professedly obedient subjects of
the King of heaven. Metaphorically and figuratively, the
same language is used to signify1. That spiritual principle which produces this obedience.
2. And also the doctrines which tend to produce this principle of obedience.
3. And, finally, the gospel which proclaims those doctrines.
If, then, by the phrases, the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven, is meant, all who actually are, or who profess
to be, obedient subjects of the King of heaven, then it follows,
that it includes all the saints in heaven, and all professed
Christians on earth. In other words, the kingdom of God,
as spoken of in the New Testament, includes both the
Church militant, and the Church triumphant. Hence it
follows, that althoughThe Church is one, IT IS TWOFOLD IN ITS NATURE.
1. Outward and visible:-THE CHURCH MILITANT.
2. Invisible and spiritual:-THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.
II. The Church Militant is a type of the Church Triumphant. So St. Paul: " For if he, (Christ,) were on earth, he
should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer
gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and
shadow of heavenly things: as Moses was admonished by
God, when he was about to make the tabernacle: for see,
saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern
shown to thee in the mount." (Heb. viii. 4, 5.) And again:
"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the
holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first




32


THE CHURCH MILITANT A TYPE


tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the
time then present."  (Heb. ix. 8, 9.) And still again: "It
was, therefore, necessary, that the patterns of the things in
the heavens should be purified with these, [the blood of sacrifices;] but the heavenly things themselves with better things
than these." (Heb. ix. 23.) Now it follows, necessarily,
that the priests who "served unto the example and shadow
of heavenly things," and also the tabernacle which "was a
figure for the time then present," "a pattern of the heavenly
things," and " an example and shadow of heavenly things,"
were types of those things of which they were " examples,"
"shadows," and "patterns."  We may conclude, therefore,
that the Church Militant, under the Jewish dispensation, WAS
A TYPE of the Church Triumphant. Its rites and ordinances
being, in the mean time, types of the redemption.
From the foregoing we infer, that the Church Militant under
the Christian dispensation, is a type of the Church Triumphant, because the Jewish and Christian Church is the
same Church, under different dispensations. Thus St. Paul:
"For the law [the Jewish dispensation] having a shadow of
good things to come, and not the very image of the things."
(Heb. x. 1.) The words here translated "shadow" and
"image," would convey a fuller idea of the sense of the
original, were they rendered " an outline," like the first draft
or plan of a picture; and "a full representation," like the
plan or outline completed. And this " fuller representation,"
the Apostle tells us, is contained in the gospel. But neither
the " outline," nor yet the fuller representation of a thing, is
the thing itself. We have, then1. The law, which has a brief outline of; and,
2. The Gospel, which has a full representation of3. The substance, or salvation that awaits the faithful in
heaven.
Both, therefore, refer to the same thing; differing only in




OF THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.


33


their fullness:-the one presenting a mere sketch; the other
the filling up of the picture. Both, therefore, came from the
same source; both have the same end in view, and both
point to the same thing. Hence we are not at liberty to consider the two dispensations as distinct and independent
Churches. The former covenant is not done away, nor abrogated. It is fulfilled, but not destroyed. (See Matt. v. 17;
Luke xxii. 44.) Now a fulfillment is not destruction nor
abrogation. The filling up of a picture causes it to present
a different appearance, but does not change the outline. It is
the completion of the picture, not the destruction of it. So
the Gospel is the fulfillment, not the destruction of the law.
The same doctrine is still more clearly asserted by St. Paul,
in other places. Thus he tells the Roman Christians, (Rom.
xi. 17,) that they are " a wild olive grafted in among the natural
branches." In this figure, the Christian Church is represented as standing in the same place, growing out of the same
tree, and drawing its nourishment from the same source, and
through the same channels as the Jewish Church which preceded it. It is, therefore, the same tree still,-planted in the
same soil, watered by the same streams, and refreshed by
the same dews. It is not, therefore, a new, but the same
Church.
The same conclusion must be drawn from the language of
the Apostle to the Ephesian Christians. (c. ii.) Thus he
tells them, while they were of the " Uncircumcision," they
were " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel; and strangers
from the covenants of promise." But now he tells them, that
Christ " hath broken down the middle wall of partition, between
Jew and Gentile." It would be impossible to assert the
identity of the two dispensations in stronger language than
this; and since it has been shown that the Church Militant
under the former dispensation, was a type of the Church Triumphant, it follows, necessarily, that the Church Militant un



34


THE CHURCH MILITANT A TYPE


der the present dispensation, must also be a type of the Church
Triumphant.
The conclusion here drawn, is fully sustained by the interpretation of Primitive writers. This will appear from a single passage from Clement, of Alexandria, A. D. 175. In
speaking of the marital relation, he quotes the language of
the Apostle in Ephesians 5th, and Colossians 3d; and in connection with it says: " The Terrestrial Church is the inmage
(sExov or likeness) of the Celestial."* And in another placet he
says: " I imagine the progressions in the Church, of Bishops,
Presbyters, and Deacons, to be imitations (~Jf.acta) of the
Angelic glory." The same idea was recognized and acted
upon by other Primitive writers, especially by Ignatius, Bishop
of Antioch, in his Epistles. Thus he exhorts the Trallians to
" reverence the Deacons as Jesus Christ, and the Bishop as
the Father, and the Presbyters as the Council of God.":
But by this he does not design to exhort them to pay divine
honors to these men, but to " reverence" the former, as holding places in the visible Church, analogous to those held by
the latter in the invisible. In other words, he uses language
in the same sense in which St. Paul used it, when he said to
the Galatians, " ye received me as an angel of God,-even as
Jesus Christ." (Gal. iv. 14.) So also he speaks of the
"Bishops as presiding in the place of God," that is, holding
the headship of the Church on earth, as the Father holds the
headship of the Church in heaven; and is "the Bishop of us
all." And so in many other places, to which we shall have
occasion to allude in other parts of the work.
From these considerations, (to which many more might
be added,) it follows, that the Church on earth, which is an
image of the Church above, must have such a visible head,
as shall constitute it a perfect visible body. And it also


~ Strom. iv. 500.


t Strom. vi. 667.


t c. 3.




OF THE CHURCH TRIUMPHANT.


35


follows, that as there is no head over any other heads, in
that spiritual and invisible Church, so there can be no such
thing as a head over other heads, in the Church on earth.
Each Church, within a particular portion of country, forms
a complete and distinct Church, independent of every other
Church; but it is still a representation, or image ofthe one
Church in heaven. Consequently, every complete and perfect Church on earth, is "an image of the heavenly," so that
the various Churches in the several countries, are so many
copies of the same heavenly pattern; and hence all must be
essentially the same-must be constituted in a similar manner, and be independent of every other. Yet, as being parts
of the 'same great body, they must be in communion with
each other, and are bound mutually to assist and support
each other.
These descriptions all necessarily imply, that the Apostolic Church was a regularly organized Society, with officers
and laws.  They are, indeed, a direct statement of facts,
incompatible with any supposition, but that of a regular uniform system of organization; and this inference is nowhere
contradicted in Scripture. We may, therefore, set it down
as an incontrovertible fact, that the Apostolic Church was a
regularly organized Society. For this reason we conclude,
that the Church in all ages, should be a regularly organized
Society, and as such, must be endowed with perpetual duration.
But, though in a general sense, the Church was one, Universal, or Catholic, yet, in a limited sense of the word, there
were many Churches; as the Church of Jerusalem, of Rome,
of Ephesus, of Colosse, of Thessalonica, of Crete, of Smyr.
na, and the like. And that each Church was complete and
perfect in itself, is clearly deducible from the language of
the Apostle, since he speaks of these several Churches as
distinct, and, at the same time, as complete. But it is to be




36        WHO COMPOSED THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.


observed, that he never speaks of more than one Church in
the same place. Hence we must conclude, that every Church
was so complete and perfect in itself, that it would remain a
complete and perfect Church, though every other Church in
the world had been destroyed. Consequently, the head of a
Church, within any given territory, was not only ruler over
those within his territory, but was also, so head of the Church,
that in case the head of the Churches in all other districts
should be taken away, he would be the visible head over all
the Church on earth.
CHAPTER V.
WHO COMPOSED THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH-BAPTISM.
HAVING ascertained what the Church is, we proceed to inquire, who compose it? To this inquiry but one answer has
ever been given, viz., those who have received Christian
baptism, and have not been rightfully excommunicated.
Though men have differed widely as to the mode of baptism,
they have ever held that, to be the only rite of initiation into
the Christian Church. The unanimity on this point would
excuse us from offering any proof of it, were we not inquiring as to the scriptural draught of the Apostolic Church.
There are several distinct arguments in proof of this; but
one of them must be sufficient. Christ instituted but two ordinances-baptism and the Lord's supper; and that baptism
was the rite of initiation, appears expressly from the language made use of by St. Paul in his Epistles: " There is one
Lord, one faith, one baptism," (Eph. iv. 5,) by which "we
are all baptized into one body," (1 Cor. xii. 13,) which
"body is the Church," (Col. i. 18.)




BAPTISM.


37


But though men agree as to the nature and design of baptism, they differ widely as to what constitutes baptism; and,
also, as to who are proper subjects of baptism.  And as
* these are important inquiries, laying at the foundation of the
Church, they must be examined with care and attention.
We shall first consider the mode of baptism; and then inquire, who are proper subjects of it? In this inquiry, there
are four kinds of evidence to be considered.
1. The meaning given to the language used, in the dictionaries.
2. Its usage in the Old and New Testaments.
3. The allusions made to the mode of performing the rite,
in the New Testament.
4. The account given of it by the Primitive Christians.
The words used in the New Testament in reference to
this subject, are, (/aOrq'jw,) to baptize; and the derivative,
(/f3aorrT'Jos0g,) baptism. Our first inquiry, therefore, is, what
is the meaning of the word baptizo? But baptizo is a derivative from bapto; and both are so frequently referred to in
discussing this subject, that we must inquire into the meaning of both.
1. Of the meaning given to bapto and baptizo, in the dictionaries. These give various meanings, as dipping, washing, bathing, wetting, moistening, dyeing, and the like; so that
we must have recourse to some other kind of proof to settle
the question. Now it is agreed on all hands, that the native
Greeks are the best authority for the meaning of their own
language, and we shall refer the question to them. We
give, therefore, only the definitions of native Greek lexicographers.
The oldest native Greek lexicographer is HESYCHIUS, who
lived in the fourth century of the Christian era. He gives
merely the root; and the only meaning he gives the word is
(avr-Xsw) " to draw, or pump water."  Next in order comes
4




38


MEANING OF BAPTO AND BAPTIZO.


SUIDAS, a native Greek, who wrote in the tenth century.
He gives only the derivative, baptizo; and defines it by
(nrXuvw) "to wash."   Passing over the intermediate Greek
lexicographers, we come down to the present century, at the m
beginning of which we find GASES, a learned Greek, who,
with great labor and pains, compiled a large and valuable
Lexicon of the ancient Greek language. His book, in three
volumes quarto, is a work deservedly held in high estimation
by all, and is generally used by native Greeks. The following are his definitions of bapto and baptizo.*
BAIITQ, 3psXw, to wet, moisten, bedew.
7rXuvw, to wash, (viz. clothes.)
y7Eslw, to fill.
v3u6is, to dip.
avrXes, to draw, to pump water.
BAIITIZQ, /3psX, to wet, moisten, bedew.
qrXuvw, to wash.
XuJ, to wash, to bathe
avqrXew, to draw, to pump water.
These are the definitions of a native Greek, "whose opinion is entitled to the highest deference."
* Ed. Venice, 3 vols. 4to. The work of Gases was based on that
of Schneider, he only making such alterations and additions as were
deemed necessary. The definitions of Gases were followed by Hilarion,
a learned Archimandrite, of Mount Lebanon, who, in 1819, with the
approbation of his archbishop, revised the translation of the Bible made
by the British and Foreign Bible Society. In this translation, viTrra, rXvvw,,farrlw, are used interchangeably.
ANTHIMI8 GASES, the author of this work, was a native of Melias, in
Magnesia, in the province of Thessaly. He was educated at Venice.
He resided in that city several years, and subsequently travelled extensively in Germany and Italy, and formed an acquaintance with many of
the principal scholars in both countries. He was one of the most learned
men of Greece before the Revolution, and was a member of the body
that framed, and a signer of the Grecian Declaration of Independence.




SCRIPTURAL USAGE.


39


2. Of the Scriptural usage of bapto and baptizo.  It is
often taken for granted, that the Hebrew  word, (=1A,)
tabal; the Greek, (,Sarqro,) bapto; and the Latin, mergo.
uniformly rendered dip in the English Bible, are corresponding words, and signify to dip, to immerse, to plunge.  This
assumption is unfounded, for reasons we shall lay before our
readers.  But we ought to remark, that dip and immerse are
not, as many seem to suppose, synonymous words.  A body
is not immersed in water, until it is entirely covered by the
water; but it is dipped in or into water, when any part of it
comes in contact with the water. Thus, a man dips his pen,
that is, the point of his pen, in ink, and " dips his finger, that
is, the tip of his finger, in water," but in neither case is there
any immersion.  The question, therefore, is, do the foregoing
words signify, to immerse, in the sense claimed, that is, a
complete immersion of the thing dipped?  This question must
be decided by Scriptural usage alone, to which, therefore,
we now turn our attention.
According to the Scriptural usage, the Hebrew and Greek
words above mentioned, denote a partial dipping, or wetting.
"And as the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped
(b21~, /a-rrTw) in the brinm of the water." (Josh. iii. 15.)
There was plainly no immersion here, but simply a touching
of the soles of the feet. Similar to this was the language of
Dives to Abraham: " Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip
of his finger in water." (Luke xvi. 24.) So in the various
Jewish purifications, none of the dippings were immersions.
Thus the priest is told that " he shall dip his finger, or a
bunch of hyssop, that is, the end of his finger, or the end of
the bunch of hyssop, in the water." (Ex. xii. 22; Lev. iv.
17; ix. 9; xiv. 6, 16, 51; Numb. xix. 18; Deut. xxxiii. 24.)
So Jonathan " put forth the end of his rod and dipped in the
honey-comb." (1 Sam. xiv. 27.)    To the same effect in
Ruth, (ii. 14:) "And dip thy morsel in the vinegar."  So




40


SCRIPTURAL USAGE.


also the language of Christ to Judas denotes a partial dipping: "He that dippeth (Matt. xxvi. 23; Mark xiv. 20;
John xiii. 26) with me in the dish." In one place in Job,
(ix. 31,) these words have the sense of to plunge, in the common acceptation of the word, that is, to cast headlong; as,
"Thou shalt plunge me into the ditch."
If there were any room for doubt, after considering the
foregoing, the following would entirely settle the question.
Thus, when Nebuchadnezzar was driven from the abodes of
men, it is said that "his body was wet with the dew of
heaven." (Dan. iv. 33; v. 23; or iv. 30, and v. 21, of the
Hebrew and Greek.) Here bapto does not signify to dip, in
any sense, but merely to wet, or moisten, and is therefore synonymous with brecho, (ipe6Xw,) as defined by Gases. In
one place in 2 Kings, (viii. 15,) and in one in Leviticus,
(xi. 32,) it appears to have the sense of to immerse, which
are the only places in the Bible where it has that signification. In Psalms (lxviii. 23, or lxviii. 24, of the Greek) and
in Revelations, (xix. 13,) it has the meaning of to tinge, dye,
or stain, which may be done either by sprinkling or immersing. These, we believe, are all the places in the Bible
where bapto occurs in any form; and we see, that out of
twenty-three instances, it has the sense of immersion but
twice.
From  bapto comes baptizo, which, being a frequentive in
form, ought to signify a repeated action,* and is, in fact, so
defined by Schneider,t I dip in often. But, though it has the
form of a frequentive, most lexicographers are not willing
to allow that it has that signification.: We shall, therefore,
examine the Scriptural use of this word, as we have the root
* Butt. Gr. Gram., ~ 119, 1, 2
t Gr. Lex., 2 vol. 4to. " Ich tauche oft ein."
Rob. Gr. Lex. N. T.




MEANING OF RAHATS AND LOUO.


41


from which it is derived, in every case where it occurs in
the Bible.
The word baptizo, it is claimed by some, signifies exclusively, " to immerse, to submerge, to sink."  The point of inquiry, therefore, is, does the Scripture usage sustain this
assertion? This word occurs in the Old Testament four
times; twice in the Canonical books, and twice in the Apocrypha.  It first occurs in 2 Kings, (v. 11, 14:) "And Elijah
sent a messenger unto Naaman, saying, Go and wash (Xouw)
in Jordan seven times..... Then he went and washed
himself (/3c',,rw) in Jordan seven times."  Here the word
is used in accordance with what, judging from   its form,
should be its meaning, to signify a repeated action, which action was a washing of purification. In Ecclesiasticus, (xxxiv.
25, or xxxi. 30, or xxxiv. 27,) it is used in the same manner:
" If he that washeth himself, (pawrirw,) after touching a dead
body, touch it again, what availeth his washing, (Xourp??)"
In both of these instances, baptizo is synonymous with LOUO,
to wash; and, therefore, according to the principles of those
who hold immersion alone to be baptism, "it is not essential
how it was performed." But, as some may say that the
original Hebrew would lead to another conclusion, we shall
dwell a moment upon that.
Louo is the word used in the Septuagint as the equivalent
of the Hebrew rahats, (ynr) to denote the washings of purification, and is found in the places mentioned in the note.*
It occurs in but one other place in the Bible, (Psalms vi. 6,)
where it has the sense of to wet, or moisten: "I wet my
* Ex. ii. 5; xxix. 4; xl. 12. Lev. viii. 6; xv. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13, 16, 21, 26; xvi. 4, 24, 26, 28; xvii. 15, 16; xxii. 7. Numb. xix. 7,
19. Deut. xxiii. 11. Ruth iii. 3. 2 Sam. xi. 2; xii.20. 1 Kings xxii.
38. 2 Kings v. 10, 12, 13. Cant. v. 13. Is. i. 16. Ezek. xiv. 4, 9
xxiii. 40. In Apoc., Susanna 15, 17.
4*




42


MEANING OF BAPTIZO

couch with tears." A few examples will show its general
meaning. "A little water to wash the feet." (Gen. xviii. 4.)
"He washed his face." (Gen. xliii. 31.) "Thou shalt bring
Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle, and shalt
wash them." (Ex. xxix. 4, and xl. 12.) " And Moses brought
Aaron and his sons, [to the door of the tabernacle,] and
washed them with water." (Lev. viii. 6.) The same language is used in reference to all the purifications. An unclean person was "to wash himself in water;" (Lev. xv. 5,
7, 8, 10, 11, 21, 22, 27; xvii. 15; Deut. xxiii. 10; Numb.
xix. 19;) also, "to wash his flesh in water." (Lev. xi. 13,
16; xvi. 4, 24, 26, 28; xvii. 16; xxi. 16; Numb. xix. 7, 8.)
" And one washed the chariot in the pool." (1 Kings xxii.
38.) " His eyes, like doves', with new milk washed." (Cant.
v. 12.) " Thou wast not washed in water in the day of thy
nativity." (Ezek. xvi. 4, 9.) These examples are sufficient
to prove, that rahats, in the Hebrew, and louo, in the Septuagint, denote washings performed by the application of water
to the person, and not by putting the person into the water.
And, as baptizo is the equivalent of these words, it must have
the same meaning.
Besides, St. Paul expressly calls these washings of purification, baptisms. (Heb. ix. 9, 10.) "Which was a figure
for the time then present,.... which stood only in meats
and drinks, and divers washings, (f/oarrnltosg, 'baptisms.')"
So all the primitive writers understood him.
The next place in the Canonical books of the Old Testament, where this word occurs, is Isaiah, (xxi. 4:) " My heart
panteth; fearfulness fills me." In this case, baptizo is syno.
nymous with to fill, (ysEt(W,) according to one of the defini.
tions of Gases, quoted above. The other place is Judith,
(xii. 7:) " And Judith went out by night and washed herself
in a fountain, (that is, in a spring,) by the camp." There
is no reason why the word in question should not be under



DENOTES WVASHING.


43


stood in this case as in the former cases of washing, and if
so, there was no immersion. We are, therefore, authorized
to say, that the authority of the Septuagint is decidedly against
the opinion, that baptizo means "to immerse, submerge, or
sink." We turn now to the New Testament, and inquire
how baptizo is used there.
1. This word is used as synonymous with words which
denote washing. " The Pharisees and the Jews, except they
wash hands, (vizrw,) eat not....  When they come from
the market, except they wash, (pa/or-w,) they eat not.  And
many other things there be, which they have received to
hold, as the washing (a3o(arriefos or baptism) of cups and pots,
brazen vessels and tables..... Why do thy disciples eat
bread with unwashen (avr-rrw) hands."  (Mark vii. 3, 4, 5.)
So, " The Pharisees marvelled that Jesus had not first washed
(3alsriw  or baptized) before dinner." (Luke xi. 38.)  That
nipto does not mean to immerse, is admited by all; but every
reader may satisfy himself of the fact by examining the
places where it occurs in the New Testament.    (Matt. vi.
17; xv. 2; John ix. 7, 11, 15; xiii. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14;
1 Tim. v. 10.)  Baptism is also called the washing (Xourpw)
of regeneration, or "the new birth."  (Titus iii. 5.)*
2. In a majority of instances in the New Testament, the
word is used without any qualifying words to denote the
manner of its performance, and we must therefore interpret
it according to the customary usage of the Scriptures, to sigaify, a washing.t
* The Ethiopian version calls it "the washing of baptism."
t It is thus used in Matt. iii. 6, 13, 14, 16; xxviii. 19. Mark i. 4, 5,; vi. 14; xvi. 16. Luke iii. 7, 12, 21; vii. 29, 30; xi. 38; xiii. 38.
John i. 25, 28; iii. 22, 23, 26; iv. 1, 2; x. 40. Acts ii. 38, 41; viii.
12, 13, 16, 36, 38; ix. 18; x. 47, 48; xi. 16; xvi. 15, 33; xviii. 8;
xix. 3, 4, 5; xxii. 16. 1 Cor. i. 13, 14, lo, 16, 17; xii. 13; xv. 29.
Gal. iii. 27.




44


SCRIPTURE ALLUSIONS


3. It is sometimes construed with words denoting the instrument WITH which baptism was performed, in such a manner
as to negative the idea of immersion. Thus St. Luke says:
"John baptized WITH water, but CHRIST baptized WITH the
HOLY GHOST." (Luke iii. 16; Acts i. 5; xi. 16.) Similar
phraseology, but accompanied by a preposition, occurs in
Matthew, (ii. 11;) Mark, (i. 8,) and John, (i. 26, 31, 33.)
Some, however, claim that these passages should all of them
be translated so as to read; "I baptize you in water, but he
shall baptize you in the HOLY GHOST."  They ground their
argument for this, on the meaning of the Greek preposition sv,
which primarily denoted in. However well this argument
might hold in reference to the writings of Matthew, Mark,
and John, it has no force when applied to the writings of
Luke, as, water, (ulacri,) is, "the dative of the instrument,"*
or "in the instrumental case,"t without the preposition, and
consequently could not be rendered in. But further, en does
not always mean in.  It frequently denotes " the manner or
mode, that is, the state or circumstances by which an action
is accompanied,": as may be seen by comparing Matt. xxii.
37, and Rom. xv. 6, where it has the force of with.
4. It is construed with words denoting the efect of baptism, in such a manner as to negative the idea of submersion.
Thus CHRIST says of himself: "I have a baptism to be baptized with."  (Luke xii. 50.)  And he inquired of two of his
* Rob. Gr. Lex. New Testament.
t Hist. Crit. View of Ind. Europ. Cases, 7. III. 3. [2.] Q. C. Spec. IX.
425. The proper instrumental case does not occur in the Greek, being
supplied by the Dative, though it is common to many of the Indo-European languages,-as Sanscrit, Zend, Armenian, Old Slavic, Russian,
Polish, &c., and existed in fact, though not in form, in all the old Gothic
languages, as well as in the Greek. It is always equivalent to by or
with.
t Rob. Gr. Lex. New Testament.




TO THE MODE OF BAPTISM.


45


disciples; " Are ye able to be baptized with the baptism that I
am baptized with," (Matt. xx. 22, 23; Mark x. 38, 39.) So
also, persons were said to be baptized "into (sag) Moses,"
(1 Cor. x. 2,) and "into CHRIST," (Gal. iii. 27,) and "into repentance," (Matt. iii. 11,) and "into death," (Rom. vi. 3.)
To substitute "immerse, submerge, or sink," as the meaning
of baptizo, in any of these places, would be absurd. Indeed,
these passages can not be construed so as to make sense,
except by considering baptism as a symbolical washing or
purification.
The allusions made in the New Testament to the mode of
performing baptism, are such as to negative the idea of immersion. CHRIST, a short time before his ascension, promised
his disciples that they "should be baptized with the HOLY
GHOST, not many days hence." (Acts i. 5.) This promise
was fulfilled upon the day of Pentecost, and at subsequent
times upon those who afterwards believed, at the "laying on
of an Apostle's hands." The language chosen by the sacred
historian, in giving an account of this baptism, is descriptive
of his view of it. Thus when the HOLY GHOST fell upon the
Gentiles, or when they were "baptized with the HOLY
GHOST," he says, "they of the circumcision were astonished,
because the gift of the HOLY GHOST was poured out (sxXEW)
upon the Gentiles also." (Acts x. 45.) This is the only
d-irect reference:n the New Testament, to the mode in which
baptism of any kind was performed, and in this the act was
that of pouring, or, as the language was figurative, and as
every metaphor must have something to sustain it, the obvious inference is, that the instrument WITH which baptism
was performed, was poured upon those who were baptized.
Hence, we conclude, that baptism was probably performed
by pouring, of which sprinkling is a species.
We have now gone over with the Bible, and examined
every place where either bapto or baptizo occurs, (unless some




46


BURIED IN BAPTISM

instance has been overlooked by accident,) and have found,
that out of twenty-three instances where bapto occurs, it signifies to immerse but twice; and that in seventy places
where baptizo is found, there is not one where it means to
immerse. We are therefore authorized to say, that whatever
may be the classic meaning of these words, they do not in
Scripture signify to immerse.
CHAPTER VI.
MODE OF BAPTISM CONTINUED.
HAVING shown that the Scriptural usage of the words denoting baptism, and the mode of their construction with other
words, as well as the direct allusions to the rite, do not
harmonize with the idea of immersion, in the modern sense,
that is, of total submersion, we shall now consider two forms
of expression, on which some rely with confidence: " Buried
with him by baptism," and " they went down into the water,
and they came up out of the water."
"Buried with him BY baptism."  1. This phrase occurs in
the New Testament but twice: in Romans vi. 4, and " buried
with him IN baptism," Colossians ii. 12. In the fifth chapter
of Romans, St. Paul having shown, that GOD overrules the
wicked acts of men to his own glory, and that, where sin
had reigned, grace did now abound, proceeds, in the sixth,
to answer an objection which might be made: "What shall
eve say then?" that is, if grace now abounds where sin
formerly reigned, " Shall we continue in sin, that grace may
abound?"  To this inquiry he replies, " God forbid;" and
to show the absurdity of the supposition, he asks, "How
shall we who ARE DEAD to sin, live any longer therein?"




MEANING OF THE PHRASE.


47


This inquiry, then, is equivalent to an affirmation, that every
Christian is dead to sin.  The Apostle then proceeds to show
why Christians are dead to sin.  "Know ye not," says he,
"that so many of' us as were baptized into Jesus CHRIST,
were baptized into his DEATH?"   Now, in order to make
the Apostle consistent with himself, we must give this ques.
tion such a construction as shall correspond with the preceding. The death of CHRIST, then, into which we are baptized, must be such a death as has been described-" a death
unto sin." That this was the Apostle's meaning, he has
expressly told us.  Thus, in verse tenth, he says, "for, in
that CHRIST died, he died unto sin;" when he proceeds to
write the passage on which the argument turns: "Therefore, (that is, because He died unto sin,) we are buried with
him BY baptism into a death to sin, that, like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so
we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans vi. 4.)*
That the whole effect of the death and burial here spoken
of, is spiritual, no one denies; but some suppose there is
here an allusion to the mode of administering baptism by immersion.  The sense of the first part of this passage, according to this interpretation, is, " Therefore, as CHRIST was
buried in the earth, so in a similar manner are we buried in
water at our baptism."  To this construction, there are several weighty objections.
(1.) The Greek word, translated " buried with him," (euv6OUTrw,) will not admit that construction.t  In the classic
writers, the same word is used to denote being buried in the
* This verse is quoted by several of the ancient Baptismal Liturgies,
but nost of them omit the first part of it. Thus it is with the Greek,
Syriac, Jerusalem, and Antiochan. Ass. II. 132, 139, 222, 250.
t Rob. Gr. Lex. p. 786. "zvv, in composition, implies society, companionship, consort, with, in connection with." Butt. Gr. Gram. ~ 147.
2. n. 11.




48


NO ANALOGY BETWEEN


same grave, as when Herodotus says, "the wife is buried
with the husband."* To give, therefore, the phrase, " buried
with him," the sense of " buried in like manner as he was,"
when the modes of burial were unlike, is to change the
meaning of the original, if not to make nonsense. Besides,
if this verse determines the mode of baptism, it should also
determine tke mode of the resurrection, which no one pretends.
(2.) So also the prepositions employed in this narrative,
contradict the interpretation sought to be put upon it. In
the phrase, "buried with him by (6ia) baptism," baptism is
represented as the instrument BY which we are " buried," and
not the thing IN which we are " buried." And, although in
the corresponding passage in Col. ii. 12, the preposition in
(ev) is employed, it is the dative of the instrument, and must
bear the same construction.t
(3.) But, there is no such similarity as is claimed. The
construction which supposes that the Apostle alluded to an
actual, physical burial of the person under water, in the act
of immersion, assumes, that the burial of CHRIST was like
the ordinary burials of modern days, when the person is
covered with the earth in which he is buried. Now CHRIST
was not so buried, his body being simply laid in the chamber
of " a sepulchre," (Luke xxiii. 33;) and there is no analogy
whatever, between the act of laying away a body in the
tomb, and the act of plunging the person under water, so
that there is no such analogy between these acts, as this interpretation supposes.
* Her. v. 5. See also authorities cited Rob. Gr. Lex. in loco.
t In the Peshito-old Syriac version, dating from the beginning of
the second century, the language is the same in both passages, and'
may be rendered either " buried with him BY baptism," as an instrument, or " buried with him from baptism," that is, " from the time of
baptism."




BURYING AND BAPTIZING.


49


(4.) The language used in the latter part of the same
verse, is inconsistent with the idea that the Apostle had an
actual, physical burial in his mind. By every rule of grammar and rhetoric, the different parts of a figure should correspond. Now, had the Apostle been intent on the mode of'
baptism, and known that mode was immersion, and from this
drawn the metaphor in this verse, the least he could have
said, would have been; " Therefore we are buried with him
at our baptism into death, that in like manner as he was
raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so also- we
should be raised to newness of life." Hence it is evident,
that it was not the burial on which the Apostle dwelt, but
the death to sin, which every true believer undergoes. It
should also be remarked, that if the Apostle had such a
physical burial in his mind, as is pretended, then baptism
must of necessity be a saving ordinance, that is, the mere act
of receiving baptism would procure pardon of sin. This eonclusion is inevitable, for, if " we are buried in water at baptism, in order that we may be raised to newness of life,"
then, such a burial, if it has its legitimate effect, must enable us to walk in that newness of life. Either, therefore,
it must be allowed that baptism procures salvation for us, or
the idea that a physical burial is denoted in this place, must
be considered doubtful.
2. A similar form of expression occurs in Colossians,
which, in connection with what precedes, reads as follows:
" Ye are complete in CHRIST, who is the head of all principality and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with
the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body
of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of CHRIST;
buried with him IN baptism, wherein also ye are risen with
him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
raised him from the dead." (Col. ii. 10-12.)
In these verses there is a direct reference to two distinct
5




50


BAPTISM AND CIRCUMCISION.


rites, circumcision and baptism; and, consequently, both must
be construed alike. Now it is sometimes claimed, that when
the Apostle speaks of being " buried with him in baptism,"
he alludes to an actual and physical burial of the person
under water.  But we have already shown that this form of
expression will not bear that construction. Besides, if the
allusion to baptism is to be construed as having reference to
a physical act representing the mode of baptism, then the allusion to the physical act of circumcision, must have a similar reference to the actual mode of performing it. This,
however, can not be allowed, as the language of the Apostle
confines the circumcision to a putting off, or more properly
"a renunciation* (ac're6va(si) of the sins of the flesh in (sv)
the circumcision of CHRIST." Now there is no analogy between the mode of a physical and metaphorical, or spiritual
circumcision; the whole resemblance being in its effects;
for, as a physical circumcision is the taking away of the
impurities of the natural man, so a spiritual circumcision is
a putting away of the impurities of the spiritual man.t
The same rule of construction must be applied to the
other part of the Apostle's argument, " buried with him in
baptism." We -are not, therefore, to understand him as alluding to a physical burial, as the unity of his argument
will not allow it; but as referring to a spiritual burial " of
the sins of the flesh," which were put off in our spiritual circumcision. No reference is, therefore, made to the mode,
either of circumcision or baptism, the efect being the thing
* Rob. Gr. Lex. p. 74. Cyprian on this passage, says, " the former
carnal circumcision is made void, and a second spiritual one assigned."
Adv. Jud. i. 8.
t President Beecher has undertaken to show, that f3anrr~w in the New
Testament, always signifies " to purify or cleanse thoroughly, without
any reference to the mode in which it is done." Bib. Rep 2d series,
III. pp. 40-66, 322-371; V. 24-47; VI. 28-55.




" WENT DOWN INTO THE WATER."


51


the Apostle intended to bring into view. But we are said in
-this place, not only to be buried with him, but also to be
"raised with him."  Now in no literal sense is it true that
we are raised with him in baptism. If this might ever be
true, it could not be admitted in this place, as the means by
which, or the immediate and efficient cause through which,
we are raised from this burial, is faith. "Buried with him
in baptism; wherein ye are also risen with him through the
faith of the operation of GOD."  Here, then, we have a
burial and resurrection answering to each other, and a resurrection purely spiritual, such as would follow the spiritual
circumcision already described. Inasmuch then, as the resurrection was spiritual, the burial must have been spiritual;
and, as no allusion is made to the mode of circumcision,
we are not at liberty to infer, that any allusion is made to
the mode of baptism. We see, therefore, that the phrase,
" buried with him in baptism," does not, and can not authorize the inference, that baptism was performed by immersion.
We shall now proceed to examine the meaning of the
phrases, "they went down into the water," and "they came
up out of the water." As great stress is laid upon these
forms of expression, to prove immersion the Apostolic mode
of baptism, we shall briefly inquire whether they authorize
the inference. It is sufficient in English to justify the expression, we "go into the water," that we merely step into
the water. Indeed, our phrases, "he is in the water," and
"he has gone into the water," do not, without some additional words, imply that the person is immersed, or put all
over under water.  So when a person who has stepped
into the water, steps out again, he " comes out of the water,"
or, if he stepped into a brook, " he comes up out of the brook,
or up out of the water." These are common-sense every-day
modes of expression, found alike in the speech of the un



52


" CAME UP OUT OF THE WVATER."'


lettered rustic, and the composition of the classic scholar.
These forms of expression will not, therefore, sustain the interpretation sought to be given them, unless the genius and
idiom of the Greek language differs from ours in this respect, concerning which we shall now inquire.
(1.) And first, does the phrase, "they went down into the
water," denote that "they went down under the water?"
To this inquiry there can be but one answer, and that in the
negative. The Greek preposition eis, (esl,) denotes into, but
never under. If, therefore, St. Luke had intended to say
that the Eunuch was immersed, (Acts viii. 38,) he would
have said, " he went down under the water," and not "into
the water." But the narrative will not allow this alteration, for it is said, that "both went down into the water,
both Philip and the Eunuch." If, therefore, the narrative
proves the Eunuch went down under the water, it proves
that Philip went down under the water, and that Philip was
as really immersed as the Eunuch.   Besides, katabaino,
(xacra/3aov,) from baino, " to go, or walk," and kata, " down,"
implies that they walked down into the water, as a person
would now walk down into a brook, and that after having so
walked into the water, Philip baptized the Eunuch, but
whether by immersion or no, is not intimated.
(2.) Second, does the phrase, "they came up out of the
water," denote that "they came up from under the water?"
This question must also be answered in the negative, as
avaOclcvw, to come up, to ascend, is the opposite of xaTa/3asvw,
to go down, to descend; and, consequently, can denote only
an ascent, from a descent previously made. Nor can the
preposition (ex) out of, from, authorize any other inference,
for though used in Acts, (viii. 39,) in the account of the
baptism of the Eunuch, its place is supplied in Matthew,
(iii. 16,) in the account of the baptism of our Saviour, by
apo, (oeao,) which has the general meaning of from, away
J




PRIMITIVE WRITERS ON BAPTISM.


53


from.* The passage in Matthew, (iii. 16,) therefore, might
properly be translated: " And Jesus, when he was baptized,
straightway went up from the water;"t that is, he ascended
from the place where he stood when he was baptized, which
might have been either on the bank of the Jordan, or in the
edge of the river.  But in neither case does it furnish any
ground to infer an immersion. We have now examined all
the strong arguments and proof texts, which are urged in
favor of the exclusive validity of immersion, and have found,
that not one of the arguments is sound, and not one of the
positions tenable.
We come now to consider, The usage of the Primitive
Christians, which is such as to negative the idea of immersion.
BARNABAS.    One of the earliest Fathers, was Barnabas,
supposed by many to be the Apostle Barnabas, probably
without sufficient reason.  He wrote, as appears fiom his
epistle, (cited by Clement, of Alexandria,: and Tertullian, in
the second century;~ by Origen,ll in the third, and by many
subsequent writers,) after the destruction of Jerusalem. The
* The Apostolic Liturgy, so called, in the Syriac, represents CHRIST
at his baptism, as standing and "bowing his head" into the water.
Ass. I. 257, II. 287. The monuments of the Greek Church represent
CHRIST and John as standing in the water, and John pouring water on
the head of Jesus. And in the old Syriac, the common language of
Palestine in the time of our Saviour's sojourn here, the word denoting
baptism, (r.',) was a root which signified to stand, in all the kindred
languages. Heb. '7. —Arab. L\-.    Hence Michaclis (Ed. Castell.
Syr. Lex.) and Gesenius (Hebrew Thesaurus) suppose it was so called,
because the candidate stood in the margin of the water, when baptized
t The Peshito-old Syriac, is clearly to this purport; the verb ( \9")
signifying to go up, in the sense of the Hebraism, " he went up into the
mountain-his own house-Jerusalem-Antioch," &c. &c.
t Strom. ii. p. 410. Strom. v. p. 571.
~ De Pud. c. 20.                      11 Cont. CeL L
5*




54


TESTIMONY OF BARNABAS.


whole of his epistle is in a strain of allegory; but we copy
all that has any bearing on the mode of baptism.
"Let us now inquire whether the Lord foretold any thing
of the water and the cross. Now of the water, it is written
to Israel, how that they would not receive that baptism,
(/aetLria~a,) which brings to remission of sins, but would institute another to themselves; as saith the Prophet: 'Be
astonished, 0 Heaven! and let the earth tremble at it, because this people have done two great and wicked things;
they have left me the living fountain, and dug for themselves broken cisterns.'" (c. 10.)
In this place, baptism has no direct reference to any mode
of washing, but refers to the partaking of that "well or
fountain of living water," of which every man, who desires
eternal life, must drink. (John iv. 10-15.) If it has any
indirect reference to the mode of washing, it is to those
ceremonial washings denoting purification. That these were
not performed by immersion, is evident from Barnabas, as
well as from what we have before said on this point. In
c. 8, he explains the Jewish mode of purification, described
in Numbers, (xix.) Thus, he says, "The heifer to be offered by wicked men, is JESUS CHRIST; but the young men
[in Numb. xix. the clean men] that performed the sprinkling, (pavwriovwrs,) [i. e. of the people, that they should be
clean from their sins,] signify those who preach to us the
remission of sins and the purification of the heart, to whom
the Lord gave authority to preach his gospel, being at the
beginning, twelve."
Here we have "remission of sins and purification of
heart," wrought by "the sprinkling of the twelve," that is,
Apostles. So in c. 5, (of the Old Latin Version, the Greek
of that place being lost,) it is said, that "the Lord gave his
body to destruction, that we might be sanctified, through the
remission of sins, which is by the sprinkling (sparsione) of




TESTIMONY OF HERMAS.


55.is blood."  In all these cases "remission of sins and purication of heart," are said to be wrought by sprinkling; and
as these purifications are also called baptisms, the inference
is, that, in the days of Barnabas, baptism was performed by
sprinkling, or, as the words may signify, by pouring. There
are, however, two other passages in the Epistle of this writer,
which have been claimed in favor of immersion, and we give
them both entire:
" Consider how he has joined the cross and the water, for
this he saith: Blessed are they who when they have trusted
in the cross, descend into the water..... And there was a
river running on the right hand, and beautiful trees grew up
by it, and he that shall eat of them shall live forever. The
signification of which is, that we descend into the water full
of sins and pollutions, but ascend, bearing fruit, having in
our hearts hope and fear in JEsus by the Spirit." (c. 10.)
In respect to the sentences in these extracts printed in
italics, we need only say, that they are quoted from Acts,
(viii. 38, 39,) where this language is applied to both Philip
and the Eunuch, and must, therefore, be construed in a
similar manner. We need, therefore, only refer our readers
to the remarks made upon that place, to show that they do
not denote immersion. We add, however, the remark; these
phrases authorize us to infer that the candidate took his stand
on, or probably in, the edge of the water, when the water was
poured upon him, as we have seen was probable from the
Scripture account.
HERMAS. Another allegorical writer of the early ages of
Christianity, was Hermas. He has been supposed by some
to belong to the first century; but this is probably a mistake.
He seems to have written a little before the middle of the
second century. He represents the Church under the similitude of "a great tower built upon the water, with bright




56


TESTIMONY OF HERMAS.


square stones."* The building of the tower he describes as
performed by six young men, or angels; who first " drew
up from the deep, stones so well polished, that they exactly
fitted together, so that the tower seemed to be built of one
stone."t  The stones thus drawn up from the deep, denoted
men of the former ages, "who died in righteousness and
great purity, only the seal [of baptism] was wanting to them,
without which they could not enter the kingdom of God.:"t
With them ascended certain other stones, representing the
Apostles and teachers, " who [having received the seal of the
Son of GOD, and] dying after they had received his faith and
power, preached to them who were dead, and gave them the
same seal," that is, "the seal of baptism." These [i. e. the
Apostles and teachers] went down into the water with them,
[i. e. those who died in righteousness and great purity,] and
again came up. But these [the Apostles, &c.] gent down
alive, and came up alive; whereas those who w(ere before
dead, went down dead, but came up alive."~
Thus far, there is nothing which at first sight appears to
bear directly upon the question under consideration. Yet it
is not irrelevant, for we see that those righteous men who
died before the coming of Christ, are represented as descending into the water, dead, that is, not having received the seal
of the Son of GOD in baptism; while the " Apostles who had
received this seal, it is said, descended into the water alive,"
and then administered the rite to those who had gone down
dead. From this, therefore, we learn that the " descent into
the water," was not, in the opinion of Hermas, baptism.
This is also in conformity with the baptism of the Eunuch
by Philip. In the language of Hermas, Philip, who had
received the seal of the Son of GOD in the ordinance of bap* L. i. Vis. iii. c. 2, 3.  t L. i. Vis. iii. c. 2, L. iii. Sim. ix. c. 16.
t L. iii. Sim. ix. c. 16.  { L. iii. Sim. ix. c. 16.




TESTIMONY OF HERMAS.


57


tism, and was therefore alive, went down into the water
with the Eunuch, who, not having received that seal, was
dead; and while both were in the water, the rite of baptism
was administered. In both of these cases, the descent into
the water was no part of the baptism.
The building of the tower proceeded thus far, when "the
stones ceased to ascend from the deep, and they which built,
rested a little. Then those six men commanded the multitude that they should bring stones out of the mountains for
the building of the tower. So they cut out stones of divers
colors, from all the mountains, and brought them to the virgins, which, when they received, being [round, were cut
away and made square,* and delivered to] those who built
the tower."t  But the stones which had been so cut, and
which represented the persons then living, and who were to
compose a part of the tower of the Church, wereerequired
"to be cleansed before they could be put in the building,":
which was done by the virgins, as follows: "Then those
virgins took besoms, and cleared all the place around, and
took away all the rubbish, and sprinkled (sparserunt) water,
and the place became delightful, and the tower beauteous."~
Here we have a cleansing, which can be applied only to
baptism, performed by sprinkling, or pouring, spargo being
capable of both senses. 'As far, thereifre, as any inference
can be drawn as to the mode of baptism, it is in favor of
applying the instrument used in performing the rite, to the
person, and not of applying the person to the instrument, as
is done in cases of submersion. There are, however, a
couple of passages which are usually cited in favor of immersion; both of which are quotations of the language of
the Acts, (viii. 38, 39,)-already spoken of, and must, there

* L. i. Vis. iii c. 6.
t L. iii. Sim. ix. c. 7.


t L. iii. Sim. ix. c. 4.
~ L. iii. Sim. ix. c. 10.




58


TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR.


fore, be construed in accordance with what has already been
said of that place. We give them that our readers may
see all the evidence on which the claim of the exclusive
validity of immersion rests. The first passage* is used in reference to the righteous men who died before the coming of
CHRIST, of which we have already spoken.
"Before a man receives the name of the Son of GOD, he
is ordained unto death, but when he receives that seal, he is
freed from death, and assigned unto life. Now that seal is
the water, into which men descend ordained unto death, but
ascend assigned unto life."
The other passage is in the Commands,t " I have heard
from certain teachers that there is no other repentance than
that, when we descend into the water and receive remission
of sins." Now as the whole of Hermas is allegorical, it is
not certain that the water is to be understood literally; the
more so, as the water into which men are represented as
descending, is that "by which their lives are saved.": Besides, the descent into the water is not baptism, in the language of Hermas, as he speaks of men descending into the
water who had not received the seal of baptism, and of others
descending, who had received that seal.~  There is not,
therefore, in these passages, any thing which at all militates
against the conclusion before drawn from the language of
Hermas.
JUSTIN MARTYR. Next to Hermas, and probably cotemporary with him, was the learned and accomplished JUSTIN,
the Martyr. He was a native and resident of Syria, acquainted with the common or spoken Greek of Palestine,
and had been educated in the most refined schools of classic
literature. He is, therefore, an important witness as to the


* L. iii. Sim. ix. c. 16.
t L. i. Vis. iii. c. 3.


t L. ii. Cor. iv. c. 3.
~ L. iii. Sim. ix. c. 16.




TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR.


59


mode of baptism. The most full description he has given,
is contained in his first Apology, or Defence of the Christian
Religion, addressed to the Roman Emperor, about A. D. 150.*
"We then lead them [the candidates for baptism] to a
place where there is water, and they are regenerated, (avaysvvsw,) in the same mode of regeneration as we were regenerated; for they are washed (Xourpov) in water, in the name
of GOD, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of the Son,
and of the HOLY GHOST; for CHRIST has said, except ye be
regenerated, (avaysvvsw,) ye can not enter into the kingdom of
GOD." He also quotes, in immediate connection with this,
and as bearing directly upon the same point, Isaiah i. 16:
" Wash you, (Xouw,) make you clean."  " And this washing,"
(Xourpov,) he says,t is "called illumination."
That this is a description of baptism, admits not of doubt,
and there is a remark which naturally arises from the language of Justin, too important to be omitted in this place.
It is claimed and admitted, that, in classic Greek, baptizo,
more generally denotes a washing performed by applying
the thing baptized to the element in which the baptism was
performed, and that lotto is the proper word to be used to
signify washing of a general nature, or, more properly, when
it is performed by applying the water to the person washed.
Now as Justin was a thorough classic scholar, and also
familiar with the spoken Greek of Palestine, it is evident
that he is the most conpetent witness that can be produced,
concerning the commorn meaning of baptizo, in Palestinian
Greek, in accordance with which it is used in Scripture, as
is now admitted by all critics.:


* We quote from p. 94 of the Paris edition; p. 89 in the edition of
Thirlby, Lond. 1722, c. 79, translation of Chevalier.
t Page 94, or 90, and c. 80.
t Stuart Gr. Gram. N. T. Gerard, Inst. Bib. Crit. P. I. c. i. ~ 5.




60


TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR.


The first thing to be observed, is, that Justin, in writing
to the Roman Emperor Pius, who was also versed in classic
Greek, but knew nothing of any peculiarities of the Palestinian, never uses baptizo, to denote baptism, which word, as
understood by the Emperor, would signify, that the candidate
was put into the water; but always uses louo, from which
he would understand that the water was applied to the person. Hence, if baptism was performed by immersion in the
days of Justin, he intentionally avoided language which
would have been understood, and used such as he knew
would mislead, and that, when he could gain nothing by it,
and could have no motive to do it. Not so when he writes
against Jews, familiar with all the peculiarities of the dialects of Palestine; for in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,
he uses baptizo and louo as synonymous terms.* The authority of Justin, therefore, sustains the conclusion drawn
from our examination of the Scripture lexical usage, that
baptizo and louo, in the common Greek of Palestine, were
words of similar import; and hence the use of this word in
Scripture, to denote baptism, can not even raise a presumption in favor of immersion.t
There is another passage in Justin, still more decisive;
in which he declares that baptism was performed by sprinkling. To a full understanding of the passage, we must
bear in mind, that Justin, in his Apology, was attempting to
show, that the various heathen mysteries were imitations of
* This will be seen by comparing pp. 163, 164, 173, 174, 193, 194,
Lond. Ed.; pp. 231, 232, 236, 246, Par. Ed.
t The old Syriac word for baptism, (i b,) had also a peculiar
usage, as will be seen when we come to speak of the Syriac translations
of larrgwo. -The first distinct trace of baptism by immersion, is in Cyril,
about A. D. 330, who employs the word Karadvvo, instead of faTrrt;O, and
gives as a reason, that we submerge three times, because CHRIST was in
the earth three nights. Cat. ii. 286.




TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR.


61


the rites and ordinances instituted by GOD; that "they erroneously imitated what was really performed, because they
did not perfectly understand the prophecy."* Thus he says,
the story of the ascent of Bacchus and Bellerophon into
heaven, were imitations of the prophecies concerning CHRIST;
also, that some of the stories of Hercules and Esculapius,t
were copied from the character of the same being. So also
lie says, that the demons raised up false Christs, to deceive
the people,4 and that the practices of the priests were imitations of what Moses did.~   Hence, he says: "It is not,
therefore, that we hold the same opinion with others, but that
all others speak in imitation (~,isoup.voi) of ours."Il  Then,
after giving the account of baptism, quoted above, he says:
"This washing (Xourpov) is called illumination, since the
minds of those who are thus instructed, are enlightened.
And he who is so enlightened, is washed, (Xoue,) [i. e. baptized,] also in the name of JESUS CHRIST, who was crucified
under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the HOLY GHOST,
who, by the prophets, foretold all things concerning Jesus.
The demons, also, who heard that this washing, (Xourpov,)
[i. e. of baptism,] was predicted by the prophet, caused, that
those who entered into their holy places, and were about to
approach them, to offer libations and the fat of victims,
should sprinkle (pavTr-w) themselves."
Two things are asserted by Justin, in this place: (1,) that
the baptism of demons was by sprinkling, and, (2,) that this
was in imitation of Christian baptism. Hence, it follows, that
Christian baptism was sometimes at least performed by sprinkling.~  Justin also distinguishes the "going down into the
C. 70.       t C. 71.      t Cc. 73, 75.    ~ C. 81.
II C. 78, p. 93. Par. Ed., Apol. I.
~ St. Cyprian, A. D. 256, says, the sacrament is equally efficacious,
whether the person be plunged in water, or whether it be sprinkled upon
him. Ep. 66.
6




62


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.


water," from  the baptism.  Thus he says, that "Jesus
coming to the river Jordan where John was baptizing, he
(John) went down with Jesus into the water."*
CLEMENT of Alexandria, about A. D. 190. The works of
this Father, that have come down to us, contain very little
on this subject. But what they do contain, is in accordance
with the testimony of Justin. Thus, when speaking of the
symbolical meaning of the external rites of religion, he
says:t "But the purification we are to seek and observe, is
that of a holy heart. That also, of which baptism (/3olarr-Ia)
was the image, and which Moses taught the Poets, was in
in this wise:
"' When she, had washed herself (u6pavo) in water, having
ornaments in all her garments, Penelope came to prayers.'
" And Telemachus, having washed his hands (virrcr-) in
the sea, offered vows to Minerva.'
"This was the custom of the Jews; and often they baptized ($a3rimw) in bed. Well, therefore, is it said, ' Ie not
washed (Xou-rpc) in body, but in mind."' And in another
place, he says: "But if he [CHRIST] was perfect, wherefore, then, was he baptized, (/3mcrrsw)? It became him, say
they, to fulfil the human profession. Well, I concede this.
As soon, therefore, as he was baptized (SP/carw) by John,
he was perfected? True. Then he learned nothing more
from him l Nothing. He was complete, save only washing, (Xourpw,) and the Spirit coming, he was sanctified."
This indiscriminate use of louo, nipto, loutro, and baptizo,
and the application of this latter word to all the Jewish
washings, is conclusive evidence that Clement did not supoose the word baptizo to signify immersion only, and that
ae used it in the same general sense in which Justin employed it.


* Dial. Tryph. P. II. p. 331.  t Strom. iv. 531.   t Pedag. i. 6.




TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN.


63


TERTULLIAN.    We proceed to examine Tertullian on the
s,.ode of baptism. But, before we do this, we must premise:
(1.) Though the earliest of the Latin Fathers, Tertullian was a
Carthagenian by birth, and Latin was not his mother tongue.
Consequently, we can not look for that nice discrimination
in the choice of words, we should naturally expect in a native Latin.  (2.) Another cause of obscurity in the writings
of Tertullian, is to be found in the character of his figures,
which are often far-fetched and unnatural, and frequently
clothed in high-sounding, pompous epithets.*  (3.) Tertullian led the way in adapting the Christian literature of the
Greeks, to the genius of the Latin tongue.'t
Tertullian uses several words to denote baptism. (1.)
When quoting from the Bible, where the original is baptizo,
he either transfers the word, or uses tingo, which, Valpy:
says, signifies to wet, dye, tinge, stain.~  Thus, in citing the
command to the Apostles, " commanding that they should
baptize (tinguerent) in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the HOLY GHOST."II     (2.) When speaking of
baptism, and not quoting from the Bible, he uses tingo much
oftener than any other word.~    Occasionally he uses lavo,
* Dupin. Hist. Ecc. Writ. I. p. 83.  t Gies. Ecc. Hist. Div. iii. ~ 64.
Etym. Die. p. 475.
~ And Forcellini, an Italian lexicographer, of the Latin tongue, (Lat.
Die., 2 vols. 4to. Lond., 1828,) defines it by to dip, immerse, wet, moisten,
bathe, and gives us its equivalent in Greek, renyw, r pvy xw, vSpalvw, u3arw.
The same author defines mergo, "to dip, plunge, sink, immerse, and
overwhelm."
11 Adv. Prax. c. 26, &c.
~ Tertullian's favorite word was tingo, probably from the idea that
baptism impressed upon us a new and peculiar hue or color of character.
Indeed, this opinion is found in all the African writers, as Tertullian,
Cyprian, and Augustine. See Tert. 0O Baptism; Cyp. On the Grace
of God, 2. 3; Testimonies against the Jews, iii. 25-28; Bing. xi. 1. ~ 7.
The same idea also occurs in the Ethiopian version of the Scriptures.




64


TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN.


"to wash, bathe, sprinkle;" mergo, "to sink, or plunge,"
according to classic usage-but to wash simply, in vulgar
Latin, to which Tertullian approximates; and abluo, "to
wash, to purify."  (3.) He also denotes baptism by aspergo,
"to sprinkle."*  Thus, speaking of the hypocrisy of those
who desired baptism without true repentance, he says; " No
man should grant to such false penitents, one sprinkling
(asperginem) of water."t  A similar usage occurs in cc. 5,
12, of his treatise On Baptism. From all this, the necessary inferences are, that Tertullian does not use the Latin
language with perfect classic certainty; and that the practice in regard to baptism, in his time, was various-the
quantity of water being considered unessential. This is a
fact, expressly asserted by Tertullian.  Thus,: "There is
no difference whether we are washed (diluvatur) in the sea,
(mari,) or a pond, (stagno,) in a river, (flumine,) or spring,
(fonte,) in a standing pool, (lacu,) or running brook, (alves.)
Nor is there any difference between those whom John baptized (tinxit) in Jordan, and Peter in the Tiber!" This language of Tertullian is the more conclusive, as he seems to
have placed a higher estimate upon the effect of baptism, than
was authorized by the Church at that time.
We have now, we believe, examined every passage in the
Scriptures, and every passage in the Fathers of the two first
centuries, that bears upon the mode of baptism, and upon a
review of the whole evidence on this subject, we are authorized to say, that there is not, either in the Bible, or the
writings of the Christians to the end of the second century,
any thing which will establish the claim that baptism was
performed by the Apostles and Primitive Christians by immersion, in the modern sense of the word.
* And so does Cyprian, his disciple. Ep. 69, ~ 11-15.
t De Pcenit. c. 6.                 t De Bap. c. 4.




SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.


65


CHAPTER VII.
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.
THAT believing adults are proper subjects of baptism, all
allow. But is baptism to be administered to any but adults?
To this, some reply in the negative; we, in the affirmative.
We proceed, therefore, to the proof.
1. "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HOLY
GHOST; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever'I
have commanded you." (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.)
In this commission, three things are to be observed:(1.) The Apostles were to teach all nations.
(2.) They were to baptize all nations.
(3.) They were to teach all nations whatsoever had been
commanded them.
In reference to the teaching all nations, we observe, that
the original (ia0rrsuc) does not signify to teach, in the present sense of that word. Its proper signification is, if we
may be allowed the word, to disciple. This may be done,
in some measure, by teaching and instructing, and generally, though not necessarily, implies some degree of it.
The teaching, however, mentioned under the third head,
(abSocxw,) is distinct from that under the first head, and denotes that kind of instruction given by a master to his pupils. A literal rendering of the foregoing passage, would
be: "Go ye, disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST;
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
From this it is evident, that the first clause, " disciple all
nations," includes, in general terms, what is more particu6*




CHILDREN INCLUDED IN


larly pointed out in both of the others; that is, " baptizing"
and " teaching," as the means of making disciples. The
first idea which occurs upon reading this passage, is, that it
is not to be understood in its most literal sense, as no one
pretends that " all nations" were to be baptized in a mass or
body. We are therefore obliged to seek some rule of interpretation, which will enable us to give it a consistent and
reasonable construction. The rule must also be one which
will apply both to baptizing and teaching, as both are clothed
in the same general terms. Some construe the command to
mean; " Teach all who are capable of being taught, and baptize those whom ye teach."  But this is framing a rule applicable only to one clause; and, from the construction of
that clause, deducing a rule by which to construe the other.
We are willing to abide the rule of interpretation our opponents have framed, if they will be consistent, and apply it
to all the clauses, in the order in which they are given by
the Evangelist. It will then read: " Go ye, disciple all that
are capable of being discipled; baptizing all who are capable
of receiving baptism, and teaching all who are capable of being
taught."
If this be the meaning of the passage, it does not devolve
upon those who believe in the necessity and authority of
infant baptism, to do more than show that infants are capable
of receiving baptism; a point so self-evident, that those who
deny it assume the burden of proof; for, though it is a
sound rule, that no man shall be bound to prove the negative
of a general proposition, it is no less a sound rule, that he
who limits the language of such a proposition, must prove
the limitation. If, then, it be affirmed that infants are not
included in this general language, it is the duty of those
who make the affirmation, to prove its truth. And if they
can not prove its truth, then infant baptism is not only law



THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION.


67


ful, but is commanded. The language of St. Mark clearly
sustains this conclusion:-" Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel unto every creature," that is, to all human
creatures. (Mark xvi. 15.)
2. The next passage which authorizes "infant baptism"
is; " Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them
not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. xix. 14;
Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16.) It is worthy of remark, as a
singular, as well as an unusual coincidence, that the three
Evangelists considered this passage of sufficient importance
to be recorded at full length in each of their gospels, and all
have given it in the same language, except that Mark and
Luke have "the kingdom of GOD," instead of "the kingdom
of heaven."  Upon this, two questions arise:(1.) What is meant by "the kingdom of heaven?"
(2.) And what, by coming to Christ?
First, what is meant by " the kingdom of GOD," and "the
kingdom of heaven," in these passages? These phrases
may denote two things-either the Church Triumphant
above, or the Church Militant on earth, or both together.
As to the first of these significations, there will be no doubt;
nor is there any more room for doubt as to the second, as
we have already shown, in a former chapter. It is clear,
therefore, that by the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven,"
and "the kingdom of GOD," the Church on earth may be
meant. Whether that be the meaning in this passage, depends upon the construction to be put upon it, to which we
shall soon refer.
Second, what is meant by coming to CHRIST? The answer
to this, as to the other inquiry, is twofold. We are said " to
come to CHRIST," when we submit ourselves to him, giving
up our souls and bodies to him and to his service, by repentance, faith, and obedience. We are also said to come to




68


COMING TO CHRIST.


CHRIST, when we enroll our names upon the list of his professed disciples and followers, by publicly professing his
name before men. No man can come to CHRIST in the first
of these senses, except by that true and living faith, which
qualifies for admission into the New Jerusalem above; but
many come to CHRIST, by such a public profession of his
name, and thus enter.the Church on earth, who are nevertheless to be reckoned among the bad, who, when " the net
is drawn ashore," will be cast away. If, therefore, by "the
kingdom of heaven," in the foregoing places, the Church on
earth is meant, then coming to CHRIST in baptism, must be
the mode designated, and if this mode of coming to CHRIST be
the one intended, then the Church on earth must be the one
referred to.
Now nothing can be plainer, than that little children were
"to come to CHRIST," and that such were to enter into "the
kingdom of heaven." If, then, by " the kingdom of heaven"
is meant the Church, it follows necessarily, that they were
to enter the Church by baptism; for it is admitted by all,
that baptism is the only rite of initiation into the Church.
Hence, if it be shown that a person has received baptism,
then we know that he is a member of the Church; or if it
be shown that a person is a member of the Church, then we
know that he has been baptized. If, then, it be shown that
children are members of the Church, or are considered fit
subjects to become members, then we have shown that they
have been baptized, or are fit subjects for baptism. It follows, therefore, from the foregoing passages, either that children are to come to CHRIST by being received into his Church
by baptism; or that being unworthy to join the Church Militant, they are to be transported immediately to the abodes
of blessedness, in the Church Triumphant-a conclusion they
can not avoid. Unless, then, we are willing to abide this
absurdity, we must allow that little children are to be made




COMING TO CHRIST.


69


members of the Church, and that infant baptism is, therefore,
commanded.*
3. The foregoing passages prove that little children were
to receive the ordinance of baptism; we shall now show that
they actually were baptized in the days of the Apostles.
Thus, St. Paul says to the Corinthians; "The unbelieving
husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife
is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." (1 Cor. vii. 14.) It is
admitted by all, that this passage is not to be interpreted in
its most literal sense, as those words are now understood, for
then the faith of the wife would become the faith of the husband, and the faith of the husband would become the faith
of the wife, and the faith of either would become the faith
of the whole family, so that the whole family would be finally
saved by the faith of one of its members, which is not only
absurd, but contrary to the declarations of Scripture.
It will assist us in the interpretation of this text, to ascertain what the Apostle took for granted, and what he desired
to prove.  When, therefore, the Apostle says; " The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children
unclean, but now are they holy," he assumes, that " children
whose parents were both believers, were sanctified, or holy,"
and reasoning from that assumption, assures the Cotinthians,
that "children who had one believing parent, were placed
in the same situation; else, (Fsei,)for otherwise,t they would
be unclean, that is, unsanctified and unholy."  Our first inquiry must be, therefore, what is the Scriptural meaning of
* This passage was so universally understood to apply to baptism, in
the days of Tertullian, that he felt himself called upon to explain it
away. De Bap. c. 18. See Apos. Cons. vi. 15.
t Rob. Gr. Lex. p. 296; Butt. Gr. Gram. ~ 149.




70


CHILDREN AT CORINTH.


agiazo, (ayacJ,) to sanctify? and agios, (aypos,) "holy?" and
when, and in what sense, could the children of believing
parents be said to be sanctified?
(1.) What is the meaning of agiazo, "to sanctify?"  The
usual signification of this word is, to set apart, or consecrate
to the service of GOD. Thus, in Matthew, (xxiii. 17, 19:)
" Whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth
the gold." So St. Paul addresses his Epistle; "Unto the
Church of GoD which is at Corinth, unto them that are sanctified in CHRIST JESUS." (1 Cor. i. 2.) And again he says
to the same Church; "But ye are washed, (acroXouw,) i. e. in
baptism, but ye are sanctified, i. e. set apart, or consecrated
to the service of GOD by baptism." (1 Cor. vi. 11.) Neither of these passages from Corinthians, can be confined to
that sanctification of heart, which is wrought " by the renewing of the HOLY GHOST;" for both are addressed to all the
individuals composing the Church at Corinth, among whom
were some bad men, as we learn from the epistle itself.
Another, and a more conclusive proof, that this word does
not mean purification of heart alone, is to be found in the
fact, that the same language is applied to CHRIST himself;
"Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent
into the world." (John x. 36.) In no sense could CHRIST
be said to be sanctified, except as he was set apart to the
office of MIediator, &c. This is indeed its more usual sense,
both in the New Testament and in the Septuagint, where it
is used for the Hebrew  ~y, "to consecrate, to make holy by
consecration."  The language of St. Paul "to the saints at
Ephesus," is decisive on this point:-That he might sanctity
(aya)o) and cleanse it with the washing (Xourpo) of water."
(Eph. v. 26.) This can mean nothing but baptism, and
hence, when agiazo is applied to the members of the Church
collectively, including, of course, the good and bad members,




CHILDREN HOW SANCTIFIED.


71


it means that they have been sanctified, i. e. set apart to the
worship and service of GOD BY BAPTISM.*
The same conclusion must be drawn from an examination
of the word agios.  This word, says Tittman,t "is rarely or
never used by the Greek writers, for that purity of mind,
which theologians have called sanctity, but it constantly denotes that which is consecrated to the Gods." In the New
Testament it is applied to both persons and things. As the
Prophets, (Luke i. 70; Acts iii. 21; 2 Peter i. 21;) to the
priesthood of the Christian, (1 Peter ii. 5;) to the Apostles,
(Eph. iii. 5;) to the Angels, (Matt. xxv. 31;) to places,
(Acts vii. 33;) and especially to Jerusalem, (Matt. iv. 5;)
to the Temple, (1 Cor. iii. 17;) and also to all who professed
the Christian name.  (Acts ix. 13, 32, 41; xxvi. 10; Rom.
i. 7; viii. 27.) It is clear, therefore, that the children of
Christians were holy, and, as must follow from these considerations, in the sense of having been consecrated to GOD.
(2.) Our next inquiry is, how the children of believing
parents had been sanctified.  They were certainly not sanctified " by the renewing of the HOLY GHOST," in consequence
of the faith of either or both of the parents; nor were they
sanctified in the sense of being consecrated to GOD, by the
simple act of the parents' faith. Something more is necessary, as a sanctification or consecration requires a public
act of dedication to GOD, which, in reference to Christians, is
done in baptism.  But still, the sanctification of the children,
is said by the Apostle to be in consequence of the faith of the
parent. Now the parent could in no way sanctify the child,
except by offering him, through faith in the LORD JESUS, in
the ordinance of baptism, that he might be sanctified; that
* Origin says, Ep. Rom. v. 9, " The Church derived from the Apostles the tradition to give baptism to infants." See also Hom. Lev. viii. 3.
t Synom. N. T. c. 2, p. 37.




72


TESTIMONY OF HERMAS.


is, be set apart and consecrated to the service of GOD, in that
holy rite.  Our only alternative, therefore, is to conclude
that the Apostle uses the same language in the same sense
here as elsewhere in his epistles, and if he does so, then this
passage contains an unequivocal declaration of the blessed
Apostle Paul, that the children of the Corinthian Christians
had received the ordinance of baptism.
In accordance with this conclusion, is the language of St.
Paul, Eph. vi. 1, and Col. iii. 20, "Children, obey your parents in the LORD," etc., thereby showing that these were
included in the number of " the saints" to which these epistles were addressed, (Eph. ii. 1, Col. i. 1,) and must, therefore, have been baptized.
CHAPTER VIII.
SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM CONTINUED.
To the Scriptural evidence on this subject, we shall add
the testimony of the earliest Fathers.
HERMAS describes the subsequent conduct of all who had
received this rite, under the similitude of twelve mountains.
The first mountain was "black," and was composed of
" those who had revolted from the faith, that is, had apostatized, for whom there was no repentance."*  The second
was " smooth," and composed of " hypocrites, for whom there
was no repentance."t  The third was "covered with thorns
and brambles," and was composed "of those who had been
choked with the affairs of the world, to whom a " space for
repentance was allowed."t: The fourth had herbs, "with
* L.iii.Sim  ix.c. 1.  tC. 1.  C  2.


* L. iii. Sim. ix. e. 19.


t C. 19.


t C. 2(.




TESTIMONY OF HERMAS.


73


dry roots and green tops, which withered in the sun," and
denoted the " doubtful, who live in words, but are dead in
works."  To these " space of repentance was also given."*
The fifth was "steep and craggy, but had green grass,"
and signifies " those who believed and were faithful, but
were bold and self-conceited."t  The sixth was "filled with
small clefts," and denoted those " who had had controversies
among themselves, by reason of which their faith languished.": The seventh "was green and flourishing," and
denoted "those who were always good and upright."~  The
eighth was " filled with abundance of springs, by which all
creatures of GOD were watered," and denoted "the faithful
teachers of the word of GoD."II  The ninth "was desert,
and covered with serpents," and denoted such " ministers as
had discharged their ministry amiss," but to whom "space
of repentance was allowed."~f  The tenth was "covered
with trees affording shade for the cattle," which were "the
faithful Bishops and Governors of the Church."** The
eleventh had "tres of divers sorts of fruits," and denoted
"those who had suffered for the name of the Lord."tt  The
twelfth mountain was white, and denoted " such as have believed as sincere children, into whose thoughts no malice ever
came, who had never known what sin was, but had always continzued in their integrity.  Wherefore this kind of mortals
shall without doubt enter into the kingdom of GoD."4:
" Wherefore because those who had believed of that mountain were very innocent, the LORD of the tower commanded
that they which were of the roots of this mountain should be
placed in the building; for he knew that if they were put
int the building, they would continue bright, nor would any
of them become black."~~
* C. 21.   t C. 22.   t C. 23.  ~ C. 24.  11 C. 25.
~ C. 26.   ** C. 27.  tt C. 28.  tt C. 29.  t C.30.
7




74


TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN.


We have given a full account of these symbolical moun.
tains, that our readers might see for themselves, that the
twelfth mountain is descriptive only of children, and can denote nothing but children and infants, who, having received
the seal of baptism, died before they had known sin. Hence
it follows, that children and infants, in the days of Hermas,
received the rite of baptism, and that, too, by sprinkling or
pouring. When this rite was administered to adults, the
candidates seem to have stood in the edge of the water,
if they were baptized in a brook or river, or by the side
of the water in other cases, when the water was poured
upon them.
JUSTIN MARTYR. There is one passage in Justin, which
the principles of just criticism require us to apply to infants,
as subjects of baptism.  Thus he says: " There are many
of both sexes, sixty or seventy years of age, who had been
discipled (aEcOrseuow) to CHRIST in childhood, (,rai.)"*
To this it is objected by some; (1,) That pais does not
always signify children, but sometimes youths, and that these
might have been made disciples upon their own faith.  We
grant that pais does not necessarily, though it does usually,
signify a child, in the strictest sense of the word, but it is
admitted that it is nearly or quite equivalent to child, according to its common meaning. The word childhood, therefore, by which we have rendered pais, is the true meaning
of the original.  They also object, (2,) That to disciple, does
not mean to baptize, and does not necessarily imply that baptism was performed in childhood.  In answer to this objec* P. 22, Lond. Ed. p. 62, Par. Ed. c. 18, Trans. Chevalier. In.the
old Syriac version of the New Testament, the vernacular of Justin,
and which was made some time before he wrote, this word, 7rais, in
Matt. xix. 14, Mark x. 14, Luke xviii. 16, is rendered l - ', (thalo,)
which, according to Castell and Michaelis, signifies, "infans, puer, adolescens, parvulus."




TESTIMONY OF IRENjEUS.


75


tion, we may say, first; It is evident, if they had been
baptized, they were baptized when they were discipled,
which no one doubts; and, second, The language does imply
that they had become Christians, and, consequently, must
have received the rite of baptism.
IREN.EUS, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, lived and wrote about
A. D. 175. His work Against Heresy, has ever been held
in high repute.  He says:* "CHRIST came to save all persons by himself; all, I mean, who are regenerated (renascuntur, i. e. baptizedt) unto GOD; infants, (infantes,) and little
ones, (parvulos,) and children, (pueros,) and young persons,
(juvenes,) and old persons, (seniors.)  Therefore he went
through all ages; and for infants, became an infant, that he
might sanctify infants; and for little ones, became a little
one, that he might sanctify those of that age; and also give
them an example of goodness, justice, and dutifulness."
The only objection which it has been possible to raise
against this passage, is to doubt whether it has reference to
baptism. But such an objection can have no force, even
with the merest tyro in ecclesiastical history. Those who
are not familiar with it, we refer to the language of Justin,
above quoted, and to the following, from  Irenaeus:: " And
because the renunciation of baptism-of that regeneration
(baptismatis ejus regenerationis) which is unto GOD." And,~
* L. ii. c. 39.
t On the meaning of renascor, see Orig. ad Rom. 6. Cyp. Ep. Ad.
Fidum, Cyr. Jerus. Cat. Mys. 1. Greg. Naz. Orat. Sane. Lav. Basil
Exhor. Bap. and Chrys. Jerom. Augus. Theod. &c. Also, all the ancient Baptismal Liturgies, as, Lit. Ant. Ass. II. 220, Armenian, Ib. II.
198, Apos. Jerus. Ib. II. 266, Alex. Copt. Ib. II. 165, Old Gallic, Ib. II.
42, Syriac, Ib. II. 258, &c. The difficulty is not to find proof in favor
of this interpretation, but to find authorities against it.
$ L. i. c. 18.
~ L. iii. c. 19.




76


KINOWLEDGE OF THE FATHERS.


"CHRIST gave his disciples the power of regeneration (regenerationis) into GOD, saying to them, ' Go, teach all nations,
baptizing them,'" &c.
We must here add a word concerning the knowledge of
Justin and Irenueus upon these subjects, and of the means
they had of acquainting themselves with the practices of the
Apostolic age. Justin tells us, that when he wrote, A. D.
150, persons were living seventy years of age, who became
Christians in their childhood. Such persons must have been
born as early as A. D. 80, or twenty years before the death
of St. John, and, consequently, they must have known what
was the practice of the Apostles. From these, Justin could
obtain the most satisfactory information.  Nor were the
means of information possessed by Irenueus, less satisfactory,
for he tells us himself, that he was a pupil of Polycarp,
bishop of Smyrna,* and Polycarp we know was a pupil of
the Apostle and beloved disciple, St. John.t  Polycarp,
therefore, knew personally, and Irenaeus knew from Polycarp, what was the Apostolic practice, and the bare mention
of the existence of infant baptism, by Irenaeus, unaccompanied by any intimation that it was an innovation, in a
work written expressly to point out all innovations, is conclusive evidence that it had been practised from the days of
the Apostles.  The testimony of these two writers, does,
therefore, render it certain, that infant baptism was practised
in the Primitive and Apostolic Church. No evidence could
be more entirely decisive on this point.
TERTULLIAN. We will consider next the case of Tertullian, a presbyter in the Church at Carthage, who was contemporary with Iren.eus, and wrote about A. D. 195. He
was a man of ardent temperament, something wanting in
sound judgment, and in the latter part of his life, not en

* Ep. Flor. in Euseb. Ecc. Hist. v. 20.


+ Martyr. Ign. c. 3.




TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN.


77


tirely sound in the faith. Among other strange notions that
he fell into, one was, that sin, after baptism, could hardly be
pardoned; or, in other words, that all sin, after baptism,
was sin against the HOLY GHOST. Hence he advised the
delay of baptism. The following is from his treatise On
Baptism.*
"Therefore, according to the condition and disposition ot
persons, and also their age, the delay of baptism is more advisable; especially in the case of little children, (parvulos.). Our LORD says, indeed,' Forbid them not to come
unto me.' Therefore let them come when they understand;
when they are instructed why it is that they come.'.'t
Two remarks are suggested by this quotation; first, that
Tertullian, in advising the delay of infant baptism, recognizes the existence of the practice in the Church at that
time; and, second, that he understood the passage, "Suffer
little children to come unto me, and forbid them not," (Matt.
xix. 14; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16;) as did the Primitive
Church generally, and as the principles of common-sense
interpretation now require us to construe it, to denote coming
to CHRIST in baptism. Tertullian also understands the passage, (1 Cor. vii. 14,) of which we have before spoken, to
denote baptism.  Thus he quotes the passage: " Of either
parent sanctified, the children that are born are holy;" by
reason of the prerogative of that seed, and also the instruction in their education; else, says he, were they unclean.
* C. 18.
t In the days of Cyprian, A. D. 250, a council was held at Carthage,
at which sixty-six Africart bishops were present, when the propriety of
baptizing before the eighth day was considered, and all were of opinion that it might be done before that. (Ep. Fidus.) Now, as Cyprian
was the pupil and an admirer of Tertullian, (Jerom. Script. Ecc.,) the
language of the pupil may fairly be quoted, to show the opinion of the
master on this subject.
7*




78


INCIDENTAL PROOF FROM


But yet meaning to be understood thus: that the children of
the faithful, are designed for holiness;* that is, "baptismal
holiness."t  That Tertullian was opposed to infant baptism,
no one doubts, and this fact is the most conclusive evidence
of the existence of the practice, as no one would oppose a
thing which had no existence.
We have now examined all the passages in the Bible, and
the Fathers of the two first centuries, which have any direct
bearing on the question touching the subjects of baptism;
and are authorized to say, that the evidence is conclusive in
favor of the right of infants to baptism.
There are several other arguments in proof of the conclusion here drawn, but we have extended this examination
so much beyond our original intention, that we shall barely
enumerate them.
I. That the quantity of water is not essential to the ordinance, we infer:1. Because baptism being symbolic of purification, the
rule given by CHRIST to Peter, (John xiii.,) he that was
washed in part, was clean every whit, is applicable.:
2. From the cases of household baptism, as in the cases
of Cornelius, (Acts x.;) of Lydia, (Acts xvi.;) of the Jailer,
(Acts xvi.;) of Crispus, (Acts xviii. and 1 Cor. i.;) of Stephanus and Gaius, (1 Cor. i.;) and of the baptism on the
day of Pentecost, (Acts ii.;) and at Samaria, by Philip,
(Acts viii.;) which alone would render infant baptism highly
probable.
II. That infants are to be admitted to baptism and the
privileges of the new covenant, we also infer:1. From the fact that the Christian Church has succeeded


* De Anima, c. 39.               t De Bap. c. 12.
t This text was understood by Tertullian, as having especial reference to baptism. De Bapt. c. 12.




SCRIPTURE, ON INFANT BAPTISM.


79


the Jewish Church, into which infants were received by express command. That it has so succeeded, is evident from
what we have before said; and also,
(1.) Because the blessings promised to Abraham, at the
institution of the covenant, of which circumcision was the
seal, were intended for the Gentiles also, through faith in
JESUS CHRIST. (Gen. xvii.; Gal. iii. 19-29.)
(2.) Because the covenant made with Abraham, was not
disannulled by the fulfilling of the law given at Stnai;. ano
must, therefore, continue in force. (Gal. iii. 17.)
(3.) Because all persons who have been baptized into
CHRIST, are Abraham's seed, and heirs to the promises contained in the covenant made with him. (Gal. iii. 27, 29.)
2. We also infer that infants should be offered to GOD in
baptism, upon the faith of the parent, or master, because the
blessings which CHRIST conferred upon men, were frequently
given to children and servants, on the faith of the parents or
master. Thus, the servant of the centurion was healed,
upon the faith of his master. (Matt. viii.) The ruler's
daughter was restored to life and health, on account of her
father's faith, (Luke viii.;) and the woman of Samaria, by
her faith, obtained the like blessing for her daughter. (Matt.
xx.) And the little children, on whom CHRIST bestowed his
blessing, were presented to him on the faith of believing
parents. In view of these, and many other facts of a similar
character, it is impossible for us to see how any servant of
CHRIST can reject from his covenant, those to whom He extended those blessings while on earth, and of whom He said,
" of such is the kingdom of GOD."




80


PRACTICE OF THE


CHAPTER IX.
INCIDENTAL PROOF AS TO THE MODE OF BAPTISM.
IN the discussion of this question, reference is often made
to the present practice of the Oriental Churches. We add,
therefore, the customs of those Churches, to satisfy the curiosity of. such as lay any stress upon it.
ARMENIANS...       "The Priest then asks the name of
the child, and taking him on his left arm, and supporting his
feet with his right, he puts him into the font, his head"being
kept out of the water.* Then with the hollow of his hand, he
pours water upon the child three times, baptizing him,"t &c.
SYRO-JACOBITES.....       Te child is then put into the
font with his face toward the East, and his head being supported by the right hand of the Priest, the water Is taken up in
the hollow of his left hand, and poured three times upon the
head, while he says,' N. is baptized,' "t &c.
COPTS AND ABYSSINIANS.    "Among the Copts and Abyssinians, baptism  is administered as among the Syrians;"
that is, by the priest's pouring water upon the head of the candidate, while the body of the person is in the water, the head
* Yet the Armenian Liturgy uses the language, " descending into the
water," as applied to our Saviour. Ass. vol. II. p. 199.
t This account of the mode of baptism among the Armenians, is from
Rev. Dr. Jarvis' Report to Board of Missions of Prot. Epis. Ch., U. S.
That given in Schrceder's Thesaurus Lingue Artneuiace, p. 328, on
the authority of an Armenian Priest, (the Bishop of Erivan) varies little
from this. It is there said that the Priest holds the child over the font
and pours, or sprinkles water upon the top of his head, three times, say.
ing the words of baptism, and afterwards putting him into the water
three times, washes his whole body.
t Ass. Bib. Orient. IV. 241-245.




ORIENTAL CHURCHES.


81


being out. Consequently, baptism among them is accompanied by immersion, in one sense of the word, but not in
the sense contended for; while at the same time, the immersion is not regarded as a part of the baptism.
THE SYRO-CHALDmEANS, improperly called Nestorians, use
the same formula of baptism as the Syro-Jacobites, and the
Priest puts the child into the font in the same manner as
among them, that is, he puts the candidate into the water up to
the neck, and pours water upon him three times, imposing hands
upon him while in the water.*
GREEK CHURCH. The practice of this Church is not uniform. In Greece proper, some hold immersion necessary;
others not; but the whole Russian Church holds it immaterial. We give an extract from a very scarce book; An Account of the Greek Church, by Thomas Smith, B. D.t
" The infant, if well, is brought into the Church; in the
entrance of which is the font, usually large, and about a foot
and a half deep..... In the winter, that the tender body
of the infant may not suffer by cold, they for the most part
warm the water, upon which the Priest breathes and makes
a cross, and then poureth oil upon it in the form of a cross,
three times, with which having anointed the child, and holding him upright with his hands, his face toward the east, he
performs the mystical rite,.... and at the mention of
each person of the Trinity, the Priest dips the child into the
water;....which threefold immersion, they for the most
part rigidly retain;.... though they do not scruple to
vary from it upon occasion, being content sometimes to pour
water upon the face of the infant three times.":
It is not said in this work, whether the head of the person
is put under the water or not, but the account gives us such


* Chal. Rit. in Ass. Bib. Orient. IV. 241-245.
t 8vo. Oxford, 1680.               t See Ch. Mag. iii. 71, 2.




82


PRACTICE OF THE GREEK


particulars, as to show it is impossible it could be done."
Besides, the fact that pouring is sometimes substituted, shows
conclusively that this must be somewhat connected with the
practice of the other Oriental Churches, which we have
mentioned.
We give, on the other side, a quotation from " Theocletus
Pharmacides, 'Secretary of the Holy Synod of Niece.' It
is taken from a pamphlet published in Athens, in 1839, entitled, 0 pseudonumos Germanos, and is a reply to an article in
a religious periodical in Athens, which was attributed to
Constantine CEconomos, who wrote under the assumed signature of Germanos, the editor of the periodical. Hence the
appellation pseudonumos, false.".... "It appears that
(Economos, following the Russian theologians, held that the
mode of Christian baptism is twofold, being either immersion or
ablution. On this point, the Secretary of the Synod of Greece
says,t
"But we ask the very pious Russian divines, where they
found this twofold mode of baptizing? Was it in the New
Testament? But in that baptizo, in the command of our
LORD JESUS CHRIST, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) signifies nothing else
than that which the same Greek word properly signifies; and
this is manifest from the baptism of our LORD himself, who,
when he was baptized, went up out of the water, (Matt. iii.
16;) but he who goes up out of the water, goes down first
into it; that is, he is all baptized in it. We learn, therefore,
from the New Testament, one mode of baptizing, that by immersion, (xa ra~uaosog,) and immersion is no other than an entire
covering by means of, or in water...... Then again the
* The fonts of the Greek Church, even in Greece, are often, if not generally, so small that immersion is impracticable, being frequently not
more than a foot deep.-E. A. S.
t We quote from a periodical that allows nothing but immersion to be
baptism, and give its translation.-Bap. Advocate.




AND RUSSIAN CHURCHES.


83


Russians were taught Christianity by us, and from their
teachers they learned one and only one mode of baptizing;
that by a threefold immersion and emersion of the entire person baptized in the water; and this is baptism, according to
the most proper and Scriptural meaning of the word."
(p. 36.)
Here then we have an immerser's version of a foreign
writer; which proves that thirty-five millions of " the Greek
Church," out of forty-five millions, hold, that it is indifferent
twhether baptism be performed by immersion, or any other washing. Second, the " Secretary of the Holy Synod of Niece,"
writing especially to contradict this opinion, tells us, that
baptism " is no other than an entire covering by means of, or
in water;" that is, water enough must be poured on to the
person, to wet him all over, or he must be put into the water.
Hence the strongest advocate of immersion, according to his
own translation of the author, places the covering of the person by means of POURING water on to him, before that of putting the person into the water, which is in accordance with
the conclusion before drawn, as to the proper mode of applying the element.
We add another species of evidence, hitherto overlooked,
which can hardly fail to carry convincing evidence to the
minds of intelligent men. In early times, when Christianity
was first preached to the different nations, different practices
were pursued, in regard to ecclesiastical phraseology. Technical terms were either transferred from the Greek, as in
Latin, or the Greek was translated, as in most of the languages of Europe.   Where this was done, the translator
would select that word in his own language, which would
give the leading and prominent idea of the original, as it was
then understood. This argument, as applied to Baptism, is
especially appropriate, for if the word baptizo had once been
introduced and naturalized, it would have held its place.




84


PESHITO, OR OLD SYRIAC.


PESHITO, or Old Syriac.    The oldest of all the versions,
and the one most important in reference to this point, is that
which was made into the common language of Palestine, and
which is known as the Peshito, or Literal Version.       This,
too, was the vernacular tongue of Justin Martyr, and hence,
is of deep interest, as confirming or contradicting the inferences drawn from his writings. This version translates
"baptizo" and its derivatives, by Amad, (ra.    ) which signifies in all the cognate languages, to stand, to cause to stand,
but in Syriac, (1) to be washed, and (2) to be baptized.   The
derivative amodo, signifies ablution, baptizing, baptism, or washing, indiscriminately.   It is worthy of note, that in the Syriac, neither the common words for immersion, or sprinkling
are ever employed to signify baptism, and also, that while
amad and its derivatives are used interchangeably with those
words which signify washing, they do not seem ever to have
been used as synonymous with words denoting immersion or
submersion.*
* Castell, Heptaglot. Lex. in loco. Kirschius, Syriac Lexicon, 93.
Tyschen's Syriac Lexicon, 149, and Michaelis' Edition of Castell's Syriuc
Lexicon, II. 655.-The inquiry, why the Syrians employed amad, which,
in the kindred languages,-the Hebrew, Ethiopian, and Arabic,-signifies to stand, to cause to stand, to be firm, to constitute, and which in
Hebrew never signifies washing of any kind, is a curious and important
one. It is impossible for us, however, to give more than a conjectural
answer. Michaelis (Cast. II. 655) supposes it was, because the candidate stood in the water, at the administration of the rite. This seems
at first to be altogether too slight and insufficient a reason, but when we
recollect the ancient usage of this class of words, it is not so improbable.
Thus the Latin Sto, (to stand,) signifies " to stand to make a set
speech," and hence it came to mean, " to make a set speech;" also " to
stand to fight," and hence, to fight. The Greek has also a similar usage
of tarrtiu. So the Hebrew amad, signifies to stand before one to serve
or minister; and hence, to serve, to minister. In the same manner the
Syriac amad may signify " to stand to be baptized," and hence, to be




BRITTANO-CELTIC-HIBERNO-CELTIC.


85


BRITTANO-CELTIC. The ancient Britons, as we shall show
in a subsequent chapter, were certainly converted to Christianity in the second, in all probability in the first, century.
In this language, the word baptizo was translated, not transferred.  The Brittano-Celtic word for baptism, was bedyz;
which denotes primarily " a giving, a gift, a preparation, a
setting apart, or consecration."  No reference whatever is
made to the mode of baptism in the use of this word, which
denotes "consecration or setting apart."   The derivatives
are, bedyza and bedyzvan, "a font, or baptistry;" bedyzian,
"to baptize."   So also, bedyz yr Ysbryd Glan, was " baptism of the HOLY GHOST," or "the gift of the HOLY GiiosT,"
and bedyz esgob, confirmation, or Bishop's baptism.*  The
mode of baptism could not have been the leading idea in the
minds of the Britons, as no reference is made to it, in the
words denoting the rite.
HIBERNO-CELTIC. Christianity was propagated from    Britain into Ireland, and had made considerable progress there
before the time of St. Patrick, who was ordained Bishop of
Ireland, A. D. 433.  They used words in their own language
to denote the several rites and ceremonies of religion, and
baptism was called " baiste;" to baptize, " baisd-im."  The
original and proper meaning of this word may be inferred
from the fact, that a derivative from the same root, and the
only one in common use in that language, " baist-each," is
used to denote rain. Hence, among the ancient Irish, the
baptized,-a conclusion in accordance with all the evidence we have
been able to discover in regard to the mode of receiving this rite.
* Owen's Geiriadur Cymraeg a Seasong, 2 vols. 4to. London, 1793.
This reference to the gift of the HOLY GHOST in confirmation, is an interesting fact, and worthy of consideration. It is worthy of note also,
that the quotations from Scripture, made by the British historian Gildas,
are not from the Latin Vulgate, though he wrote in Latin.-Pref. to
Works of Gildas, viii.
8




86


SCOTO CELTIC-EGYPTIAN.


mode of baptism was thought of, and reference is made to it;
consequently, baptism must have originally been performed
in Ireland, by sprinkling or pouring.*
SCOTO-CELTIC. Christianity was preached in Scotland about
the same time as in Ireland, and the same words are employed to denote the rite of baptism; baist, "to baptize:"
baisteadh, "baptism."   The kindred words from the same
root, are, baistidh, "drops of water from the eaves," and
baiseach, "a shower of rain."t
EGYPTIAN. The New Testament was translated into the
Egyptian tongue at an early period, certainly as early as
the third century, and hence, is of high authority on this
point. It is of importance, also, as tending to confirm or
contradict the conclusions we have drawn, in regard to the
usage of baptizo, by the Egyptian, Clement of Alexandria.
The common word to denote baptism in all the Egyptian
dialects, is CUJC, (ones,) to which TATTAM: gives no signification but to baptize; while PEYRON~ supposes it to signify
primarily, to stand in the water, to cover with water. The
root, however, seems to.be merely om, as appears from the
noun 2flt-CW)U, (jin-om,) signifying baptism and baptizing,[]
and, consequently, signifies water, or wet; and, as a verb, to
* O'Brien's Focaloir Gaoighilge-Sacs-Bhearla, 8vo. Dublin, 1832
t Dictionarum Scoto-Celticum, 2 vols. 4to. Lond. and Edin. 1836.
Our English word to baste, used in cookery, to signify moistening by
pouring on a fluid, is a Brittano-Saxon word, and comes from the same
root.
t Lexicon of the Languages of Egypt.
~ Grammar of the Coptic Language, 79.
II The prefix jin-, is the common Egyptian prefix, added to verbs to
form nouns, signifying the name of the action, (Peyron, Copt. Gram.
29;) and s final is often a servile letter, (Pey. 23.) The root, om, occurs in JOJU, (iom,) the sea, Heb. D; in Rl-OnJ, (pi-om,) the
water, the sea, etc.




ETHIOPIAN-MCESO-GOTHS.


87


wet, moisten, water.  No distinct allusion is made to the
mode of performing baptism in the Egyptian versions, and
all apparent reference there is, sustains the views we have
taken of Clement's language.
ETHIOPIAN.   The Ethiopian version of the New Testament was made in the fourth century, in all probability at
Alexandria, from whence this people received Christianity,
and, consequently, furnishes a valuable commentary upon
the Alexandrine views of baptism at that time. The word
employed in this version to denote the ordinance, is 1nl0cp,
(ta-ma-ka,) from ImOU, (ta-ma-a,) to tinge, dye, color, stain,
rarely to dip.  But the ordinary words signifying immersion
and submersion are never applied to baptism. Hence we
must conclude, that the mode of baptism was not prominent, if at all, present in the mind of the Ethiopian translator.*
Mcso-GOTHS.    The Goths appear to have been converted
to Christianity some time before A. D. 300, as the signature
of the Gothic Bishop, Theophilus of Bosphiorus, MIetropolitan
of the Goths, stands to the decrees of the Council of Nice,
A. D. 325.t  But the Bible was not translated into that language until about A. D. 400, when it was done by Ulfilas,
Bishop of the Mceso-Goths.:   He employs daup, cognate
with our word dip, to denote baptism.~ From the Gothic,
this word was adopted into German, and several other north* Waunsleb's Ed. Ludolf Ethiop. Lex. col. 414, Castell, in ptt. It
is worthy of remark, that.3tD, which in Hebrew and Syriac signifies
to be unclean, impure, foul, in the Ethiopian signifies to dye, color,
stain; so that tanaka, is precisely like Tertullian's use of tingo, to
signify the same thing. See ante p. 63.
t Soc. Ecc. H. ii. 41.
t Soc. Ecc. H. iv. 27, Sozem. vi. 37, and Hug. Intd. N. T., P. I. ~ 138.
~ Zahn's, Ulfilas, Weissenfels, 4to. 1805, in Glossar., and Matt. ii. 11;
Mark i. 4; vii. 4, 8; Luke iii. 3, 21; John xiii. 26.




88


ARMENIAN-ANGLO-SAXON.


ern languages, at a much later period: Dutch, doopen;
German, taufen. But that Ulfilas did not use daupen, to denote dipping, is evident from his language. Thus, he says,
(Mark i. 8,) " Ik daupja izwis in watin, is daupeith izwis in
Ahmin Weihamma; I baptize (dip) you in water, he shall
baptize (dip) you in the HOLY GHOST."
ARMENIAN. The Armenians, until about A. D. 430, made
use of the Syriac Scriptures and Liturgy, when the Bible
was translated into the language of Armenia, from Greek
manuscripts, and baptizo was translated.  The word ordinarily employed was LI4pf1Ln7, (msksrdiel,) which is a
derivative, compounded, as would seem, of ILU PP7'L,
(makhriel,) and qLLtL, (zdiel,) both of which signify to
purify, in a neuter sense, after the analogy of the oriental'
usage.  But we do not find the word signifying baptism,
ever used interchangeably, either with words signifying immersion or sprinkling. No allusion, therefore, is here made
to the mode of baptism, the idea being that of purification.*
ANGLO-SAXON. The Anglo-Saxons were converted from
A. D. 590 to 610, and they also used a word in their own
language to denote this rite. The word chosen by them was
"fullian," "to whiten, cleanse, purify," from whence came
"fulluht," baptism; and "fulluhtere," a baptizer.t Nothing
can be certainly learned from this language, concerning the
mode of baptism; but this we may certainly learn, that the
Anglo-Saxons regarded the moral signification, and not the
mode, as important. Some of the Lexicons give " dyp-pan,"
to dip,: as one of the words used by the Anglo-Saxons, sig* Schrceder's Thesaurus Lingue Armeniacma, iii. 3, v. 6. Aucher's
Armenian Dictionary, in loco.
t Malt. iii. 1, 11; xxi. 25. Sax. Chron. 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 39, etc.
Bede, Ecc. Hist. i. 27; ii. 2; iii. 21. Elf. Ep. i. c. 20, 23, 40.
+ Dyp-pan is the common word in the Saxon Scriptures, where dip
occurs in English; fulluht, when the word baptism is found. Another




DUTCH.


a     89


nifying to baptize; but we have never seen an instance of its
use in that sense.  " Fulluht" is used in the Creeds, in the
Scriptures, and such of the Homilies as we have been able
to examine.
DUTCH. The Dutch version of the Scriptures has been
appealed to by sdme, as evidence on this subject.  But that
is altogether too late to be pertinent.  Besides, the Dutch
were converted by Anglo-Saxon missionaries; Willibrod, the
first missionary there, having been consecrated bishop by
Wilfred, for some time Archbishop of York, A. D. 692,* and
founded the See of Utrecht, A. D. 697.t The Dutch, therefore, derived Christianity from the Anglo-Saxons, who did
not regard the mode of baptism as essential; and they copied
their translation of baptizo from the Mcso-Gothic, where
daupen could not signify immersion.  Besides, doop does not
signify immersion. Thus in the Rubric to the baptismal service, it is said; " Ie shall dip (' dompelen') the child in the
water;" or " pour water upon it," and shall say: " I baptize (doop) thee," &c.  Here is a distinction made between
dipping and baptizing;;   and, consequently, they can not
mean the same thing. The same may be said of the German "taufen," to baptize; and " eintunken," " eintauchen,"
to dip, to immerse.  In addition to this, we give the following
words in the Dutch, as tending to illustrate the same point:
doopen, "to baptize;" dooping, "washing;" dompelen, "to
word employed by the Saxons to denote baptism, was Cristnian, from
whence comes our word to christen, which denotes literally, to make a
Christian, according to the Scriptural use of the word. The Icelandic
Kristna, has the same signification.
* Bede, v. 11, 12. Alcuin. Vit. Will.
t Hist. Episc. Ultraj. p. 1, in Boss. Diss. Orig. Germ. Lang. p.
xciv.
t Het. Boek der Gewone Gebeden. See also, Vander Kemp. Catechismus, p. 516.
8*




90


*        REQUISITES OF BAPTISI.


dip, to cover with water, to dip in water;" dompeldoop, "to
baptize by immersion."*
These considerations prove most conclusively, to our minds,
that the mode of baptism was not regarded as important by
the early Christians, for had it been, it is perfectly incredible
that those who received Christianity, if not from the Apostles
themselves, from their immediate disciples, should make no
allusion to it, in the words employed to denote it.
CHAPTER X.
REQUISITES OF BAPTISM-CREEDS.
HAVING ascertained who were proper subjects of baptism,
and how it was to be administered, we shall inquire, What
was required of those who came to baptism? To this inquiry
the answer is obvious, in all parts of the New Testamentfaith and repentance. What were all the articles of faith
required by the Apostles, we are not told. But, in the case
of the Eunuch, it was required that he should profess his
faith in the Son of GOD. (Acts viii. 37.)
In the age next succeeding the Apostles, the articles 6f belief were embodied in what is called a Creed. Among the
Latin Fathers, it was called The Rule of Faith, (regula
fidei.)t It was called the Canon, or Rule of Faith, by the
Council of Antioch, about 265.4  In later writers it has still
other names.
* Nederduitsch, Wortel-Worden, and Kilian.
t Iren. i. 19. Tert. De Pres. c. 13. De Veland. Virg. c. i. Jerome,
Ep. 54. Ad Marcel.
t Euseb. vii. 30.




CREED OF IRENEUS.


91


This, Irenaeus says,* was an " unalterable Canon," which
"the Church, though it be dispersed over all the world, from
one end of the earth to the other, received from the Apostles, and their disciples."t  And Tertullian frequently mentions its being used at baptism.:: Several of the early
writers have given the substance of the creed, as it was in
their day. Some have erroneously supposed that these writers give the words of their creeds. But this they do not
profess to do. They merely give the sense, or substance of
it, in their own language; and generally, only so much of it
as is pertinent to the particular subject under consideration.
The following are some of the earliest accounts of it.
Substance of the Creed, as given by Irenweus, A. D. 175:~
"The Church, though it be dispersed over all the world
from one end of the earth to the other, received from the
Apostles and their disciples, the belief in one GOD the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and sea, and all
things in them: and in one CHRIST JESUS, the Son of God,
who was incarnate for our salvation: and in the HOLY GHOST,
who preached by the prophets the dispensations of GOD: and
the advent, and nativity of a virgin, and passion, resurrection from the dead, and bodily ascension of the flesh of his
beloved Son, CHRIST JESUS our Lord, into heaven; and his
coming again from heaven in the glory of the Father, to
consummate all things, and raise the flesh of all mankind:
that, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in the earth, and
things under the earth, to JESUS CHRIST, our Lord, and GoD,
and Saviour, and King; and that every tongue should confess him; and that He shall exercise just judgment upon all,
and send spiritual wickedness, the transgressing and apostate


* Adv. Her. i. 1.                           t i. 2.
t See De Bap. c. 6; De Prees. c. 13, 14, 21, 27.


~ L. i. c. 2.




92        CREED OF TERTULLIAN-OF ORIGEN.


angels, with all ungodly, unrighteous, and blaspheming men,
into everlasting fire; but grant life to all righteous and holy
men, that keep his commandments and persevere in his
love, some from the beginning, others after repentance, on
whom he confers immortality, and invests them with eternal
glory."
Substance of the Creed, as given by Tertullian, about 195:*
There is," says he, " one rule of faith only which admits
of no change or alteration, that teaches us to believe in one
GOD ALMIGHTY, the Maker of the world; and in JESUS CHRIST,
his Son, who was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under
Pontius Pilate, the third day arose again from the dead, received into heaven; he sitteth now at the right hand of GOD,
who shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead,
by the resurrection of the flesh."
In his book De Prcescriptis, and also in that against Praxeas, he has other forms substantially the same, with the addition of the doctrine of the procession of the HOLY GHOST,
the Sanctifier and Comforter.t
Substance of the Creed, as given by Origen, about A. D.
230: " The things," says he, " which are manifestly handed down by Apostolical teaching, are these: First, That
there is one GOD, who created and made all things, and
caused the whole universe to exist out of nothing; the GOD
of all the just that ever were from the first creation and
foundation of all; the GOD of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos,
Enoch, Noe, Sem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets; and that this GOD, in the
last days, as he had promised before by his Prophets, sent
our LORD JESUS CHRIST, first to call Israel, and then the Gen

* De Veland. Virg. c. 1. Adv. Prax. c. 2.   t C. 13, Prax. c. 2.
t Peri Archon, in Pref. Tom. i. p. 665, in Bing. Ant. Ecc. B. x.
c. 4, ~ 2.




CREED OF CYPRIAN-OF GREGORY.


93


tiles, after the infidelity of his people Israel. This just and
good GOD, the Father of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, gave both
the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospels, being the GOD
of the Apostles, and of the Old and New Testament." The
next article is, " That JESUS CHRIST, who came into the world,
was begotten of the Father before every creature, who ministered to his Father in the creation of all things, (for by him
all things were made,) in the last times made himself of no
reputation and became man; he who was GOD, was made
flesh, and when he was man, he continued the same GOD
that he was before. He assumed a body in all things like
ours, save only that it was born of a virgin by the HOLY
GHOST. And because this JESUS CHRIST was born and suffered
death common to all, in truth, and not only in appearance,
he was truly dead; for he rose again truly from the dead,
and after his resurrection conversed with his disciples, and'
was taken up into heaven. They also delivered unto us,
that the HOLY GHOST was joined in the same honor and dignity with the Father and the Son."
In another place he gives it more briefly, thus:* "1 believe there is one GOD, the Creator and Maker of all things;
and one that is from him GOD the word, who is consubstantial
with him, and co-eternal, who in the last times took human
nature upon him of [the Virgin] Mary, and was crucified,
and raised again from the dead. I believe also the HOLY
GHOST, who exists from all eternity."
The substance of the Creed, is given by Cyprian, about
A. D. 250, in which he enumerates all the articles included
in the foregoing, but in the form of questions.t
Substance of the Creed, as far as it relates to the Holy
Trinity, as given by Gregory Thaumaturgus, about A. D.
* Cont. Marc. Dial. i. Tom. 2, 815.
t Ep. 69, 70, 76.




94


CREED OF LUCIAN, THE MARTYR.


270.*  " There is one GOD, the Father of the living Word,
the subsisting wisdom and power, the eternal express image
of GOD, who is a Perfect begetter of a Perfect, a Father of an
only begotten Son. And one LORD, one of one, GOD of GOD,
the character and image of the Godhead, the word of power,
the wisdom that comprehends the whole system of the world,
the power that made every creature.  The true Son of the
true Father, invisible of invisible, incorruptible of incorruptible, immortal of immortal, eternal of eternal. And one HOLY
GHOST, who has his existence from GOD, who was manifested
to men by the Son, the perfect image of the perfect Son, the
living cause of all living, the fountain of holiness, essential
sanctity, who is the author of holiness in others. In whom
GOD the Father is manifested, who is above all and in all,
and GOD the Son, whose power runs through all things. A
perfect Trinity, whose glory, eternity, and dominion is no way
divided or separated from each other. In this Trinity, therefore, there is nothing'created or servile, nothing adventitious
or extraneous, that did not exist before, but afterward came
into it. The Father was never without the Son, nor the Son
without the Spirit, but the Trinity abides the same, unchangeable and invariable forever."
Substance of the Creed, as given by Lucian the Martyr,
about A. D. 280.t  " We believe, according to the tradition of the Gospels, and Apostles, in one GOD, the Father,
Almighty, Creator, and Maker, and Governor of all things,
of whom are all things: and in one LORD JESUS CHRIST,
his only begotten Son, who is GOD, by whom are all
things, who was begotten of the Father, GOD of GOD,
Whole of Whole, One of One, Perfect of Perfect, King
of King, Lord of Lord, the Word, the Wisdom, the Life,
* Greg. Thaum. 42.
t Athan. De Synod. Armin. et Seleuc. i. 869-929. Socr. Ecc. His. ii. 10.




CREED OF JERUSALEM.


95


the true Light, the true Way, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate, the incommutable and unchangeable image
of the divine essence, power and glory, the first-born of
every creature, who was always from the beginning, GOD,
the Word with GOD, according to what is said in the Gospel; 'and the Word was GOD,' by whom all things were
made and in whom all things subsist, who in the last days
descended from on high, and was born of a virgin according to the Scriptures, and being the Lamb of God, he. was
made the Mediator between GOD and man, being foreordained to be the author of our faith and life: for he said,
'I came not fiom heaven to do my own will, but the will of
him that sent me.' Who suffered and rose again for us the
third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to
judge the quick and the dead. And we believe in the HOLY
GHOST, which is given to believers for their consolation, and
sanctification, and consummation, according to what our
LORD JESUS CHRIST appointed his disciples, saying, 'Go,
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.' Whence the properties of the Father are manifest, denoting him to be truly
a father, and the properties of the Son, denoting him to be
truly a Son, and the properties of the Holy Spirit, denoting
him to be truly the HoLY GHOST: these names not being
simply put and to no purpose, but to express the particular
subsistence, or hypostatic substance, of each person named,
so as to denote them to be three in hypostasis, and one by
consent."
Creed of the Church of Jerusalem, A. D. 300.*  " I believe
in one GOD, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one
* Cyril. Cat. 6, 77.




96         CREED OF ALEXANDRIA-OF ANTIOCH.


LORD JESUS CHRIST, the only begotten Son of GOD, begotten
of the Father before all ages, the true GOD, by whom all
things were made, who was incarnate and made man, who
was crucified and buried, and the third day he rose again
from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the
right hand of the Father, and shall come to judge the quick
and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in
the HOLY GHOST, the Comforter, who spake by the Prophets.
In one baptism of repentance, in the remission of sins, in one
Catholic Church, in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the
life everlasting."
Creed of the Church of Alexandria, about the same time.*
"We believe in one GOD, the Father Almighty, and in
JESUS CHRIST his Son, our Lord, GOD the Word begotten of
Him before all ages; by whom all things were made, that
are in heaven and in earth; who came down from heaven,
and was incarnate, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and shall come again to judge the
quick and the dead. And in the HOLY GHOST,.and in the
resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the world to
come, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in one Catholic
Church of GOD, extended from one end of the earth to the
other."
Creed of the Church of Antioch, about the same time."I believe in one only true GOD, the Father Almighty,
Maker of all creatures visible and invisible; and in JESUS
CHRIST our Lord, his only begotten Son, the first born of
every creature, born of Him before all ages, and not made,
very God of very God, [consubstantial] with the Father; by
whom the world was framed and all things made; who for
our sakes came, and was born of the Virgin Mary, and was
crucified under Pontius Pilate, was buried, and the third day
*   ~ S.i.2.1Cs.DIna. L.iv


* Soc. i. 26.


t Cass. De Incar. L. iv.




CREED OF ANTIOCH.


97


rose according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead."
We have given these several Creeds, to show how general
they were, and also to show what was the faith of the primitive Church, on some of the most important doctrines of the
gospel.  The first, however, are to be regarded rather as the
substance of the Creeds, than as the Creeds themselves.
From this collection of primitive Creeds, it will be seen,
that those who came to baptism, were required to profess
their faith in all the great fundamental doctrines of the gospel; especially in the following: In one GOD, the Father
Almighty, the Creator of all things. In JESUS CHRIST, begotten of the Father before all ages; in his nativity, passion,
burial, resurrection, ascension, and future coming to judgment. In the HoLY GHOST, the Sanctifier and Comforter.
That this Trinity of persons constitutes one only GOD, the
same in substance, and all equally eternal. In one baptism,
one Catholic Church, the resurrection of the dead, and a
future judgment.
The candidate was also required to make a public and
formal renunciation of the devil and all his works, of the
-pomps and vanities of the world, and of all of the lusts of the
flesh;* to give his consent to the Creedt when water was
applied three times,-in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the HOLY GHOST,: some person standing sureties
or sponsors for them.~ In some Churches the newly baptized person was given a mixture of honey and milk, in token
of his spiritual infancy.ll After this, it was deemed impro* Tert. De Cor. cc. 3, 13. De Icedol. c. 6, De Spect. c. 4.
t Tert. De Cor. c. 3.
t Tert. De Cor. c. 3, Apos. Can. 42.
~ Tert. De Cor. c. 3.
11 Tert. De Cor. 3, Clem. Alex. Pred. i. 6, Jerom. Adv. Lucif. c. 8.
Cone. III. Carth. Can. 24.
9




98


CREED OF ANTIOCH.


per for them to strive after the honors or offices of the world,
or to seek its praises and glories,* to attend the circus, the
theatre, the gladiatorial camp, or the wrestling gallery.t
Nor were the baptized permitted to engage in any trade or
occupation which ministered directly or indirectly to the
practice of idolatry, by making idols, or assisting in the
erection of idol temples, or in the adornings for either, or
any other business, whereby GOD was dishonored.:
Having ascertained who composed the Apostolic Church,
we proceed to inquire, who were communicants in that Church?
We answer, only those who had received, or were desirous
of receiving the rite of Confirmation. By Confirmation, we
mean a rite which existed in the Apostolic Church, sometimes called " receiving the Holy Ghost," at others, " Confirmation," and at others, " the doctrine of the laying on of
hands," and which consisted in the laying on of an Apostle's
hands upon those who had been baptized, accompanied by a
public profession of the faith of the person confirmed. As
the examination of this point belongs properly to the "power
and duties of an Apostle," we shall only remark here, that
if we find this rite existing in the various Churches, it was
the duty of those who had received baptism, to receive this
also, for we are not at liberty to suppose that the Apostles
established any thing unmeaning or unnecessary.


* Tert. De Cor. c. 13.
t Tert. de Spect. cc. 6-8.


t Tert. Apol. c. 38.




POWERS AND DUTIES OF CHURCH MEMBERS.


99


CHAPTER XI.
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH.
1. IT was their duty to assemble on the first day of the
week, for the purpose of public worship, religious instruction, and the celebration of the Eucharist. This is manifest
from  the Apostolic history.  Thus, they were assembled,
" with one accord, in one place, when they received the
HOLY GHOST."   (Acts ii. 1, 4; iv. 31.)  And this, as one
may see, by reference to the Jewish festivals, was on the
first day of the week. So at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas
" assembled with the Church, for the space of a year," (Acts
xi. 26;) and Paul commands the Hebrews not to "forsake
the assembling of themselves together."  (Heb. x. 25.)
That this assembling was on the first day of the week, we
learn from the same source. St. Paul, in one of his journeys
through the cities of Asia, "stopped at Troas seven days.
And on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached." (Acts xx. 6, 7.)
That this assembling of the Church at Troas was no extraordinary or unusual meeting, but the common and ordinary
one, appears from the language, " on the first day of the
week, when the disciples came together to break bread;" that
is, to partake of the Lord's Supper. (Acts ii. 42;* 1 Cor.
x. 16, 17; xi. 23.) Besides, the fact that it is not said to
be an unusual or extraordinary thing, is conclusive evidence
that it was usual and customary.
To the same effect is the command of St. Paul, to the


* The Peshito, or Old Syriac Version, made at the close of the first,
or beginning of the second century, renders this passage, " breaking of
the Eucharist," as also Acts xx. 7, quoted below.




PRIMITIVE WORSHIP WITH A LITURGY.


Church at Corinth: " On the first day of the week, let every
one of you 'lay up in store,'* as GOD hath prospered him;
that there be no gatherings when I come." (1 Cor. xvi. 2.)
" That there be no gatherings when I come," implies that
there should be a gathering before he came; that is, when
the alms were laid by in the treasury, or, on the first day of
the week.
The same account alludes to the object of this assembling.
At Troas, " the disciples came together on the first day of the
week to break bread, and Paul preached unto them." (Acts
xx. 7.) At Antioch, also, Paul and Barnabas, when " assembled with the Church, taught the people," (Acts xi. 26,) things
suitable only for public assemblies, and belonging mainly to
religious worship.  In the absence of every thing opposed to
the conclusion, we may affirm, that these direct references
prove, that the members of the Apostolic Church assembled
on the first day of the week, for public worship, religious instruction, and celebrating the Lord's Supper; and hence, that
it was their duty to do so.
Such, too, was the practice of the Church in the age next
succeeding the Apostles. Pliny, Governor of Bithynia, A. D.
110, tells the Roman Emperor,t that the Christians "met on
a certain stated day," for religious worship. This day, Ignatius, A. D. 107, calls "the LORD'S day,": the name by
which it is designated by St. John. (Rev. i. 10.) It is called
by Justin Martyr, "Sunday," because it is the first day, in
which "GoD changed darkness and matter, and made the
world."  On "the same day, also, JESUS CHRIST rose from
the dead,"~ on which day "they assemble for public worship."11 The same thing is noticed by Tertullian, A. D.
185,~ and by numerous subsequent writers.


* Rob. 374.     t Ep. L. x. Ep. 97.
~ Apol. i. 89.  11 C. 87.


t Ep. Mag. c. 9.
~ De Cor. Mil. c. 3, etc.




SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE OF LITURGIES.


101


2. When assembled, all were to take part in the services,
according to some order or form which was made use of in
the Church. The Colossians were directed "to teach and
admonish one another," or, as Professor Robinson renders
it, one to another,* "in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs." (Col. iii. 16.) This "teaching and exhorting one
to another," could only be performed when assembled together; and if when assembled, must have been done according to some form or order previously established or
agreed upon, or be productive of disorder and confusion.
That it was not to be done according to every man's fancy,
but agreeably to some established system, is a necessary inference from the censure cast upon the Corinthians for irregularities in this particular, as also from the language
made use of by the Apostle in condemning those practices.
"How is it, brethren," saith he, " when ye come together,
every one of you hath a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, or an interpretation? GOD is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the Churches of the saints.
Let all things be done decently, and in order." (1 Cor. xiv.
26, 33, 40, xlcra cra.iv, " according to arrangement, disposition,
or series.")t The existence of a series, or an order, implies
pre-arrangement, and the language in this case, like the one
put in chapter second, is intelligible only by supposing the
existence of some form, previously established, to which reference is here made.
The Ephesians, also, were directed to be " filled with the
spirit; speaking among themselves," or, as Robinson says,
" one to another,t in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs."
(Eph. v. 18, 19.) These "psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs," were of necessity precomposed forms, and the persons using them "spoke and exhorted one to another, ac' Rob. 215.     t Rob. 420, 806.   \ Rob. 470 and 215
9*




o10


SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE OF LITURGIES.


cording to [some] arrangement, disposition, or series." Now
the only " arrangement or series," by which public worship
could be carried on by the whole assembly, without producing "confusion in the Churches," is, that one or more
should speak, and the rest reply by way of response. This,
however, applies only to those portions of worship, which
were conducted by means of "psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs;" for, in praying and giving thanks, the speakers were directed to use "words easy to be understood,"
(1 Cor. xiv. 9-15;) or else how, saith the Apostle, "shall
he that is unlearned,* say AMEN?" (v. 16.) This allusion
to the practice of responding Amen to the prayers of the
speaker, is the only thing on the subject in all the New
Testament, and is, therefore, precisely parallel to the supposed case of "beating the revellie," before put; and for
reasons there given, compels us to believe it was the custom
in the Apostolic Church for the people to respond, Amen, to
the prayer of the speaker. Justin Martyr, A. D. 150, says
that this was then the universal practice in the Church.t
Should there be any doubt whether the Apostle, in writing
to the Ephesians and Colossians, referred to public worship,
it will vanish at once, if a comparison is instituted between
that, and the account in Corinthians.  In Ephesians and
Colossians, the argument is -not only similar, but the language is also the same. To the Colossians, he says: "Teach
and exhort, one to another, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
And whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name
of the LORD JESUS, giving thanks to GOD, and the Father by
him. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,
as it is fit in the LORD." (Col. iii. 17, 18.)
To the Ephesians, he says: "Speaking one to another, in


~ Rob. 52.


t Apol. i. 87.




SCRIPTURE EVIDENCE OF LITURGIES.


103


psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, and ('a0'XXovTss)
chanting,* in your hearts to the LORD; giving thanks always
for all things unto GOD and the Father, in the name of our
LORD JESUS CHRIST. Wives, submit yourselves unto your
own husbands, as unto the LORD." (Eph. v. 19, 22.)
In Corinthians, the argument is parallel, and the language
very similar; and here the Apostle speaks expressly of public worship.  "How is it, then, brethren? when ye come
together, [in the Church,] (vv. 23, 28, 34,) every one hath a
psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation.t
Let all things be done unto edifying. Let your women
keep silence in the Churches, for they are commanded to be
under obedience, as also saith the law; and if they will
learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home."
(1 Cor. xiv. 26, 34, 35.)
In all three Epistles the argument is the same, saving that
in the two first, the language is that of direction, in the last,
of censure;-the mode of conducting it the same, and the
language similar; and, as one refers expressly to public
worship, the only reasonable inference is, that the others relate to the same thing.t  These passages, therefore, in the
absence of all contradiction, prove the use of precomposed
forms in the Apostolic Church; and they refer directly to the
practice of responsive worship. And from the nature of the
evidence by which these questions are to be decided, this is
as much as we have a right to expect.
That much, if not all, of the public worship of the Primi* Rob. 904.
t St. Cyprian passes sentence of condemnation upon those "who
dare to build another altar, and to offer another prayer with unlicensed
words." Unit. Ecc. c. 14.
t Compare Paley's Horwe Pauline:, on this mode of analysis, and
also on the synchronism of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Coloseians.




104


PRIMITIVE EVIDENCE OF LITURGIES.


tive Church, was by way of response, is proved by the
earliest writers. Clement, of Rome, about A. D. 83, says:*
" We ought to take heed, that looking into the depths of divine knowledge, we do all things in order,t whatsoever our
LORD hath commanded us to do. That we perform our
offerings and services [i. e. the offering of the Holy Communion and public worship] to GOD, at their appointed seasons; for these he hath commanded to be done, not rashly
and disorderly, but at certain determinate times and hours."
So the Roman Governor, Pliny, A. D. 110, informs us,
that the Christians " met on a certain stated day, and sung by
turns, (invicem,) a hymn to CHRIST, as GoD."t  Tertullian
often mentions forms of prayer, and expressly attributes them
to CHRIST. That the public worship of the Synagogue was
by a form of prayer, is so well known, that it is needless to
spend time in proof of it. Hence Tertullian says: "Our
LORD JESUS CHRIST gave his disciples of the New Testament, a new form of prayer."~  He also speaks of " the appointed prayer," and " the ordinary prayer."[[ And CyprianIT
says: "Christ (lid himself give a form of prayer, and himself
advise and instruct us, what we ought to pray for." He also
mentions the "Sursum Corda," or, Lift up your hearts, as used
in the Communion Service to this day.**
Concerning the order of worship in the Church, in the second century, but very little has been preserved. We gather,
however, from that, especially from a letter of Pliny, A. D.
110, and the Apology of Justin Martyr, A. D. 150, compared
with the New Testament and subsequent writers, that it was
nearly as follows: The ancient service consisted of two
parts-that which was common to all, and is now called the
* Ep. Cor. c. 40.      t Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 40.
Plin. Ep. L. x. Ep. 97.  ~ De Orat. c. 1.  DI De Orat. c. 9.
T On Lord's Prayer, c. 1.                ** Ibid. 20.




ORDER OF WORSHIP IN THE SECOND CENTURY.


105


Ante-Communion Service, and that used in the administration
of the Communion.
Order of the Ante-Communion Service.
1. A responsive psalm or hymn, addressed to CHRIST, as
GOD.*   This was also the practice in the time of Jerome,t
though in some places they read the Old Testament first.:
2. Reading of the Scriptures, of the Old and New Testataments,~ intermingled, as we know, a while after, with the
reading or singing of psalms.11
3. The sermon,~ which was generally delivered sitting.**
4. Next, prayers by the minister, and to each petition the
people responded, Amen.tt  A while later, the people also
responded, Kyrie eleison, " Lord have mercy on us," to the
shorter petitions.T
Order of the Communion Service.
1. The kiss of peace.~~
2. [A. D. 330.  The Sursum Corda followed, though not
mentioned in Justin's brief account. Minister.-" Lift up
your hearts."  People.-" We lift them up unto the Lord."1]1'
This is mentioned by Cyprian,~~ Chrysostom,*** and Augustine.]ttt
3. [The hymn Tersanctus, or, as it is sometimes called,
the Trisagion, " Holy, holy, holy, LORD GOD of Sabaoth,
heaven and earth are full of thy glory," though not expressly mentioned by Justin, was used in Cyril's time,
330.]tt
* Plin. B. x. Ep. 97.     t Ep. 22, Ad Eustach. c. 15.
t Apos. Cons. ii. 57, v. 19.  ~ Jus. Apol. i. 87.
11 Aug. Serm. 10, Horn. 33; Counc. Laod. Can. 17.
V Jus. Apol. i. 87.'      ** Bing. B. xiv. c. 4, ~ 24.
tt Jus. Apol. i. 87.      tt Apos. Cons. viii. 5, 6.
f Jus. Apol. i. 85.       1111 Cyril, Cat. Myst. v. 4.
~~ Orat. Dom. c. 20.      *** Horn. De Euchar.
ttt Horn. 83, De Divers.  t1t Myst. v. 5.




106    ORDER OF WORSHIP IN THE SECOND CENTURY.


4. The commemoration of our LORD'S words, in consecrating the elements.*
5. The oblation, or offering.t
6. Prayers, [including the LORD'S prayer,] the people responding, Amen.f
7. Breaking of bread, and distribution of the elements, by
the Deacons.~
8. The Communion.ll
9. Collection of the alms of the Church.~
These are the more important parts of the early public
worship, but there were, no doubt, some particulars that
have not come down to us.
There are presumptions of the strongest kind, arising from
other sources, that the public worship of the primitive Church
was by means of a Liturgy. If we examine the most important of the present Liturgies, and trace them back to their
sources, we shall find four ancient Liturgies, bearing the
names of St. Peter, St. James, St. John, and St. Mark; to
one of which every Liturgy in all the Churches in the world
can be traced; and there does not now exist, and never has
existed, more than four independent forms of Liturgies; and
these four resemble each other too much, to have grown up
independently, and too little, to have been copied from each
other. We shall consider each of these as briefly as can be
consistently done.
Liturgy of Jerusalem, or St. James, called also the Liturgy
of Antioch.-The Patriarchate of Antioch originally included
that of Jerusalem, and comprised the countries of Judea,
Mesopotamia, Syria, and some of the provinces of Asia Minor. The Liturgy which prevailed in these countries is de* Jus. Apol. i. 85, 86, 87.  t Ib. 85, 86, 87.
t Pal. Orig. Lit. I. pp. 15-45.  ~ Jus. Apol. i. 85, 86, 87.
11 Ib.                       l Ib.




LITURGY OF ST. JAMES.


107


serving of particular attention, for several reasons: (1,) because the Church of Jerusalem was the Mother-Church of
Christendom,* and the faithful first received the title of Christians at Antioch, (Acts xi. 26;) (2,) because the Liturgy
there used prevailed over a large extent of country; and
(3,) because we have more ancient and numerous notices of
this Liturgy in the writings of the Fathers, than of any other.
This Patriarchate has for a long time been chiefly inhabited by two denominations of Christians, the Melchites or
Orthodox, who hold the true faith concerning the divine and
human nature of CHRIST; and the Monophysites or Jacobites,
who hold that the human nature of CHRIST is entirely absorbed in the divine, and made one with it.  This error was
condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and a
separation between the parties took place at that time. They
have held no communion with each other since. The orthodox of this Patriarchate have long used a Liturgy called
the Liturgy of St. James, because they believe him to have
been the original composer of it.t  The Syrian Monophysites also use a Liturgy which they call that of St. James,
and which they say was composed by him.t  These Liturgies now teach the doctrines held by the respective parties;
yet, they agree in the order of the parts, in the rites by which
they are accompanied, and the general nature of the ideas in
those parts where there is no difference of doctrine: so that
whoever compares the two will be surprised at their minute
agreement in sentiments and expressions, when he recollects
that near fourteen centuries have elapsed since the separation took place.~  The Liturgy of St. James, therefore, must
be older than the Council of Chalcedon, 451, and was then
held in such estimation, as coming down from  Apostolic
* Gies. Ecc. Hist. c. 2, ~ 29.  t Palm. Orig. Lit. I. ~ 1.
t Ibid.                         ~ Orig. Lit. I. p. ~ 1.




108


LITURGY OF ANTIOCH.


days, that on a separation in the Church, each party retained
both the title and substance of the same Liturgy.  This
Liturgy still continues to be used by the Monophysites, but
has been supplanted, among the orthodox, by that of Constantinople, except on the festival of St. James, when the Liturgy
bearing his name is used.
The allusions to this Liturgy are frequent among the
Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. It is particularly
described, or evidently alluded to, by Theodoret, Bishop of
Cyrus,* by Jerome,t by Chrysostom, afterwards Bishop and
Patriarch of Constantinople,: Ephrem of Syria,~ and Cyril,
Bishop of Jerusalem. In a work of the last, written between
330 and 340, he describes the Liturgy which was celebrated
after the dismissal of the Catechumens with a minuteness
which proves its identity with the Liturgy of St. James.l
These writers living in different parts of the Patriarchate of
Antioch, agree in describing a Liturgy essentially the same,
and which was called the Liturgy of St. James, before the
Council of Chalcedon, 451, being the same then, as 120 years
before, or A. D. 330. If from this time we ascend to A. D.
150, and compare the account given by Justin Martyr, of the
order of worship in the Syrian Churches in his day, with the
Liturgy of St. James, we shall find that as far as he goes,
he agrees with the order of the Liturgy which we know was
used in the same place 150 years after.f~ There is, therefore, every reason to believe, that the Liturgy of St. James
has come down from the most primitive times; not, indeed,
precisely as we now have it, since the origin of many things
contained in it can be shown; but much of the substance of




* Ep. (Econ.                              t Adv. Pelag.
Horn. vii., ix., xviii., xxviii., lxxii. Ep. Ad. Cor.
~ De Sacerdot.                           11 Cyr. Op. 296-300
' Apol. i. p. 96, 7. Ed. Thir. Dial. Tryp. p. 386.




LITURGY OF CAESAREA.


109


it, in the same order in which it now occurs, is certainly as
old as the second, and probably as old as the first century.
Liturgy of Ccesarea, or St. Basil.-The Exarchate, or
Patriarchate of Caesarea, extended from the Hellespont to the
Euphrates, and with the exception of Proconsular Asia,
Phrygia, and a few maritime provinces, included the whole
of Asia Minor. Cuesarea, in Cappadocia, was the metropolis
of this country, and corresponded to the civil diocese of Pontus. Basil, surnamed "the Great," was consecrated Bishop
of this city, A. D. 370. The unanimous voice of antiquity
ascribes to him the composition or enlargement of a Liturgy;
and one bearing his name, has long been used in Asia Minor.
The existence of a Liturgy, bearing the name of Basil, is
testified to by Charles the Bold, in the ninth century;* by
the Council of Constantinople, 691;t by Leontius, of Byzantium, 590;4 by Peter, the Deacon, 520,~ and by Gregory
Nazianzen, the cotemporary and intimate friend of St. Basil;ll
and after a lapse of near 1500 years, this same Liturgy,
without any substantial variation, is used from the northern
shore of Russia, to the extremities of Abyssinia, and from the
Adriatic and Baltic seas, to the furthest shore of Asia.~ In
many respects, this is the most valuable Liturgy extant, as
we can trace back most of the words and expressions contained
in it, to about the year 370.
It becomes, therefore, an interesting inquiry-to what extent was Basil the composer of this Liturgy? That it was
more than merely reducing to writing a Liturgy previously
in use, is evident; but that it extended to the composition of
an entirely new one, is improbable; and if not improbable,
is contradicted by the writers of that age. Indeed, he in

* Imp. Ep. Ad. Cler. v.      t Can. 32.       t Adv. Nestor. iii. 18.
~ De Incar. c. 8.                            11 Orat. 20., Orig. Lit. I. ~ 2. Bing. Ant. Ecc. i. c. 17, ~ 2, 9, 10.
10




LITURGY OF ST. BASIL.


forms us himself, that "the customs"' which he had ap.
pointed, were " consonant and agreeable to all the Churches
of GOD;"* whence it must be inferred that these customs had
been settled long before his day. Now if we compare the
Liturgy of St. Basil with that of St. James, in the fourth century, we shall find the order and substance of both exactly
the same.t Hence, the most reasonable conclusion is, that
the part performed by Basil, consisted only in enriching the
ancient formularies of Coesarea, by the addition of new fervor
and sublimity to their devotion, and greater beauty and correctness to their diction.t Hence, also, it is reasonable to
infer, that previous to the time of St. Basil, the Liturgy of
Caesarea was essentially the same as that of St. James.
Upon no other supposition can we account for their great
similarity. Antioch and Cmsarea were independent Patriarchates, covering extensive tracts of country; and as the
Bishops in both, not only possessed the authority to compose
new Liturgies, but also to change and modify old ones, the
Liturgies of the two countries would be unlikely to agree, unless they had been the same at the beginning. And if they
had been the same at the beginning, the Liturgy of St. Basil,
both in substance and order, has certainly existed from the
second, and probably from the first century. This Liturgy,
or one bearing the same name, still exists, and is used in
three languages, the Greek, Coptic, and Syriac. The oldest
* Ep. 207.                           t Orig. Lit. 1. 71.
It is uncertain whether the Liturgy of St. Basil had been reduced
to writing before his time, and he has been understood by some in one
place, (De Spir. Sanc. c. 27. Opp. T. III. p. 55,) to say as much.
But his language in that applies only to a small portion of the Liturgy,
and not to all, as the objector assumes, and it is doubtful whether he intended to say, as he has been understood, even of that small portion.
At any rate, it recognizes the existence of the very prayer alluded to,
previous to his own day.




LITURGY OF CONSTANTINOPLE.


111


manuscript of this Liturgy is supposed to be above 1180
years old, or to have been written before A. D. 660.*
Liturgy of Constantinople, or, Chrysostom.-The Church of
Byzantium, afterwards Constantinople, originally subject to
the Metropolitan of Heraclea, in the civil Diocese of Thrace,
was elevated to dignity and power by the Emperor Constantine, about the middle.of the fourth century; and the second
General Council held at Constantinople, A. D. 381, raised
the Bishop of that Church to the dignity and precedence of
the Second Metropolitan See. Subsequently, his jurisdiction
was extended over the whole of Thrace, Ephesus, and Cmesarea, and these were formally placed under him by the
Council of Chalcedon, 451. The whole of Greece, also, became subject to him, and remained under him, until the recent revolution in that country.
In the Churches of this Patriarchate, a Liturgy has long
been used, bearing the name of Chrysostom. At what period
it was introduced, we are not able to say, as there is very
little mention of it, before the tenth century. It was translated into Latin about 1180. In all the main features, the
Liturgy of St. Chrysostom agrees with that of St. Basil, the
former expanding and carrying out the ideas contained in the
latter. The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, therefore, appears to
be nothing more than an expansion of that of St. Basil, and
in all its important features-in its substance and order-must
be equally ancient with that and the Liturgy of St. James.t
These Liturgies, taken together, may justly be called the
GREAT ORIENTAL LITURGY; one recension of which, in the
fourth century, prevailed from Arabia to Cappadocia, and
from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, and which may be
traced back nearly or quite to the Apostolic age,-another,
at the same time prevailing throughout nearly all Asia Minor,


* Orig. Lit. I. ~ 2.


t Orig. Lit. I. ~ 3.




112


LITURGY OF ALEXANDRIA.


having existed there from time immemorial; and the third,
at the same time, with the same antiquity, prevailing in
Greece and Macedonia. When, therefore, we reflect on the
vast extent of these countries, the independence of the
Churches existing there, the power possessed and exercised
by each Bishop, of improving the Liturgy of his own Church;
the circumstantial varieties, but substantial agreement of all;
it seems difficult, if not impossible, to account for this identity
and uniformity in any other manner, than by supposing that
the Apostles themselves originated the order and substance
of the Oriental Liturgy, and communicated it to all those
Churches at their very foundation.  The uniformity of these
Liturgies, as extant in the fourth and fifth centuries, bespeak
a common origin; while their diversity is such as to prove
the remoteness of the period at which they were originated.
To what remote period, then, can we refer, as exhibiting a
general uniformity of Liturgy, except to the Apostolic age?
And why not to that age, since we have proved the existence
of such a Liturgy in the time of Justin Martyr, who was removed but a single link from the Apostles?
Liturgy of Alexandria, or St. Mark.-The patriarchate
of Alexandria, where Christianity was first planted by St.
Mark,* has been in possession of the Monophysites, or Jacobites, eleven hundred years. The Jacobites took their rise
in the fifth century, and soon became numerous in Egypt.
But, owing to the favor of the Emperors, the Orthodox kept
possession of the See until the invasion of the Mohammedans,
in the seventh century. From that period to the present,
the Monophysites have possessed nearly all the Churches
in Egypt, the Orthodox being but a small minority. The
Egyptian Monophysites use three Liturgies, written in the
ancient Coptic language, all of which prevailed in Egypt at,
* Euseb. Ecc. His. ii. 16.




LITURGY OF ST. MARK.


113


and probably before, the time of the Mohammedan invasion.
They are called the Liturgies of St. Basil, of Gregory Nazianzen, and of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. They do
not appear, however, to have been originally written in Coptic, but to have been translated from the Greek, as appears
from the occurrence of Greek phrases in the Coptic Litur.
gies, now extant, and by the existence of ancient Greek
manuscripts of those Liturgies.*
The precise time when the Coptic language began to be
used in the celebration of divine worship, is not known,
though it must have been at an early period, as we read of
Egyptian clergy in the fourth century, who could read no
language but their own, and yet, who read the Scriptures
daily, and celebrated divine service.t  Now it appears from
a comparison of the Liturgies of St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, that they were introduced, as they profess to have
been, from Cappadocia, or the surrounding dioceses. But
the Liturgy of Cyril does not seem to have come from any
foreign Church. Some of the Alexandrian historians call it
" The Liturgy of St. Mark, which Cyril perfected;"t and it is
clear that the Liturgies of Cyril, and that of St. Mark, used
by the Orthodox, as they now exist, had a common origin,
or one was borrowed from the other. There is reason to
believe, that both have proceeded from the ancient Liturgy
of the Egyptian Church, used before the Council of Chalcedon, 451. On no other supposition can we account for the
fact, that these two Liturgies, professing to have come from
the same source-used by two bodies of men holding no
communion with each other since that time-should agree
with each other both in substance and order, and yet differ
from the Liturgies of all other Churches in the world, except
* Orig. Lit. I. ~ 4.   t Hug. Intd. N. T. Par. I. viii. ~ 91
t Renaud. Tom. I, p. 171.
10*




114


LITURGY OF ALEXANDRIA.


the Ethiopian. The chief difference between the Liturgy
of St. Mark and that of Cyril, is confined to the introduction, and to differences of doctrine. The Ethiopian Liturgy
was evidently borrowed from Alexandria, from whence the
first missionaries were sent to the former country, about
A. D. 330; and was clearly copied from that of St. Mark.*
Yet it has so many things unlike the others, that it must
have been compiled at an early period. Indeed, it is hardly
possible there should have been much, if any, copying of
Liturgies after the schisms which occurred in the fifth century.
It is not certain at what time the Liturgy of St. Mark was
composed.    Some believe it was composed by St. Mark
himself; but, because it contains some things of a later
date, and some which the Evangelist could not have written,
* Soc. Ecc. His. i. 19. Soz. Ecc. His. ii. 24. Theod. Ecc. His. i. 23.
The whole of the calendar of the Ethiopian Church, by which all its
services were regulated, was copied from the peculiar calendar of the
Egyptians, as will be seen by the following comparison.
Fixed year of Egyptians.  Ethiopian year.  Begins.  Length.
1 Thoth,         Maskarram,      Aug. 29,    30.
2 Paophi,        Tekemt,         Sept. 28,    30.
3 Athor,         Hedar,          Oct. 28,     30.
4 Choiak,        Tahsas,         Nov. 27,     30.
5 Tobi,          Ter,            Dec. 27,    30.
6 Mechir,        Yekatit,        Jan. 26,     30.
7 Phamenoth,     Magabit,        Feb   25,   30.
8 Pharmuthi,     Meaziah,        Mar. 27,    30.
9 Pachon,        Genbot,         April 26,   30
10 Paoni,         Sanne,          May 26,     30.
11 Epiphi,        Hamle,          June 25,    30.
12 Mesori,        Nahasse,        July 25,    30.
Epagomene,     Pagmen,                      5.
Every fourth year an additional day was intercalated. This calen.
dar of the "fixed year" was first adopted about twenty years before the
Christian era.




LITURGY OF EPHESUS.


115


others have supposed it all a forgery. This name is not
known to be older than the fourth century, but the substance
and order of the Liturgy must be much more ancient. If it
were not so, it is inconceivable why the Orthodox and Monophysites, who separated in 451, should both retain the
same Liturgy; or, why a Church, that was planted by missionaries from that Church 120 years before, should also
have the same Liturgy. We are, therefore, able to trace
the words of the Liturgy of St. Mark, to about 451, and the
order of it, to about 330, accompanied by the tradition, that
it had come down from the Apostles. Hence, the probability
is, that the order and substance of this Liturgy have come
down from the Apostles, and if so, it was originally derived
from the institutions of St. Mark, or composed by St. Mark
himself.
Liturgy of the Exarchate of Ephesus, or St. John.-The
Exarchate of Ephesus included the provinces of the Hellespont, Phrygia, Asia, Lycaonia, Pamphylia, and the maritime
cities included within that limit. The Exarch of Ephesus
was independent until 451, when by decree of the Council
of Chalcedon, it was made subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople. For a long time, the Liturgies of Basil and
Chrysostom have been used in this region; but there is reason to believe that another form was used there at an early
period. Some time in the fourth century, a Council was
held at Laodicea, composed of the bishops of this Exarchate.
One of the canons enacted by this Council, gives minute directions for the use of the Liturgy.* Such a canon would
not have been made without cause, and the only probable
supposition is, that the object of the canon was to change the
existing practice in reference to this subject. This canon
appoints an order, the same, or similar to that ever since
* Coun. Laod. can. 19.




116


THE GALLICAN LITURGY.


used in those Churches, that is, in conformity with the order
of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom. What the precise difference between the old Liturgy, and that introduced by the
Council of Laodicea, was, it is not easy to say. This much,
however, may be inferred, that they differed only where directions were given to alter it. We have no copy of the
Ephesian Liturgy before that Council, but we have one
which seems clearly to have been derived from it.
The Gallican Liturgy.-4-JIt has long been known, that the
ancient Liturgy of Gaul differed from that of Rome, though
the precise nature of the difference was unknown, until
some ancient monuments of that Liturgy were discovered in
the seventeenth century. The composition of this Liturgy,
either in whole or in part, has been ascribed to different individuals. Musueus, a Presbyter of Marseilles, who died
about the middle of the fifth century, is said to have composed a book of Sacraments, for Eustasius, Bishop of that
city.* Sidonius, Bishop of Auvergne, who died about A. D.
494, also composed a book of Sacraments.ti A preface was
written to this by Gregory, of Tours, in the sixth century.
Hilary, Bishop of Poicters, who died about 368, composed a
book of Sacraments and Hymns.: These, as far as can be
ascertained, were nothing more than modifications of an
older Liturgy. They seem to have constituted the Missal
of the Gallican Church, or the Liturgies adapted to the various feasts,_' That this was different from the Liturgy of
Rome, is evident from the questions proposed by Augustine,
after his arrival in Britain, to Gregory, Bishop of Rome.~
They remained in use in Gaul, until Pepin introduced the
Roman mode of chanting, and finally Charlemagne substituted the whole body of the Roman service. The introduc* Bona. Rer. Lit. I. 12.  t Greg. Turo. His. France, i. 22.
t Hieron. De Scrip. c. 100.  ~ Bd. i. 27.




THE GALLICAN LITURGY.


117


tion of this Liturgy was opposed by the Gallican clergy, as
they were unwilling to give up the use of a Liturgy which
they believed to be coeval with the introduction of Christianity into that country.
There are numerous reasons for supposing the Gallican
Liturgy to be of Eastern origin. Lyons was the oldest
Church in Gaul, and Irenaeus, consecrated Bishop of that
city, A. D. 176, was an Eastern man, and several of the
missionaries to that place were also from the East.* So,
also, Pothinus, the predecessor of Irenaeus, came from    the
East.t   Several of these, and Irenmus, the most prominent
of all, were the disciples of Polycarp, who was himself the
disciple of St. John. A community of interest and feeling
between the Churches of Gaul and Asia, is proved by the
fact, that at the time of the great persecution of 175, the
Churches of Lyons and Vienne wrote an account of their
sufferings to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, and to no
others.  It was, therefore, from    Asia that the Gallican
Church received her ecclesiastical rites and customs, which
early historians ascribe to St. John.:  And it is reasonable
* Iren. Adv. Haer. iii. 3. Ep. Ad. Flor.
t Greg. Tuor. i. 28, 29.
t Strong evidence of this is to be found in the fact, that the technical language of the Gallican Church came from Greece, and not
from Rome. Thus, the word Church, (from the Greek xvpLaKov,)
employed by the Gothic Churches-Old German, chirihh; German,
kirchc; Dutch, kerk; Scottish, kirk; Anglo-Saxon, circ, and cyric;
Icelandic, kyrkia; Swedish, kyrka; Danish, kirke; English, Church,
-is also found in the Slavonic languages: Russian, tserkov; Bohemian,
cyrkew; Lusatian, zirkwa; Dalmatian, czrikwa; Polish, cerkiew, denoting the Greek Church, and [kasciol, (Russian and Bohemian, kostel;)
denoting the Romish:]-could never have been derived from the Latin.
This word is certainly as old as the time of Ulphilas, A. D. 400, and
probably much older. In all places where this word prevails, the ecclesiastical rites must have come from the Greeks, and not from the Ro



118


THE GALLICAN LITURGY.


to infer, that, as the Liturgy of St. James contained the rites
and customs of the Churches over which St. James originally
exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and that of St. Mark,
the customs of the Churches planted by him; so the Liturgy
of Ephesus, from which the Gallican Liturgy was copied,
contained the rites and customs adopted by the Churches
over which St. John exercised a supervision. And as these
can all be traced up to a very early period, it is reasonable
to conclude, such rites and customs had their origin with the
Apostles themselves.
Tradition, from the earliest period, has always ascribed
the Gallican Liturgy to St. John. Thus an Irish writer of
the seventh century, says: that "John the Evangelist first
chanted the Gallican course, [i. e. Liturgy;] then afterwards
the blessed Polycarp, the disciple of St. John; then afterwards, thirdly, Irenueus, who was Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul,
chanted the same course in Gaul."* Now, though the tesmans, as they uniformly employed the Greek word Ecclesia. The
Portuguese igreja may have come from the same root, though generally derived from the Latin Ecclesia. It is the same word as the Hindostane giija, which we know is from this root, as that has also kulesa,
from Ecclesia.
The Goths copied very little, if any, of their ecclesiastical language
from the Romish Church, as we have already seen in regard to the word
Church, and the words employed to signify baptism.  So also, their
languages did not adopt either Eucharist from the Greek, nor Sacrament from the Latin, but used a word of their own to signify the same
thing. Thus, Moeso-Gothic, hunsle, (signifying both sacrifice and Eucharist;) A. S. husel; Icelandic, husl, hunsl; old English, housel;
which seems to be from the root hus, " to protect;" with reference to
the effect of a participation of this Sacrament.
So also Confirmation, was expressed in their own language, by the
verb "to be bishopped;" and Ordination or Consecration, by the word
"to be hallowed," or made sacred.
* Spel. Concil. I. 176.




LITURGY OF ST. PETER.


119


timony of this author is not conclusive evidence of the truth
of these facts, it is, as to what was then the universal belief respecting them.  This Liturgy always differed, both
from the Roman and Oriental, but approximated much nearer
the latter than the former.
Liturgy of Rome, or St. Peter.-It has been much debated, whether the Roman Liturgy can justly claim any
considerable antiquity. Some suppose it to have been composed by Gregory "the Great," about 590. Others think it
impossible at this day, to ascertain the text, even as it stood
at that time. The subject has been confused, by confounding the Missal, formerly called Sacramentary, with the Liturgy. It is perhaps impossible to ascertain the true text of
the Roman Missal, as it existed in any of the early centuries;
but this is not the case with the Liturgy. All the manuscripts
of this, give the same number of prayers, in the same order,
throughout the invariable part of the Liturgy, or, as it is
usually termed, the Canon. The only difference consists in
the introduction of short petitions, or the name of some person to be commemorated.
It has been said that this was composed by Gregory,* but
this can hardly be, as history gives a minute account of his
alterations and improvements. These consisted in collecting, arranging, abbreviating, and improving the collects and
prayers.  He introduced one petition into the Canon, and
joined the Lord's Prayer to it. These facts prove that Gregory was not the composer, but the compiler and improver
of the Roman Liturgy.t
Others suppose that this Liturgy was composed by Vigilius, who lived near fifty years before Gregory, about A. D
540.:  The reason for this, is the fact, that Gregory himself


Brett. Liturg. p. 331.
t Ep. Ad. Profotur.


t Orig. Liturg. I. ~ 6.




120


ROMAN LITURGY.


speaks of the Canon extant in his time, as having been corn
posed by a scholastic, or learned man, which some have understood to refer to Vigilius. But it is nowhere said that
Vigilius was this "scholastic," and besides, Vigilius says of
the Liturgy in his time, "that they had received it from
Apostolical tradition."  Whoever, therefore, was the "scholastic" referred to by Gregory, it is probable that he was no
otherwise the composer of this Liturgy, than Gregory was
the composer of the Sacramentary that bears his name; and
hence, that he only collected, arranged, and modified existing materials, supposed to have come down from the Apostolic age.
Still earlier than this, mention is made of a Liturgy of the
Church of Rome, and history informs us, that about 492.
Gelasius performed a work somewhat similar to that of Gregory. An ancient Sacramentary has also been discovered in
modern times, which is believed by learned men, to represent
the Roman Sacramentary, as it was in the time of Gelasius.
There is also a manuscript of the Roman Liturgy in existence, supposed to have been written before the time of Gelasius, or as early as 483. It is generally known by the
appellation of the Leonian Sacramentary, from an opinion
that it represents the offices of that Church in the time ot
Leo "the Great."   This author, who lived at the time of
the Council of Chalcedon, 451, is said to have added certain
passages to the Liturgy, whence it is evident that the remainder was in existence before his time. Besides, thete
are certain passages in his writings, which seem to have
been transcribed almost verbatim, into this Sacramentary.
In addition to this, Innocent, Bishop of Rome, about 410,
makes mention of the rites of that Church, and describes
them as having descended from St. Peter. Here the direct
evidence to the antiquity of the Romish Ritual ends. There
is, however, reason to believe, as many suppose, that the so



AFRICAN LITURGY.


121


called African Liturgy, which was used at Carthage and its
vicinity, was originally the same as the Roman, and that it
was probably copied from it.
African Liturgy.-The civil Diocese of Africa comprised
the Provinces of Proconsular Africa, Numidia, Tripoli, Byzancium, and the two Mauritanias.  At what time Christianity was first preached at Carthage, the chief city of this
portion of country, or by whom preached, is uncertain. It
is not improbable, however, when we recollect the situation
of Carthage, in reference to Rome, and the intercourse between the two countries after the death of Hannibal, B. C.
183, that the earliest missionaries to Carthage, should go from
Rome; and if so, they would of course carry the Roman
Liturgy with them. This supposition will account for the
fact, that the African Fathers, when professing to give an
account of their own rites, have seemed to some ritualists,
to be describing the Roman customs. On this point we are
only able to obtain probabilities, as all those Churches, once
conspicuous for their numbers, their learning, and their piety,
have long ceased to exist. And with them, has gone every
copy of their Liturgy; so that now we have only the allusions made to it, in the writings of those Fathers who lived
in Africa, to inform us concerning its nature and character.*
The Roman Liturgy differed in some respects from all the
Liturgies of the East. One of these points consisted in directing "the kiss of charity," as it was called, to be given
after the consecration of the elements; whereas, in all the
Eastern Liturgies it was given before. In this respect, the
African corresponded with the Roman Liturgy, as we learn
from Tertulliant and Augustine.f  We learn also from Augustine, that the custom of singing anthems from the Book


* Orig. Lit. I. ~ 8.      t Adv. Marc. i. c. 23. Ad. Scap. c. 2.
t Retract. ii. c. 11. Serm. 45, 49, 176.
11




122


LITURGY OF SPAIN.


of Psalms, before the Liturgy began, was introduced at Carthage in his time; and we know that this practice was introduced at Rome by Celestine, A. D. 423. Then came
reading of the Scriptures, which sometimes began with a
Lesson from the Prophets, followed by one from the Epistles,
and sometimes began with one from the Epistles. After
reading the first Lesson, followed a Psalm, which order corresponded with the Roman customs, but has no other parallel
either in the East or West, except in the Liturgy of Milan,
which is supposed by many to have been copied from that of
Rome. Indeed, the whole order of service in the African
Church, as described by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and
Optatus, is in every essential point, the same as in the Roman. These striking coincidences render it almost certain,
that these two Liturgies came from the same source, or that
one was copied from the other. But as Christianity was
planted at Rome, before at Carthage, it is not probable the
Liturgy of Rome came from Africa; yet, the Liturgy of
Africa, in the second and third centuries, corresponded with
the Roman in the fifth. Consequently, both must be as old
as the second century, and hence there is reason to believe,
that the order and substance of those Liturgies, is as ancient
as in other Churches, and if so, it must have come down from
the Apostles.
Liturgy of Spain.-We remarked, when speaking of the
Gallican Liturgy, that its use was abolished in France, by
Charlemagne. The old Spanish Liturgy, however, was not
abolished until three centuries after, when the Spanish monarchs obliged the Churches in their dominions to relinquish
their own, and adopt the Roman Liturgy. It was abolished
in Arragon, A. D. 1060, but was used considerably later in
Navarre, Castile, and Leon. From that time to the sixteenth
century, this Liturgy ceased to be used, when Cardinal
Ximenes endowed a College and Chapel at Toledo, for the




LITURGY OF SPAIN.


123


celebration of the ancient rite. This is probably the only
place where the primitive Liturgy of this country continues
to be used.
This Liturgy agrees in most particulars with the Gallican.* The number and order of the invariable parts maintain a close correspondence, though the introductions are
various. So great is their similarity, that Charles the Bold,
in the ninth century, writing to the clergy of Ravenna,
speaks of the clergy of Toledo as using the Gallican Liturgy,
abolished by his ancestor, Charlemagne.t  And Isidore,
Bishop of Seville, in the sixth century, described the Spanish
Liturgy so minutely as to leave no doubt that it was the
Liturgy used in that country some centuries after.: It also
appears from a letter of Vigilius, of Rome, to Profuturus,
Bishop of Braga, in 538, that the Spanish Bishops were not
familiar with the Roman Liturgy at that time.~ And as we
know the Spanish Liturgy differed from the Roman in the
sixth century, there is reason to believe it had from the beginning.
Before this time, there was no power over them that would
be likely to introduce a new Liturgy. Rome had not the
power, and if she had possessed it, would not have introduced
one different from her own. Nor is there any reason to believe
the Pagan Goths introduced a new Liturgy when they overran Spain, as some contend; nor any reason to believe, had
they done it, that the Spanish Churches would have relinquished their own Liturgy, and adopted one introduced by
their barbarous invaders. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the Gallican Liturgy was introduced into Spain, or
the Spanish into Gaul, at any period near the sixth century.
There is no trace, either in history or tradition, of any such
* Orig. Lit. I. ~ 10.         t Imp. Ep.
t De Ecc. Offic. i. c. 11-15.  ~ Ad. Profuturus.




124


LITURGY OF BRITAIN AND IRELAND.


introduction. It is, however, apparent, that this Liturgy was
derived from the Gallican, at a very early period, or that
both came from the same source.
The probability seems to be, that, though Christianity was
introduced into some portion of Spain, even in the times of
the Apostles, it did not make much progress there, until the
second century. The first mention of the Spanish clergy, is
by Cyprian, about 250, a hundred years after Pothinus was
Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul.* The first Spanish Martyr, of
which we have any undoubted account, suffered in A. D. 259.t
In the absence of all positive proof on the subject, it seems
probable that Spain, or a large portion of it, was converted
by Gallican Missionaries, and that they took along with them
the Liturgy of their own Church; whence, the correspondence of the two. That the Spanish Liturgy was at any time
introduced into Gaul, is improbable. Christianity was in a
flourishing condition there, before it was in Spain; and we
have already seen that the Gallican Liturgy came from
Ephesus. Hence, then, either the Spanish Liturgy was
copied from the Gallican, which is probable, or, it was
brought from Ephesus to Spain, of which there is no proof.
Liturgy of Britain and Ireland.-The period when Christianity was introduced into England, has been the subject of
much debate. It is probable, that the gospel was preached
there in the first century; it is certain, that there were Christians there in the second; and the Bishops of Churches there,
attended the Council of Aries, 315, perhaps of Nice, 325,
and of Sardica, subsequent to that time. At the time Augustine came to England, the Liturgy of the British Churches
was different from that of Rome. From whence the British
Churches derived their Liturgy, we can not certainly say;
but as that of Gaul prevailed in the vicinity, and as there


* Ep. 67


t Ruinart, Acta Martyr. p. 219.




LITURGY OF MILAN.


125


was no other in that region, which differed essentially from
that of Rome, it is reasonable to conclude, they used the Gallican, or one resembling it. It also appears from an ancient
catalogue of Irish saints, written, as is supposed, in the seventh century, that from the time Patrick was Archbishop in
Ireland, to the middle of the sixth century, the Irish had but
one Liturgy, and that this Liturgy was different from that
used in Britain; and if, as some suppose, the Irish Liturgy
corresponded with that of Rome, it follows that the British
Liturgy was different from it.
Liturgy of Milan.-The Liturgy of the Church of Milan,
known by the name of the Ambrosian Liturgy, differs in several particulars from that of Rome, but is nevertheless believed by many to have been copied from it. Others, however, believe it to have been different fiom the beginning.
Ill either case, it was probably copied from some other Liturgy, and hence, no conclusive argument can be drawn
from it relative to the subject of primitive Liturgies.
We have now gone over with a brief view of the several
Liturgies, and have found in the East, a great Oriental Liturgy, used in Antioch, Caesarea, and Constantinople, capable
of being traced nearly, or quite up to Apostolic times, and
from the earliest ages attributed to St. James.  We have
found in Alexandria, a Liturgy reaching back nearly to the
same period, and from very early ages bearing the name of
St. Mark. In Britain, Spain, and Gaul, a Liturgy derived
from that of Ephesus, the substance of which has descended,
as is believed, from the time of St. John; and we have also
found one in Rome, Milan, and the Civil Diocese of Africa,
extending back, we can not tell how far, but certainly to a
very early period, owing its origin, as many believe, to St.
Peter. In all these Liturgies, there are these several parts
in winch they resemble each other.
I. All the ancient Liturgies now existing, or which can be
11*




126


AGREEMENT OF THE LITURGIES.


proved ever to have existed, now resemble one another in
the following points:1. All of them direct, that previous to communion, those
who intend to communicate, shall, exchange " the kiss of
peace."
2. In all of them, the more particularly solemn part of
the service commences with the words exactly answering to
the English, " Lift up your hearts," &c., as far as " HOLY
FATHER, almighty, everlasting GOD."
3. All contain the Hymn, " Therefore with Angels and
Archangels," &c., with very trifling varieties of expression.
4. Also, a commemoration of our LORD'S words and actions in the institution of the Eucharist, which is the same,
almost word for word, in every Liturgy, but is not taken
from any of the four Scriptural accounts.
5. A sacrificial oblation of the Eucharistic bread and
wine.
6. A prayer of consecration, that GOD will "make the
bread and wine the Body and Blood of CHRIST."
7. Also, they all contain a prayer, answering in substance
to ours, " for the whole state of CHRIST'S Church militant."
8. And likewise another prayer, (which has been excluded
from the English Ritual,) "for the rest and peace of all those
who have departed this life in GoD's faith and fear;" conoluding with a prayer for communion with them.*
9. The Lord's Prayer.
10. Direction to the Priest for breaking the consecrated
bread.
11. Communion.
* This prayer is often confounded with prayers for the dead, which
were not strictly Primitive; and also with prayers to the dead, which
are far more recent. The earliest trace of this commemoration is in
The Martyrdom of Ignatius, written about A. D. 108, and that of




ORDER OF THE PARTS.


127


II. These parts are always arranged in one of the four
following orders.
ST. JAMES' LITURGY.
Oriental.
1. The kiss of peace.
2. Lift up your hearts, &c. [Sursum Corda.]
3. Therefore with Angels, &c. [Trisagion.]
4. Commemoration of our Lord's words.
5. The Oblation.
6. Consecrating Prayer.
7. Prayer for the Church Militant.
8. Commemoration of departed saints.
9. The Lord's Prayer.
10. Breaking of bread.
11. Communion.
ST. MARK'S LITURGY.
Egyptian and Ethiopian.
1. The kiss of peace.
2. Lift up your hearts, &c. [Sursum Corda.]
7. Prayer for the Church Militant.
8. Commemoration of departed saints.
3. Therefore with Angels, &c. [Trisagion.]
4. Commemoration of our Lord's words.
5. The Oblation.
6. Consecrating Prayer.
Polycarp, written about 168. But no account is given of the manner
in which it was done, and we only learn that it was annually. Tertul.
lian, A. D. 200, is more particular; he says, " We offer on one day in
every year, oblations for the dead, as birth-day honors." (De Cor. 3.)
Cyprian calls it an "anniversary commemoration." (Ep. 39.) Cyril, of
Jerusalem, says, the offering was " in memory of those who had fallen
asleep." (Cat. Myst. 5.)




128


AGREEMENT OF THE LITURGIES.


10. Breaking of bread.
9. Lord's Prayer.
11. Communion.
ST. JOHN'S LITURGY.
Gallican, Ephesian, and Mozarabic.
7. Prayer for the Church Militant.
8. Commemoration of departed saints.
1. Kiss of peace.
2. Lift up your hearts, &c. [Sursum Corda.]
3. Therefore with Angels, &c. [Trisagion.]
4. Commemoration of our Lord's words.
5. The Oblation.
6. Consecrating Prayer.
10. Breaking of bread.
9. Lord's Prayer.
11. Communion.
ST. PETER'S LITURGY.
Roman, Milanese, African.
2. Lift up your hearts, &c. [Sursum Corda.]
3. Therefore with Angels, &c. [Trisagion.]
7. Prayer. for the Church Militant.
6. Consecrating Prayer.
4. Commemoration of our Lord's words.
5. The Oblation.
8. Commemoration of departed saints.
10. Breaking of bread.
9. The Lord's Prayer.
1. The kiss of peace.
11. Communion.
The American Liturgy, adopted with alterations from the
English, has the following:



ORDER OF THE PARTS.


129


AMERICAN LITURGY.
United States, Texas.
7. Prayer for the Church Militant, containing also,
8. Commemoration of departed saints.
2. Lift up your hearts, &c. [Sursum Corda.]
3. Therefore with Angels, &c. [Trisagion.]
4. Commemoration of our Lord's words.
10. Breaking of bread.
5. The Oblation.
6. Consecrating Prayer.
11. Communion.
9. The Lord's Prayer.
One remarkable circumstance in these several Liturgies,
is, that although the language, in consecrating the elements
in the Eucharist, in commemoration of our LORD'S words
and actions, is almost the same, word for word, in them all,
it does not agree in words, with any of the Scripture accounts of it. 'Indeed, it would almost seem, that this is an
original and independent account of the transaction, by the
Apostles themselves, incorporated into these Liturgies, and
that it has come down to us unchanged.
A similar conclusion must be drawn from the substantial
agreement of the Baptismal Liturgies. Thus, if we examine
the various copies of the several Liturgies, we shall find
them using the same Scripture, giving it the same interpretation, describing it by the same terms, and pleading the
same authority for their interpretations and practices. A
few coincidences will be mentioned.
1. The text, John iii. 5, " Except a man be born of water
and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God," is
universally applied to baptism.* It is read as a lesson in


* This is also done by all the early fathers.




130


BAPTISMAL LITURGIES.


the Armenian Baptismal Service, (Ass. Bib. Lit. ii. 196-206,)
the Malabar, (i. 188,) Greek Liturgy of James of Edessa,
(ii. 274,) Apostolic Liturgy revised by Severus, (ii. 154,)
that of Gelasius, (i. 9, 10,) Gregory, (i. 35,) Gaul, (i. 40,)
Gellone, (i. 57,) Poictiers, (i. 63-69,) Naples, (i. 75,) Vienne,
(i. 77-80,) and Liege, (i. 83.) It is also referred to in the
prayers, in the Old Gothic Baptismal Service, (ii. 34,) Old
Roman, (ii. 4, 8, 63, 68, 75,) Old Gallican, (ii. 38,) Chrysostom, (ii. 138,) Antioch and Jerusalem, (ii. 220, 231,) Coptic and Ethiopic, (ii. 166, 7,) Maronite, (ii. 344,) Armenian,
(ii. 198,) and in that of James of Edessa, (i. 256.)
2. The passage in Titus, (iii. 5,) "the washing of regeneration," is universally understood of baptism.* It is part
of the lesson in the Baptismal Service of the Alexandrian
Church, (Ass. ii. 152,) as also in the Coptic and Ethiopic,
(ii. 152,) and Syriac Liturgies, (i. 228.) It is recited in the
Gothic and Gallican Service, (ii. 34, 35,) Alexandrian, Coptic, and Ethiopic, (ii. 173,) in the Greek, (ii. 138,) in that
of Jerusalem and Antioch, (ii. 220, 231, 259, 219,) and in
the Armenian, (ii. 169-172.)
3. All the Liturgies refer to the baptism of CHRIST, as
their authority for praying, that "the water might be sanctified, to the mystical washing away of sin." Thus it is in
the Old Roman, (Ass. ii. 4, 8, 53,) the Gothic, (ii. 34, 5,)
Greek, (ii. 132,) Armenian, (ii. 197,) Coptic, (ii. 166, 167,
180,) Syriac, (i. 262, ii. 268,) Maronite, (ii. 314,) Malabar,
(i. 178,) Antioch, (i. 226, ii. 268,) James of Edessa, (i. 241,)
Jerusalem, (ii. 244-7.) Now this interpretation is not based
on any express words of Scripture, and, consequently, we
must conclude that it has come down from the earliest
times; since there has been no time subsequent to the days
* The same is done by all the early fathers, and one ancient version,
the Ethiopian, translates the passage, "the washing of baptism."




BAPTISMAL LITURGIES.


13i


of the Apostles, that such an interpretation could begin and
become universal, much more find its way into every ancient
Liturgy.
4. All the Liturgies agree in calling baptism a seal. Thus
it is in the Old Gallican, (Ass. ii. 40,) Old Gothic, (ii. 37,)
Coptic, (i. 164,) Greek, (i. 337,) Syriac, (i. 220,) Malabar,
(i. 178,) Apostolic by James of Edessa, (i. 263,) Antioch,
(ii. 282,) Maronite, (ii. 316,) Ambrosian, (ii. 45,) Maronite,
(ii. 330-337.)
5. Very many of them quote or refer to the language of
St. Paul, in Galatians, (iii. 27:) " As many of you as have
been baptized into CHRIST have put on CHRIST;"-as the
Armenian, (Ass. ii. 196,) Syriac, (ii. 249,) Greek, (ii. 299,)
Old Roman, (ii. 3,) Old Gallican, (ii. 3, 38,) and appears to
have been referred to in the rest.
6. The language of St. Paul, in Colossians, (ii. 10, 11,)
on which we have commented, is also recited or spoken of in
the Baptismal Liturgies; as in the Malabar, (Ass. i. 196,)
Old Roman, (i. 57,) Greek, (ii. 138,) Antioch, (ii. 222,) Jerusalem, (ii. 230,) Coptic, (ii. 151,) Maronite, (ii. 329,) and
in several others.
7. They agree, in renouncing "the devil and all his works."
It is in the Service for making Catechumens, in the Gelasian
Liturgy, (Ass. i. 17,) Gregorian, (i. 22,) Greek, (i. 114, 137,)
Armenian, (i. 172,) Coptic, (ii. 158.) It is also in the following Baptismal Liturgies: Gallican, (ii. 39,) Roman, (ii.
17,) Syriac, (ii. 251,) Coptic, (ii. 150,) Armenian, (ii. 194,)
and is implied in the Malabar, (ii. 183.)
There are many other points of agreement; but these are
sufficient to show, that the substance of all the Baptismal
Liturgies is the same.  As we have already seen, that the
Liturgies of the Communion Service must have been composed back nearly or quite in Apostolic times, so we are also
led to conclude, that the same is true of the Baptismal




132


APOSTOLIC FORM OF PRAYER.


Liturgies. These conclusions give a peculiar force to the
language of St. Paul to Timothy: "Hold fast the form of
sound words thou hast heard of me." (2 Tim. i. 13.) Upon
a view, therefore, of the foregoing summary of evidence,
it does not seem to admit of question, that the worship of
the Church has been by a Liturgy from the very days of
the Apostles.
But there is still further evidence, that the Apostles used
a form of prayer. Indeed, we have one of the Apostolic
prayers on record. (Acts iv. 24-30.)
An Apostolic Form of Prayer. —" LORD, thou art GOD,
which has made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that
in them is; who by the mouth of thy servant David has
said:
Why did the heathen rage,
And the people imagine vain things?
The kings of the earth stood up,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the LORD, and against his CHRIST.
For of a truth against thy Holy Child JESUS,
Whom thou hast anointed,
For to do whatsoever thy hand
And thy counsel determined before to be done,
Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles,
And the people of Israel were gathered together.
And now, LORD, behold their threatenings, and grant unto
thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
by stretching forth thine hand to heal, and that signs and won.
ders may be done by the name of thy Holy Child JEsus."
The occasion upon which the use of this prayer is recorded, was the extraordinary escape of Peter and John from
the hands of the Jews. And yet, there is no allusion to tile
circumstance. It is such a prayer as they would be likely
to use on every occasion of meeting together; one that would




WEEKLY AND MONTHLY COLLECTIONS.


133


be applicable to their case, at all times. Hence, as this
general prayer was used upon a special occasion, it is but
reasonable to infer, that it had been precomposed, and formed
a part of their daily worship.
3. To return; the third duty of the members was to contribute of their goods, to supply the wants and necessities of
the poor of the Church. To the Corinthians, says St. Paul:
"Concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given
order in the Churches of Galatia, so do ye." (1 Cor. xvi. 1.)
There are numerous accounts of contributions for the saints,
at Achaia and Macedonia, (Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. viii. 1-5;
ix. 1;) at Rome, (Rom. xii. 13;) at Corinth, (1 Cor. xvi.
1, 2;) and in many other places. The same custom also
prevailed in the next age. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth,
writing to Soter, Bishop of Rome, A. D. 160, says: "For
the practice has prevailed with you from the beginning, to
do good to all the brethren in every way, and to send
contributions to many Churches in every city."* And this
practice Eusebius assures us had continued to his day.t
4. It was their duty to support those who preached the
gospel to them. " The Lord hath ordained, that those who
preach the gospel, should live of the gospel." (1 Cor. ix. 14.)
The money for the support of the clergy was at first raised
by voluntary oblations, made every Sunday, and a special
oblation made once a month.: This practice is mentioned
in the second century by the Apostolical Canons,~ and by
Tertullian;ll in the third century by Cyprian,~ and by numerous subsequent writers.
5. It was their duty to send assistance or support to those
* Euseb. iv. 23.               t Ecc. Hist. iv. 23.
t Bing. Ant. B. v. c. 4, ~ 1   ~ Can. 3, 4, 5.
II Apol. c. 39.
I Of Alms, c. 12. Ep. 34 or 39, 66 or 1, 28 or 35.
12




134


THE " MUTUAL WATCH."


who preached the gospel in regions where there was no
Church. When St. Paul first preached the gospel of CHRIST
at Corinth, those of his necessities which his own hands
could not supply, were ministered to by the Church of Macedonia, so that he was not chargeable to the Corinthians.
(Acts xviii. 1, 3; 2 Cor. xi. 9, 12, 13.) In the same manner,
he was not chargeable to the Thessalonians when he first
preached to them, (1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8;) and
after he left Macedonia, the Church at Philippi communicated
with him about giving and receiving. (Phil. iv. 15.) These
facts are abundant proof of the existence of this custom in
the Apostolic Church; to which there is nothing analogous
at the present time, save the contributions by the Churches,
for the support of those who preach the gospel in places
where there is no Church.
6. It was their duty, by mutual kindness and assistance,
to do all in their power to promote the Christian character
and welfare of the brethren. If a brother were overtaken in
a fault, it was the duty of the brethren to endeavor to reclaim
him, (Gal. vi. 1;) having the promise that if they succeeded
they should "hide a multitude of sins."  (James v. 19, 20.)
The Apostle exhorts the Christians not to seek their own
happiness only, but also that of the brethren. (Col. iii. 13.)
They were also directed to "exhort and admonish such as
neglected their duty; to comfort the feeble-minded; to support the weak; and to exercise patience towards -all men,"
(1 Thess. v. 14;) "to stir up each other unto good works,"
(Heb. x. 24;) "and to confess their faults to each other,"
(James v. 16;) to "submit themselves one to another, and
be clothed with humility." (1 Pet. v. 5.)
This duty of Church members is called by some the mutual watch, and, if nothing more is intended by the expression, than is implied in the above, we do not object to the
phrase. But when it is urged as an official duty of each




THE " MUTUAL WATCH."


135


nember, appertaining to them, because the discipline of the
Church resides in the congregation; we must say, that we
find no evidence of any such duty, nor can we imagine, that
a custom likely to produce so much evil, would be made a
duty. We say, "likely to produce so much evil," because
such is the frailty of human nature, and such the power of
habit, that it is impossible for men who have not more grace
than often falls to the lot of humanity, to become overseers,
prosecutors, judges, and executioners of their fellow-men,
and remain unaffected by it. They will neglect the discipline of the Church, especially of leading and influential
men, or become spies upon their neighbors' conduct, and
busy-bodies in other men's matters.
It is not merely because this supposed " mutual watch"
tends to produce an inquisitorial and unchristian spirit, that
we can not admit its claim; but because it is not authorized
in Scripture. The principal argument urged in favor of the
supposed official duty of the members, is based on the language of our Saviour, (Matt. xviii. 15, 16, 17,) where he
gives direction concerning our treatment of an offending
brother, founded on the false assumption, that the interviews we are commanded to seek with those who have injured or offended us, are part of a judicial proceeding; or
necessary to lay the foundation for one. When, however,
the language is duly considered, it only proves, that we are
to seek reconciliation before complaining. And if we can
not effect it alone, we are to call in the aid and mediation of
friends to assist in bringing it about. It is then, and only
then, that we are at liberty to complain. It is not till we
have done this that we are at liberty to "tell it to the
Church." And having told it to the Church, the fairest
inference is, that our personal duty has been fulfilled.
7. It was the duty of the members frequently to communicate with each other in the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's




136


OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIORS.


Supper. The agreement on this point renders it unnecessary
to do more than merely refer to some places where it is
spoken of.* Among the Fathers of the second century, the
frequent celebration of the Eucharist is often mentioned, as
by Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and many others, by
whom abstinence from it was considered a departure from
Christian duty.t
8. They were to obey those who had the rule over them
in the Church. St. Paul's command to the Hebrew Christians, was, "obey them  that have the rule over you; for
they watch for your souls." (Heb. xiii. 17.) Timothy and
Titus were both directed to "let no man despise them."
(1 Tim. iv. 12; Tit. ii. 15.) It will also be seen, in its appropriate place, that the various officers in the Apostolic
Church, had a right to rule in the Church; and this necessarily implies a corresponding duty on the part of the people
to obey.
9. It was their duty to assist their rulers in executing the
discipline of the Church. This view of the subject will reconcile, in some degree, the contradictory interpretations put
by different persons, upon the case of the offending Corinthian.
(1 Cor. v.) The order in which the different members of
ver. 3, chap. v. stand in the common version, is such as to
prevent a ready apprehension of the precise force of the language. Changing these to the natural order of the English,
in that verse; and omitting "concerning," which is not in
the original, and the verse will read, for though " absent in
body, (but present in spirit,) I have judged (that is, in a judicial sense): him that hath so done this deed, as though I were
* Matt. xxvi. 26-29. Mark xvi. 22-25. Luke xxii. 19-20. 1 Cor.
xi. 23-25. Acts ii. 42, etc.
t Ignat. Ad. Smyr. c. 7. Con. Apos. 7, etc.
t Comp. vv. 12, 13, and Rob. 460.




CO-OPERATION WITH SUPERIORS.


137


present;" that is, as I would have judged, had I been present.
This judgment was, that the Church when gathered together
in the name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, should, " with the
power of the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and his spirit, deliver such
an one to Satan;" that is, cast him out of the Church.*
The sentence was by the Apostle; but the execution by the
Church, either as part of their official duty, or in consequence
of the Apostle's absence; and we learn from 2 Corinthians,
(ii. 6,) that they carried it into effect. " Sufficient to such a
man, is this punishment which was inflicted by the many."t
There is another interpretation of this passage, which may
be, after all, the true one, and which we must not overlook.
Here was a case that seems not to have been provided for,
either by the customs or canons of the Corinthian Church,
and hence they address the Apostle as the law-giver of the
Church, for direction in the matter. In this view the decree
of the Apostle would have the force of a canon, and the office
of the Church would be, the execution of the law, whether
that power resided in the members or in the officers. The
act of the Church, therefore, in either point of view, was
that of execution. This case proves, therefore, that it was
the practice in the Apostolic Church for the members of the
Church to assist in executing the discipline of the Church.
The language of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, implies
the same thing:-" Now we command you, brethren, in the
name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that ye withdraw yourselves
from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the
tradition which he received from us. And if any man obey
not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him;" or, as others translate the passage, "signify,
or point him out to me.":  (2 Thess. iii. 6, 14.)
* Hammod. Bloomfield, etc. But others understand it of some greater
punishment. See Pole. Synop. Criticor.  t Rob. 851.  t Rob. 749
12*




138


REPRESENTATION IN COUNCILS.


10. They were to give their testimony, or testimonials, to
the character of candidates for the office of Deacon, or Presbyter. This point will be considered when speaking of the
qualifications requisite in Deacons and Presbyters; to which
reference is made.
11. To give their assent to canons framed for the government of the Church. The only instance we have on record,
of such an occurrence in the Apostolic Church, is in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, which is briefly this. Dissension had
arisen at Antioch, in consequence of certain Jews insisting
that the Gentile converts ought to be circumcised.  The
controversy becoming strong, Paul and Barnabas, with certain brethren, were sent up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and
Elders on the subject. When the delegation arrived, they
were received by the Apostles and Elders and the whole
Church, to whom they declared the nature of their errand.
But a difference of opinion existed here; and the Apostles
and Elders came together to hear and decide the matter.
Much debate ensued between the Elders; and when there
seemed no likelihood of an agreement, Peter addressed the
assembly; and after him, Paul and Barnabas. The discussion being ended, James gave judgment, or pronounced sentence.
To this sentence of James, the people gave their assent, as
is clearly proved by the narrative. It does not appear that
the laity took part in the debate; but that it took place in
their presence, is proved by the narrative. (vv. 12, 22, 23,
25, 28.) "And the multitude kept silence," while Paul and
Barnabas recounted the wonders wrought among the Gentiles. So after sentence was pronounced, it is said, that "it
pleased the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church, to
send chosen men to Antioch," to bear the decree of the council. An Epistle was also sent, beginning, "The Apostles
and Elders, and brethren, greeting;" and in it they say,




OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH.


139


" it seemed good unto us, [i. e. Apostles, Elders, and brethren,] being assembled with one accord," which language could
not have been used, had the debate not taken place in presence of the Church.*
But not only was the debate in their presence; they gave
their assent to "the decree of the Apostles and Elders,"
(xvi. 4,) else how could they say in truth, "it seemed good
unto the HOLY GHOST, and to us," that is, the persons who
wrote the letter, or to the Apostles and Elders, and brethren,
"to lay upon you no greater burden than was necessary?"
This language is evidence of the fact, that the members of the
Apostolic Church gave their assent to new canons framed for
the government of the Church.
CHAPTER XII.
OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH.
THE Church being a regularly organized society, must
have had regular officers to administer and execute its laws
and ordinances.t These officers were of three ranks or
grades; and were called Apostles, Presbyters or Bishops,
and Deacons; and each were ministers in the Church. It
has been doubted by some, whether the Apostles were officers
of the Church, and also whether Deacons were ministers of
the Word; but the view we have taken of the Scriptural
evidence, has led us to conclude, that all were both officers
* The attendance of the laity in Councils of the Church is mentioned
by Cyprian. Ep. 30.
t This is conceded by all; even those who deny that the Primitive
Church had any ministry, allow that it had officers.




140


DEACONS, MINISTERS OF THE WORD.


and ministers. We shall, however, postpone the examination of these questions for the present; as we shall be obliged
to discuss them when we come to consider the power and
duty of each.
CHAPTER XIII.
DEACONS.
Deacons were oficers zn the Church.
1. The existence of Deacons in the Apostolic Church is
proved by positive statements of Scripture.  "Paul and
Timotheus to all the saints which are at Philippi, with the
Bishops and Deacons," (6Saxovos, Phil. i. 1.)  "Likewise the
Deacons." (1 Tim. iii. 8, 10.) The passage from Philipplans is not only evidence of the existence of persons called
Deacons in the Apostolic Church; but also that they were
an order distinct from the saints, or body of the people composing the Church, and is also presumptive evidence that they
were officers of the Church. And this presumption is in
exact accordance with the positive statement in 1 Timothy,
(iii. 10:) "Being first proved, let them use the OFFICE of a
Deacon."
2. Deacons are also mentioned as ministers in the Church,
by Polycarp,* and by Ignatius, frequently;t also by Justin
Martyr,: Clement of Alexandria,~ and by Tertullian, in
numerous places. Indeed, from the days of Irenaeus and


* Ep. Phil. c. 5.
t Ep. Eph. c. 2. Ep. Mag. cc. 2, 6, 13. Ep. Trall. cc. 2,3, 7. Ep.
Phil. Intd. cc. 4, 7, 10. Ep. Smyr. cc. 8, 12. Ep. Poly. c. 6.
t Apol. i. cc. 85, 87.                     ~ Strom. 6. p. 667




QUALIFICATIONS OF DEACONS.


141


Tertullian, it is admitted that Deacons were ministers and
officers in the Church. And the language of Polycarp and
Ignatius leaves no doubt that they were so, in their days.
The qualifications of Deacons.
1. A Deacon must be a man in whose character are mingled "gravity, perfect honesty, temperance, and charity."
(1 Tim. iii. 8.)
2. He must be a sincere Christian, "holding the mystery
of the faith in a pure conscience."  (1 Tim. iii. 9.)
3. He must be a man " who ruled his house and children
well." (1 Tim. iii. 12.)
4. He must have but one wife, and she must be a woman
of "gravity, strict probity, sobriety, and perfect uprightness
of character."  (1 Tim. iii. 11, 12.)
5. He must have received the testimony of the Church, or
testimonials from the Church, to his unblemished and Christian character, and to his fitness for the office. This is a
legitimate inference from, or rather proved by, the language
used in giving an account of the appointment of " the seven,"
in the sixth chapter of Acts; and who, from the nature of the
office they filled, "the ministry of tables," as distinguished
from the exclusive " ministry of the word," have ever been
called Deacons.
The command of the Apostles to the brethren was, " Look
ye out, (i. e. seek out,)* seven men of honest report, full of
the HOLY GHOST and wisdom, whom we may appoint over
this business." " And they chose (selected, chose, or gave
the preferencet to) Stephen," and others.
The word rendered, of honest report, (taprupoutSevoug,) conveys a much stronger idea than our translation, and literally
signifies, that they were to be persons to whose unblemished
and Christian character they could bear "honorable testi* Rob. 314.       t Comp. Luke x. 42; xiv. 7. Rob. 251.




142


TESTIMONIALS OF DEACONS.


mony;"* or, as Professor Robinson says, in this place, men
who were lauded for their excellent character. This testi.
mony, or laudation, as the word implies,t and as the narrative requires us to believe, was to be borne by the "multitude
of the disciples," composing the Church; and hence, the
direction of the Apostles to the Church was, Select from
among yourselves seven men, to whose unblemished and
Christian character you can bear "honorable testimony;"which testimony was borne by the Church in the act of selecting according to the direction of the Apostles. No matter, therefore, by what means it was carried into effect, it
was the testimony of the Church, or testimonials from the
Church, to the Christian character of the seven.
This interpretation reconciles the different constructions
put upon this passage by opposing parties, as it points out
the part borne by all. The people selected; or, if it be
preferred, elected, certain persons to be Deacons; and the
Apostles ordained them.
Manner of making Deacons
1. It was requisite for a candidate for the order or office
of Deacon, to present himself to an Apostle, and " be proved,"
that is, to satisfy the Apostle that he possessed the requisite
qualifications. He must "be proved," (1 Tim. iii. 10,) that
is, " examined, or put to trial,": and " be found blameless;"
in a judicial sense, irreprehensible.~ This necessarily implies a trial, or by analogy, an examination. Besides, the
word used by the Apostle in this place, (6oxpa.sEdOodav,) was
a technical term, denoting the examination of a candidate for
an office.
2. A Deacon was to be ordained by an Apostle, that is,
be appointed to the office, and be set apart by prayer, and


* Rob. 495.
X Rob. 203, 204


+ Rob. 497. Comp. /aprupcw
~ Rob. 56




OF THE DUTIES OF DEACONS.


143


the imposition of the hands of an Apostle. We might pre.
sume this, from the tenor of the language used by Paul in
his Epistle to Timothy; but the positive statements made in
Acts, (vi. 3, 6,) leave no room for inference. The Apostles
direct the brethren to select seven men, " whom WE may appoint." And when the brethren had selected the seven,
"they set them before the Apostles, who prayed, and laid
their hands upon them."
Of the powers and duties of Deacons.
1. The first duty of a Deacon was to receive and distribute the alms of the Church. That the primary object in
the appointment of Deacons was to provide suitable persons
to take care of the alms of the Church, is proved by the
narrative in Acts vi.: " And there arose a murmuring
among the Grecians against the Hebrews, that their widows
were neglected in the daily ministrations;"  wherefore the
seven were appointed " to this business."
That this ministration was not of common property, by
which the whole Church was supported, as has sometimes
been supposed, is evident from two considerations: (1.)
" Widows, who were widows indeed," who were in an emphatical sense " bereaved," if over sixty years of age, were
to be received into the number of those who were maintained
at the charge or expense of the Church, (1 Tim. v. 3, 9, 16;)
but it does not appear that any others were thus supported,
or that any others "were neglected in the daily ministration" of the alms. (2.) Though the Church at Jerusalem
enjoyed, it did not possess " all things in common."  This is,
in effect, asserted in the narrative itself. Thus in Acts ii.
44, 45, it is said, that "they that believed were together, and
had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods,
and parted them to all men, as every man had need." The
sale and partition therefore, was not of the whole estate; but
only of so much as they had need.




144


NO COMMUNITY OF GOODS,


So again in Acts iv. 32, it is said, that " the multitude of
them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that aught of the things he possessed was
his own; but they had all things common."' This is an express assertion, that property was possessed by individuals;
though used or enjoyed for the common benefit. The same
conclusion must be drawn from Peter's language to Ananias: " While thy property remained, was it not thine own?
and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (Acts
v. 3.)
It may be said, that the language in Acts iv. 34, 35, is
opposed to this opinion: "Neither was there any among
them that lacked, for as many as were possessed of houses
and lands, sold them, and brought the prices of the things
that were sold; and laid them down at the Apostles' feet,
and distribution was made to every man according as he had
need." In reference to this, however, it must be borne in
mind, that in Acts ii. 44, 45, the "sale and partition of possessions and goods," is expressly limited to the need or
wants of the Church; and that only two verses preceding
the ones quoted above, the individual possession of property
is no less distinctly recognized; neither of which could be
true, if these verses prove a community of goods.
And further, the partition, which prevented any from lacking, was only as every man had need, that is, to such as
were in want, or had need of such a division;* and hence,
the sale was only for that purpose-of so much as was
needed to supply the wants of the Church. These passages
compel us to believe, that, though the property of the Saints
at Jerusalem was enjoyed by all in common, it was not possessed by all; that the sale and partition of their estates
was only of so much as they had need; and that this was
* Rob. 897.




IN THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM.


145


voluntary, and not by the command of the Apostles, and that
no such thing as a community of goods existed among the
Christians at Jerusalem. Hence it necessarily follows, that
the Deacons could only have the distribution of the alms of
the Church.
2. Though the first business of the Deacons was to take
charge of the alms of the Church, they were also to preach.
as occasion offered. The qualifications required of a Deacon,
lead directly to this inference. They were not only topossess all the ordinary virtues, but also to have a "strong
testimony" that they were men " full of wisdom and the
HOLY GHOST." In conformity with this conclusion, was the
conduct of the newly-ordained Deacons. " And Stephen,
full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles
among the people," (Acts vi. 8;) and that this was accompanied by preaching is evident, from the course pursued by
his enemies. At first they disputed with him, (vi. 9,) and
then suborned men to say they had " heard him speak blasphemous words." (Acts vi. 11, 13.) And when those at
Jerusalem were scattered abroad, Philip, who was one of
the seven, " went down to Samaria, and preached CHRIST
and the kingdom of GOD," (Acts viii. 5, 12,) working miracles among them. And from Samaria, he went to Azotus,
"preaching from city to city, until he came to Caesarea,"
(viii. 40.)
That preaching was part of the duty of Deacons, in the
age next succeeding the Apostolic, there can be no doubt.
Polycarp calls them  "the ministers of GOD in CHRIST."*
And Ignatius speaks of them, as " the ministers of the mysteries of JESUS CHRIST."t
3. They were to baptize. Philip "baptized" those who
believed at Samaria, (Acts viii. 12,) and also the eunuch of
* Ep. Phil. c. 7.          t Ep. Mag. c. 6. etc.
13




146


DUTIES OF DEACONS.


Ethiopia, (viii. 36, 38.) Though Deacons baptized in the
age following the Apostolic, it was only with the consent
of the Bishop. Thus Ignatius says: " It is not lawful without the Bishop, either to baptize, or to celebrate the Holy
Communion."*   And Tertullian says: "The highest priest,
that is, the Bishop, hath the right of giving baptism; after
him the Presbyters and Deacons, but not without authority
of the Bishop."t
4. They were to assist their superiors in ruling in the
Church. It is not easy, perhaps not possible, for us to decide what authority the Deacons had in the Apostolic Church;
but the language of Paul to Timothy compels us to believe
that they had some authority, in some cases. Of a Bishop,
Paul says, " He must be one that ruleth well his own house,
having his children in subjection;" and of a Deacon, he
says, " Let him be one who rules his children and his own
house well." (1 Tim. iii. 4, 12.) The language in reference to both officers is the same; and in reference to the
former, the Apostle, by way of explanation, or as assigning
a reason why this qualification was necessary, says in parenthesis: "For if a man know not how to rule his own
house, how shall he take care of [literally, how shall he be
fit to have the care over]f the Church of GOD?" (1 Tim. iii.
5.) Inasmuch, then, as the ability to rule one's house was
necessary to qualify a Bishop to rule in the Church of GOD;
the same qualification was required in a Deacon, evidently
for the same purpose.
5. They were to assist in the administration of the Eucharist. This is nowhere expressly asserted in Scripture;
but in the days of Justin Martyr, A. D. 150, it was a common practice.  Thus he says:~ "Those whom we call
Deacons give to each of those present a portion of the bread


* Ep. Smyr. c. 8.  t De Bap. c. 17.  t Rob. 312.  ~ Apol. i. c. 85.




PRIMITIVE USAGE OF PRESBYTER AND BISHOP.


147


which hath been blessed, and of the wine mixed with water;
and carry some away for those who are absent."     And in
another place he says:* "The consecrated elements are
then distributed and received by every one; and a portion is
sent by the Deacons to those who are absent." The same
thing is abundantly witnessed to in later times.
6. To render obedience to the command of an Apostle.
For a consideration of the question, whether an Apostle lad
authority over Bishops and Deacons, the reader is referred
to the appropriate head, where we shall consider the power
of an Apostle; only remarking, that if the Apostles had authority over Deacons, then were Deacons bound to obey.
CHAPTER XIV.
PRESBYTERS OR BISHOPS.t
IT is evident from a comparison of certain passages of
Scripture, that the terms Presbyter and Bishop are often used
in the Bible to designate the same class of officers. Thus in
Acts, (xx. 17,) it is said that when Paul was at Miletus, "he
sent to Ephesus and called the Presbyters of the Church;"
and in his address to them, (ver. 28,) he tells them, "to take
* Apol. i. c. 87.
t The English word Bishop, is derived from the Greek Episcopos.
This word was adopted into Latin without change, Episcopus, but in.most languages it has undergone some modification; Anglo-Saxon, Bisceop; Dutch, bischof; Swedish, biskop; Russian, Episcopi; Armenian,
lepiscuepues; Syriac, Episkopo; Polish, Biskupa; Welsh, Esbog;
Gaelic, Esbuig; Irish, Easbog; Portuguese, bispo; Spanish, obispo;
Italian, vescovo; French, eveque.
The word Presbyter, contracted into Priest, is also from the Greek;




148    PRIMITIVE USAGE OF PRESBYTER AND BISHOP.


heed to themselves and to all the flock, over which the HOLY
GHOST hath made them Bishops."     So the Apostle " ordained
Presbyters in every Church," (Acts xiv. 23;) but the direction of the Epistle to the Philippians is, "to the Bishops and
Deacons. "*
This indiscriminate use of the words Bishop and Presbyter,
is never found out of the New Testament, nor later than
about A.D. 65.    In the days of Ignatius, 107, the name
Bishop was exclusively used to designate the Apostolic
Bishop, and the name Presbyter, as the name of an office to
denote that which St. Paul calls a Presbyter or Bishop.
There are a few passages, however, in the Fathers, in which
it is said the words are used indiscriminately. Two of these
will fall under other heads; the remainder we shall consider
in this place. The passages in question are from Irenaeus.
"When we refer them       [the heretics] to that tradition
which is from the Apostles; which by succession from the
Fathers, (Presbyterorum,) hath been preserved in the Church,
we provoke them; they oppose the tradition, saying that
they are wiser than, not only the Fathers, (Presbyteris,) but
the Apostles also."t
" It becometh those who are in the Church, to learn from
those Fathers (Presbyteris) who have their succession (or
Latin, Presbyter; Spanish and Portuguese, presbitero; French and
Italian, p; tre: German and Dutch, priester; Danish, proeest; Swedish, prest; Icelandic, prestr; Russian, Presbyteri.
It is worthy of remark, that these words, in all these languages, are
technical terms of ecclesiastical phraseology, and that they always denote distinct offices, never being used interchangeably.
* It is remarkable that this community of names does not occur in
the old Syriac version of the New Testament, which dates as far back
as the beginning of the second century. In this, the word is chasiso,
"Presbyter," in all the passages in dispute.
t Adv. Her. iii. 2.




PRIMITIVE USAGE OF PRESBYTER AND BISHOP.


149


inheritance) from the Apostles; who with the Episcopate
(Episcopatus) have received the gift of certain truth."*
" From all such, therefore, it becometh us to keep aloof,
and truly to adhere to those [Fathers] who maintain the doctrine of the Apostles, and according to the custom of the
Fathers, (Presbyteris,) do show forth sound speech and conversation without offense."t
In these passages, which are all there are to this purpose
in Irenueus, he uses presbyter in the same sense in which we
now use the phrase "the Fathers," to denote eminent men
who had gone before, or aged and honorable men then living.
Nor is this usage peculiar to him. Thus Papias, Bishop of
Hierapolis, who was " the hearer of St. John,": tells us that
"he had treasured up in his memory what he had received
from the Fathers, [Presbyters,] and had recorded it."~5
Among those presbyters, or elders, or Fathers, were the
Apostles, Peter, James, John, Matthew, Philip, Thomas, and
Andrew.   Now Ireneus was an admirer of Papias, I and
would therefore be likely to use language in a similar manner, as we know he did. Thus he tells us~ that " Polycarp
was ordained Bishop (esr'xorog) of Smyrna."  But when
* writing to Florinus he calls him "that blessed and Apostolic
Father," (Presbyter.)** And in the same letter he speaks
of those " Fathers (Presbyters) who were the immediate disciples of the Apostles." So also this same Irenoeus writing
to Victor, Bishop of Rome, speaks of "those Fathers (Presbyters) who governed the Church before Soter."tt These
"Fathers" were Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Te.
lesphorus, and Sixtus, whom, in another place, he tells us
were Bishops, (serxoqros,) and "successors of the Apostles in


* Adv. Her. iv. 43.  t Adv. Her. iv. 44.  t Iren. Adv. Her. v. 33.
~ Pref. Interp. Lord's Dec. in Euseb. iii. 39.  11 Euseb. iii. 39.
~ Adv. Haer. iii. 3.  ** Euseb. v. 20.         tt Euseb. v. 24.
13*




150


PRESBYTER AND BISHOP NOT THE SAME.


the government of the Churches."* And he speaks of John
and the other Fathers, (Apostles.)t
That this mode of expression was common in the days of
Irenaeus, is also evident from other primitive writers. Thus
Clement of Alexandria speaks of Pantaneus, his master, as
"the blessed Father, (Presbyter. "): He also applies the
same epithet to all the eminent men who had preceded him,
whether clergymen or laymen.~ And Alexander, Bishop of
Jerusalem, writing to Origen, calls Pantaenus and Clement
those " blessed Fathers. "l And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, calls his predecessor, Heraclas, " the blessed Father,"
(raccr.)~  This title was also given to Cyprian, Bishop of
Carthage,** and was indeed, in the fourth century, a name
common to all Bishops.tt   The same language is also incorporated into many of the ancient Liturgies, as that of St.
Basil,#t of Alexandria,~~ of Ethiopia, llI etc.  If further
proof were necessary as to the primitive understanding of
this language, it may be drawn from Eusebius. Thus, those
whom Clement of Alexandria had called " the blessed Presbyters," in the sense of Ancients, or Fathers, Eusebius in
one place calls "the oldest Presbyters" or Fathers,~~ and
* Adv. Hser. iii. 3.
t Adv. Her. iii. 39.
t Hypot. in Euseb. vi. 14.
~ Strom. vi. 667, and Apud Euseb. vi. 13. From the first of these it
has been argued, that Clement made no distinction between clergy and
laity. Cong. Catechism, p. 69. But such an inference is unauthorized,
as he enumerates the three orders of clergy on the same page, and says
he supposes them to be " imitations of the angelic glory."
I) Euseb. vi. 14.                       ~ Euseb. vii. 7.
** Ep. 23, 31, 36.
tt Aug. Corn. Ps. 44, Chrysos. Hom. 3. Ad. Pop. Bing. ii. c. 2, ~ 7
It Brett. Coll. Lit. 79.              ~~ Pal. Orig. Lit. I. 86
IllI Brett. Coll. Lit. 84.            ~T E. H. vi. 14.




PRESBYTER AND BISHOP NEVER THE SAME.


151


in another place, "the Ancient Fathers."*  These facts
prove abundantly the correctness of this interpretation.
But there is other evidence, that Irenatus did not design to
speak of the office of Presbyter, as the same as Bishop, as
will be evident upon examination of the places where he
speaks of the succession of Bishops. Thus he says: " We
can enumerate those whom the Apostles appointed Bishops
(seirxo'Jl) in the Churches, and their successors, even to us.... In this order and by this succession that tradition in the
Church, which is fiom the Apostles, hath come uninterruptedly to us."t  Again: "True knowledge is the doctrine of
the Apostles, and the ancient customs of the Churcb throughout the whole world-the characteristic of the body of CHRIST
next to the succession of Bishops, to whom they delivered the
Church in every place.": And again: "For all these
[heretics] are far later than the Bishops to whom the Apostles delivered the Churches, as we have carefully shown in
the third book."~
Those who compare carefully the language here applied
to Bishops, with what Irenaeus says of " the Fathers" (Presbyters) before quoted, must be satisfied that he is not speaking
of the same office in both cases, whatever sense the reader
may prefer to put upon "Presbyter."   The language applied to Bishops is clearly official; that applied to Presbyters,
is not so. Those who differ from us on this point, must
apply it to another office than that of Bishop. We may also
quote a passage from Jerome on this subject, in proof of our
conclusion, rendered famous for its always being quoted on
ordination by Presbyters, which we shall have occasion to
consider more at large, He says:11 " The name of Presbyter
denotes age, that of Bishop, office;" the sense we have given it.
* E. H. iii. 3.      t Adv. Haer. iii. 3.
t Adv. Her. iv. 63.  6 Adv. Hcxr. v. 20.  11 Ep. 85.


J. _ _ _


Ad - r




152


QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESBYTERS.


That Bishops or Presbyters, or, for convenience, Presbyter-bishops, were officers in the Apostolic Church, follows from
what has been offered under the preceding head. And so
St. Paul's language to Timothy, (1 Tim. iii. 1,) " If a man
desire the office of a Bishop," &c.
Of the qualifications of Presbyter-bishops.
1. The candidate for the office of Bishop in the Apostolic
Church, was to possess an unblemished character. " He must
be blameless and of good behavior." (1 Tim. iii. 2.) He
must not only be of "good behavior," having "his appearance, conduct, and carriage, decent, grave, and correct, but
he must be one who was perfectly irreprehensible."*
2. He must be a man who was "vigilant, sober, given to
hospitality, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy
lucre, but patient, not a brawler, not covetous." (1 Tim. iii.
2, 3.) That is, he must be a man whose conduct was watchful and prudent; whose practices were hospitable and liberal, charitable and temperate; and whose demeanor was
quiet, peaceable, and patient.
3. He must be an experienced Christian; not " a novice,"
(vesoQpuov,) "a young or new convert."t  But he must be one
who was " settled and grounded in the faith," whose character had become established, "lest he be lifted up with pride
and fall into condemnation."
4. He must be capable of teaching and instructing. "Apt
to teach," (1 Tim. iii. 2,) that is, able to teach and instruct
others.
5. He must have but one wife, (1 Tim. iii. 2;) which
command was necessary in those days, as polygamy was


* Rob. 57.
t 1 Tim. iii. 6. Rob. 537. It was decreed by the Apostolical Canons,
(Can. 72,)-by the Council of Nice, (Can. 2,) and the Council of GangrP
(Can. 3,)-that a new Convert should not be ordained to the ministry.




QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESBYTERS.


153


allowed by the laws of the Greeks and Romans, but forbidden
by the law of CHRIST.
6. He must be a man "who ruled his children and house
well." (1 Tim. iii. 4.)
7. He must have received the testimony of, or testimonials
from, the Church.  "He must have a good report of them
which are without." (1 Tim. iii. 7.) In the ambiguous
language of the English version of this text, it is not easy to
determine what is the Apostle's meaning.   Much of the
difficulty, however, may be obviated by a more literal translation.  " He must have an honorable testimony,* from those
without;" and the only difficulty is, to determine, who are
intended by the phrase, "from without."
Most commentators and lexicographers explain this passage, by saying that the phrase " from without," designates
those who were without the Church, or not Christians, citing
in proof, (Col. iv. 5,) " Walk in wisdom, towards those without." But this appears to us misinterpretation, and derives
no sanction from the text quoted. The epistle of Paul to the
Colossians, was addressed " to the saints and faithful brethren
at Colosse," (i. 2,) and the command to walk in wisdom toward those " without," signifies those not included within, or
among the saints and faithful brethren, and who therefore
were not Christians. Apply the rule furnished by this passage, in construing the one under consideration, and it supports our position.
Paul, in this part of his Epistle to Timothy, is speaking
generally of officers of the Church, and in this passage, particularly of Bishops, who were one class of those officers;
and hence, " from without" must denote those not included
* Rob. 496. The Peshito, or old Syriac, shows that it was testimony,
not report, that was intended, the word being |2_?aua, (soduto,) which
is rendered " testimonium, testificatio, obtestatio."




154


PRESBYTERS TO RECEIVE


within the class of persons of whom he was speaking, that is,
who were not officers in the Church. Should it be said that
this interpretation includes all who were not officers in the
Church, whether Christians or not; we answer, that though
in English it might seem to have this signification, it is limited in its application, by the idiom of the Greek, to those
who were Christians. The preposition aow, is used in the
New Testament only in reference " to such objects as before
were on, by, or with another, but now separated from it; and
when, as in this case, it follows a verb of having or receiving,
denotes the origin or source from whence the thing proceeded."*
Now the relation borne by a Christian to the world, was
not changed by his appointment to an office in the Church,
but it was changed in reference to the members of the Church
with whom he had before been associated merely as private
Christian, but from whom he was, in a sense, now separated,
by being made a public officer. The term " without" would
seem, therefore, to be limited to those with whom the officer
had been associated, and in reference to whom his relation
was changed by his appointment to office, that is, to the
members of the Church; and it was from them, therefore,
that this honorable testimony was to come.
In confirmation of this conclusion, we have also the improbability of the contrary supposition. That a candidate
for the office of Bishop in the Christian Church, should be
obliged to have "an honorable testimony from those who
were not Christians," is contrary to all our notions of probability. Besides, it is not easy to imagine how Timothy and
Titus could know whether those they were to ordain in
Ephesus and Crete, had been of " good report" among those
who were not Christians, before their conversion to ChrisRob. 77, 99.




TESTIMONIALS FROM THE PEOPLE.


155


tianity, unless they obtained the information from the Church.
And if the testimony of the Church was to be the evidence
of this fact, it would still be what we suppose-the testimony, or testimonials of the Church.
This hypothesis relieves the passage, (Acts xiv. 23,) " And
they ordained them Presbyters in every city," of the difficulties hitherto supposed to attend it.  We learn from the
Apostolic history, that after Paul and Barnabas had preached
the gospel in certain cities of Asia, " they returned again to
Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of
the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, ordaining Presbyters for them in every Church; having prayed
with fasting, they commended them to the LORD, on whom
they believed, and passing through Pisidia, they came to
Pamphylia.".(Acts xiv. 22-24.)
We give this literal rendering, that the English reader
may see the force and connection of the language of the
historian.  The course of the narrative, therefore, compels
us to believe, that the " confirmation, exhortation, and ordination," or whatever it might have been, were performed by
the same persons, that is, by Paul and Barnabas.  It is objected, however, by those who assert the absolute independency of each particular congregation, that the word translated ordaining, (XaSporovso'tvrssc,) denotes an election by the
people, and that it must be so understood in this passage;
alleging that the verb from which it comes, signifies to stretch
out or lift up the hand, as in voting.*  The word, however, is
defined by Professor Robinson,t to choose by vote, to appoint;
and as the connection will not allow us to adopt the former,
* Coleman's Prim. Church, 62-64; where he has cited the leading
authorities in his favor. But all this proves nothing to the purpose,
until he has shown that it was the brethren, and not the Apostles that
stretched forth the hand, since the text does not say which it was.
t Gr. Lex. 893.




156


PRESBYTERS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE,


we will substitute the latter word for ordaining. The account will then read, " confirming the souls of the disciples,
exhorting them [the disciples] to continue in the faith, appointing Presbyters for them [the disciples] in every Church,
having prayed with fasting." The appointment was, therefore, madeby the Apostles, with prayer and fasting.*
It is worthy of remark, that this word is used in the subscriptions to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, supposed to
have been added about the third or fourth century, when
there could be no doubt that it signified ordination by a
Bishop, and that it is used in the same sense in the Greek
Church to the present day.t
We are willing to grant, though the narrative does not require it, that the people took part in the selection of persons
appointed to the office of Presbyters.  Indeed, the history
authorizes us to infer, that the people selected persons to
whose unblemished and Christian character they could bear
honorable and strong testimony, and that the Apostles appointed or ordained such to the office of Deacons; and subsequently, upon receiving another testimonial, to the office of
Presbyter. Whether this selection was made by holding up
of hands, as in voting, or by some other means, the narrative
furnishes no information, nor is it of any importance.
* It is worthy of observation, that the Peshito, or old Syriac version
of the New Testament, which is the very highest authority in regard
to customs and practices in Palestine, makes no allusion to any participation of the people in this transaction; employing the verb, (komn,;
to stand, to raise up, to cause to stand; hence, to constitute, or appoint. The same language is also employed in reference to the appointment of the seven Deacons, Acts vi. 3; and also in regard to those
Presbyters whom Titus was to ordain. Tit. i. 5. This language was
also employed by later writers, to signify ordination or consecration,
whether by Bishops, Patriarchs, or others. Mich. Cast. ii. 784, 785.
t Suicer, in verbo.




IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.,157


This conclusion is sustained by the testimony of the earliest Fathers. Clement of Rome, about A. D. 83, speaks of
ministers appointed by the Apostles and their successors,
" with the consent of the whole Church."*  That is, the
whole Church knowing of, and consenting to the appointment, and thus bearing testimony to the fitness of the persons
appointed. This practice continued for a long time, and is
mentioned by many writers. Cornelius, Bishop of Rome,
in his epistle to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, alludes to the
same custom.t
Origen, about 230, speaking of the ordination of a Bishop,
says: " The presence of the people is necessary in the ordination of a Bishop, that all may know, and be assured that
he who is chosen to that office, is distinguished among the
people, for his pre-eminence in learning and holiness, and a
virtuous life; and this is done in the presence of the people,
that there may be no room for mistake or objection."t So
also in his last book against Celsus, he says, that " rulers of
the Church are chosen to their office by those over whom
they rule."~
Cyprian, about 250, says: "In compliance with divine
tradition and Apostolical usage, the custom should be diligently observed and maintained, which is established among
us, and in almost all other provinces, that for the due celebration of ordinations, the Bishops of all the adjoining provinces are to repair to the people, over whom a Bishop is to
be ordained; and then a Bishop shall be chosen, in the presence of the people, who have had the fullest knowledge of
the life of each one, and been thoroughly acquainted with
their manners, and whole conversation."1I In another place,
he speaks of Cornelius as having been made Bishop, " by
* Ep. Cor..c. 44.    t Apud Euseb. vi. 43
Horn. 6. Levit.     ~ Ad Finem.          I1 Ep. 78.
14




158


PRESBYTERS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.


the testimony of the clergy, and the suffrage of the people
present."*  And again, " That ordination is just and lawful,
which shall have been determined by the suffrage and sentence of all."t
Later writers also testify to the existence of the same custom in their times. Thus, Gregory Nazianzen, 370, says,
that Athanasius was " elected by the suffrage of all the people."i  Ambrose, 374, says the election is by the whole
Church.~ Again, "Ye are my fathers who chose me to be
Bishop."[l Jerome, 378, "The Watchman of the Church,
either a Bishop or Presbyter, who was chosen by the people."T And so late as 440, Leo the Great lays it down as a
standing rule of the Church, that " He who is to preside over
all, should be chosen by all."**
The right and duty of the people to elect their clergy, and
of the Bishops to ordain them, was distinctly recognized by
all the early Councils, among which we may mention that
of Nice, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Chalcedon, Arles,
Barcelona, Toledo, Constantinople, &c. The foregoing language, in most instances, was used in reference to Bishops,
but it is evident from many circumstances, that what was
done by the Church of a diocese, at the ordination of a
Bishop, was done by a particular congregation, at the ordination of Presbyters and Deacons.
8. He must have been a Deacon, and have acquitted himself honorably in that station. There is no positive statement in Scripture, that this was the fact; but there is a direct
allusion to the existence of such a custom in Paul's Epistle
to Timothy. "They that have used the office of a Deacon
well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great bold* Ep. 52, or 55.      t Ep. 67, or 68.   t Orat. 21.
~ Ep. 82.            I| Cor. Luc. viii. c. 1.
I Cor. Ez. Ix. c. 33.  ** Ep. 84.




MANNER OF MAKING PRESBYTERS.


159


ness in the faith which is in JESUS CHRIST." (1 Tim. iii. 13.)
The language in which the common version presents this
text to the reader, renders it difficult to say what was intended by the Apostle; but a more literal translation will
remove much of the doubt and uncertainty. "They that fill
the office of a Deacon, (or perform the duties of a Deacon,)
faithfully, shall acquire for themselves an excellent degree,
(or step of dignity,) and great authority, (or license,) in the
faith which is in CHRIST JESUS.'-* This language evidently
implies, that he who has filled the office of a Deacon well,
should be promoted to an office of higher grade, where he
should have greater license or authority to preach and proclaim the faith or gospel of CHRIST JESUS.
Of the manner of making Bishops or Presbyters
1. He must have been examined and tried by an Apostle,
and found to possess the requisite qualifications. Paul, after
enumerating the principal qualifications of a Deacon, adds:
"Let these also first be proved." (1 Tim. iii. 10.) The language of the Apostle, "and these also, being first proved,"
implies, that this trial or proof was not applicable to Deacons alone, but to them in additiont to others, which here
can signify nothing but Bishops, of whom he had just been
speaking.  In what manner this trial or examination was
conducted, the Scripture furnishes no means of determining;
but that the Apostles considered something of the kind necessary to prevent the introduction of improper persons into
the ministry, is sufficiently evident.
We may, however, obtain some light on this subject, by
reference to the practice of those times.  The word used by
the Apostle in this place, (doxqsaiCJ,) signifies to prove, to try,
* Rob. 123, 650, 631. Clement of Alexandria supposed this text to
refer to gradation of office. Strom. vi. 667.
t Rob. 406.




160


PRESBYTERS ORDAINED BY AN APOSTLE.


-also, to make trial of, to put to the proof, to examine;* and
the noun derived from this verb, (5oxiajarl,) denotes a trial,
or examination. In this sense, it was used technically by the
Greeks, and no man could be admitted to a seat in the
Senate of Five Hundred, until he had been proved, had undergone a strict dokimasia, as to his life and conduct. To a
Greek of those days, the language of the Apostle would
convey the same idea as that signified by our phrase, "the
examination of a candidate." There can be no doubt, therefore, that in the Apostolic Church, both Presbyters and Deacons were to be examined by the Apostles, or those to whom
they had committed Apostolic authority before ordination.
2. Must be ordained by an Apostle. The similarity of
qualification required in Bishops and Deacons, and the similar manner of making them, would lead us to infer that
Bishops must be ordained, as well as Deacons. But we are
not left to inference. Titus, whom St. Paul called an ApoStle, (2 Cor. viii. 23,) was left at Crete, "that he should
ordain Presbyters in every city." (i. 5.) So Timothy, who
was also an Apostle,t was directed "to lay hands suddenly
on no man." (1 Tim. v. 23.) If, in connection with the fact,
that Timothy himself was ordained by the laying on of an
Apostle's hands, (2 Tim. iii. 6,) we consider the particular
direction given him concerning the necessary qualifications
of Bishops and Deacons; we can not doubt that by the
"laying on of hands," (1 Tim. v. 23,) was meant ordination.
The same is also asserted in Acts xiv. 23.  " The Apostles
ordained Elders [Presbyters] in every Church."
The language of Clement, of Rome, is decisive on this
point. "Our Apostles knew from our LORD JESUS CHRIST,
* Lys. Orat. Evander, sEschin Contra Tim. Arch. Greca, 32.
t Compare 2 Cor. i. 1-8, 23; Phil i. 1; Col. i. 1; 1 Thess. i. 1;
2 Thess. i. 10; and post. c. xv. ~ 1.




POWER AND DUTIES OF PRESBYTERS.


161


that contentions should arise on account of the ministerial
office. And therefore, having a perfect knowledge of this,
they appointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave
direction in what manner, when they should die, other approved men should succeed in their ministry."* We have,
therefore, the authority of an associate, friend and fellowlaborer of St. Paul, for declaring, that the ministerial office
was constituted and appointed by GOD; that the Apostles, in
consequence of revelations made to them, appointed men to
the ministerial office; and that the Apostles gave direction
about their successors.
Of the power and duties of Presbyter-bishops.
1. To teach and instruct the people, by preaching the
gospel. One of the first qualifications of a Bishop mentioned by the Apostle, was, " He must be able to teach and
instruct others;" from whence we conclude, that one duty
of a Presbyter-bishop was to teach and instruct; or, to
preach. The same is implied in St. Paul's charge to the
Presbyters (Acts xx. 17) of Ephesus. " Take heed, therefore, to feed the Church of God," (" to feed, i. e. to lead, to
cherish, to provide for,"t which implies instruction, teaching,
preaching.) The same language is used by St. Peter, in
reference to the same subject. (1 Pet. v. 2.) A Bishop
would also possess this authority as a Deacon, though raised
to a higher rank or grade in the ministry; the power of the
latter being included in the former; even as the power of
an Apostle included that of both Presbyters and Deacons.
Thus St. Peter, who was an Apostle, calls himself a Presbyter, (1 Pet. v. 1,) and St. Paul and Apollos, who were
both Apostles, are called Deacons. (1 Cor. iii. 6.)
2. To rule in the Church. " Let the Presbyters that rule
well, be counted worthy of double honor." (1 Tim. v. 17.)
* Ep. Cor. c. 44.          t Rob. 683.
14*




l D2       POWER AND DUTIES OF PRESBYTERS.


The same doctrine is also taught in 1 Timothy iii. 4, 5. "A
Bishop must rule his own house well, lest he know not how
to take care of the Church of GOD." The language of Peter implies the same thing. "I exhort the Presbyters to
take the oversight, not as lords," (1 Pet. v. 1-3.)
3. To administer the sacraments. The Presbyter would
possess power and authority to baptize, by virtue of having
been a Deacon; the Bishop not only having the same power,
but " greater license and authority" than the Deacon. Authority to administer the Eucharist would be included in the
command "to feed the Church," (Acts xxvi. 18; 1 Pet. v.
2;) for, as it was the business of an earthly shepherd to
feed his flock-that is, to see that all their wants were supplied; so it is the duty of a spiritual shepherd and pastor, to
take care that the spiritual necessities of his flock —" the
Church of God"-are supplied. In doing this, he must administer all those ordinances which CHRIST had ordained to
be their spiritual food and sustenance, and the means of their
spiritual edification. That this includes the administration
of the LORD'S Supper, no one can doubt, that carefully conmiders the account given of it by Paul, in 1 Corinthians xi.
This last, however, could only be derived from the Apostles,
or their successors; authority to consecrate the elements in
the Eucharist having been originally given only to the
twelve. This power was granted at the time of its institution, but did not take effect until after the crucifixion. Thus,
at the time of the celebration of the last Supper, JESUS said
to his Apostles, " I appoint you a kingdom, as my Father
hath appointed unto me, that (or, in order that) ye may eat
and drink at my table, in my kingdom." (Luke xxii. 29, 30.)
The language here made use of, makes evident allusion to
bequest, as the word frequently signifies,* and is tantamount
* Comp. Heb. ix. 16, 17.




CONSECRATION OF THE EUCHARIST.


163


to saying, I make over, or appoint to you, as by bequest, the
kingdom I have received from my Father. And the reason
given is, in order that they might be able to eat and irink at
that table which he had spread; that is, might have power
and authority to consecrate and set apart the elements of
bread and wine, so that they should become sacramentally
his body and blood, as he himself had declared them to be.
(Matt. xxvi. 26, 28; Mark xiv. 22, 24; Luke xxii. 19, 20;
1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.)
In consequence of the authority to consecrate the Eucharist being derived from the Bishop, it has been held from the
days of the Apostles, not to be lawful to celebrate it without
the Bishop's consent.*  The oldest Canon, or Liturgy, for
the administration of the Communion, in which we know the
precise words made use of, belongs to the fourth century.
We have, however, the substance of several others, still
earlier. The words of consecration, as they stood in the
Clementine Liturgy, about A. D. 400, were as follows:"For in the night in which he was betrayed, taking bread
into his holy and immaculate hands, and looking up to Thee,
HIs GOD and Father, he brake it and gave it to his disciples,
saying: This is the mystery of the New Testament; take,
eat, this is my body, which is broken for many, for the remission of sins. Likewise, also, having mingled the cup with
wine and water, he blessed it, and gave it to his disciples,
saying: Drink ye all of it; this is my blood which is shed
for many, for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance
of me; for as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye
do show forth my death until I come."t
The words of consecration in the Liturgy of St. James,
the very words of which we know to be as old as 450, the


* Ign. Ep. Smyrn. c. 11. Bing. B. xi. c. 3, ~ 3.
t Apos. Const. viii. c. 12.




164


WORDS OF CONSECRATION IN.


substance of it as ancient as 300, and the order as early as
150, are as follows:"In the same night that he was offered, or rather offered
up himself for the life and salvation of the world; taking
bread into his holy, immaculate, pure, and immortal hands,
looking up to heaven, and presenting it to Thee, His GOD
and Father, he gave thanks, blessed and brake it, and gave it
to his disciples and Apostles, saying: Take, eat, this is my
body, which is broken and given for you, for the remission
of sins. Likewise after supper he took the cup, and mixed
it with wine and water, and looking up to heaven and presenting it to Thee, His GOD and Father, he gave thanks,
sanctified, blessed it, and filled it with the HOLY GHOST, and
gave it to his disciples, saying: Drink ye all of it; this is
my blood of the New Testament, which is shed and given for
you, and for many, for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of me; for as oft as ye eat this bread and drink
this cup, ye do show forth the death of the Son of Man, and
confess his resurrection, until his corning again."*
The Liturgy of St. Basil, arranged about 370, and the
Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, arranged 381, were both based
upon the Liturgy of St. James, and agree with the foregoing
in every thing but some slight verbal alterations.
The words of consecration in the Liturgy of St. Mark, as
they stood 451, and the substance and order of which is
known to have existed before 330, are as follows:"For in the same night wherein he delivered himself for
our sins, and was about to suffer death for mankind, sitting
down to supper with his disciples, he took bread in his holy,
spotless, and undefiled hands, and looking up to Thee, His
Father, but our GoD, and the GOD of all, he gave thanks, he
blessed, he sanctified, and brake it, and gave it to them, say* Brett. Col. Lit. p. 16. from Biblioth. Patr. T. II.




THE ANCIENT LITURGIES.


165


ing: This is my body which is broken and given for the remission of sins. In like manner he took the cup after supper, and mixing it with wine and water, and looking up to
heaven, to Thee, His Father, but our GOD, and the GOD of
all, he gave thanks, he blessed it, and filled it with the HOLY
GHOST, and gave it to his holy and blessed disciples, saying: Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New
Testament, which is shed and given for you, and for many
for the remission of sins; do this in remembrance of me, for
as oft as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show
forth my death, and confess my resurrection and ascension
until my coming again."*
The Ethiopian Liturgy, which was drawn from that of St.
Mark, about 330, agrees with it in all important particulars,
but abridges the language somewhat.
The language of the Roman Liturgy is peculiar in some
points. In 1647 it stood thus:
"The day before he suffered, took bread into his holy and
venerable hands, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, to. Thee,
His GOD, and Father Almighty, giving thanks to'Thee, he
blessed it, brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take and eat ye all of this, for this is my body. In like
manner, after he had supped, taking also this glorious cup
into his holy and venerable hands, giving thanks likewise
unto Thee, he blessed it and gave it unto his disciples, saying: Take and drink ye all of it, for this is the cup of my
blood of the New and Eternal Testament; the mystery of
faith; which shall be shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins. As oft as ye shall do these things, ye shall
do them in remembrance of me."t
We have given this last, in order to show, that the modern


* Brett. Col. Lit. pp. 36, 37, from Renaudot, Lit. Orient. Coll. Torn. I.
t Bret. Coll. Lit. 123, 124.




166      POWER AND DUTY OF PRESBYTER-BISHOPS.


notion of transubstantiation, so clearly alluded to in the
modern Roman Canon, is wanting in all the Ancient Liturgies.
4. To watch over and inspect the conduct of the members
of the Church where they were placed. The etymology of
the word rendered Bishop, (Er;'J'xoros,) signifies literally, " an
overseer or inspector;"* and we must therefore infer, that
part of the duty of a Bishop was to take the oversight. This
conclusion is strengthened by the direction of Paul to the
Presbyters of Ephesus.  "After my departure, grievous
wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples. Therefore watch." (Acts
xx. 29, 30, 31.) So Peter "exhorts the Presbyters to take
the oversight of the flock of GOD." (1 Pet. v. 2.) Paul, also,
to the Hebrews directs them to "obey them that have the
rule over you, for they watch for souls." (Heb. xiii. 17.)
5. To sit in council with the Apostles at the formation of
new canons for the government of the churches, and to assent
to such as were made. The only account of an occurrence
of this kind in the Apostolic Church, is contained in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, on the exciting
and important question, whether the Gentile converts should be
required to receive the Jewish rite of circumcision. The difficulties attending this question were then considered so great,
that Paul and Barnabas, with certain brethren at Antioch,
were sent up to Jerusalem, to obtain a "decree" of "the
Apostles and elders on the subject."  (Acts xiv. 26; xv. 2;
xvi. 4.)  On their arrival at Jerusalem, "the Apostles and
Presbyters came together to consider of the matter." Here
was much debate, as would seem, among the elders, before
the Apostles delivered their opinions; when Peter, and after
* Rob. 314.




APJSTLES-APOSTOLIC BISHOPS.


167


him Paul and Barnabas, took part in the discussion; and
when they had finished, James declared sentence. This sentence, judgment, or decree of James, was approved by the
Apostles and elders, (Presbyters.) (Acts xv. 22, 23, and
xvi. 4.) That the elders took part in the debate, is inferred
from the fact, that there is no mention of the presence of
any of the Apostles except those just named; and no intimation that any thing was said by them before the speech of
Peter. That their assent was given to the decree, we have
already shown, when speaking of the part borne by the people in this transaction.
6. The Presbyter-bishops owed obedience to the commands
of an Apostle. If the Apostles exercised authority over the
Presbyters, it follows that they had a right so to do; and if
they had a right to exercise such power, then it was the duty
of those over whom the power was exercised, to obey. But
an examination of this point belongs to another place-a consideration of the power of an Apostle-to which the reader is
therefore referred.
CHAPTER XV.
APOSTLES-APOSTOLIC BISHOPS.
WE come now to speak of the third and last class of persons, who were ministers and oficers in the Apostolic Church,
that is, who possessed executive, judicial, and, in conjunction
with others, legislative powers in particular Churches. It is
not to be concealed that there is great difference of opinion
on this point, nor, that it has excited controversy, which we
wish to avoid. This question is interesting, important, and
fundamental; but we hope to be able to show, that it is not




168


IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION.


difficult to decide. We say it isfundamental, because, if the
Apostles were not officers, but simply ministers at large,*
there were but two orders of official ministers in the Apostolic
Church. If, on the contrary, they had official authority in
particular Churches, superior to Presbyters and Deacons,
there were THREE ORDERS of official ministers in the Apostolic
Church.
This part of our subject, therefore, involves two questions:
first, were the Apostles officers? And, second, if officers, did
they possess authority superior to Presbyters?  These questions must be examined and decided in accordance with the
rules of evidence already established,t and which are repeated here, that they may be the more strongly borne in
mind.
"7. A name designates an office in the Church, when
some person to whom it is applied, exercised some power in
the Church by virtue of it.
" 8. The nature of an office in the Church, must be determined by the nature and extent of the power ascribed to the
office, or exercised by the officer filling the office.
"9. The grade or rank of an officer is to be determined
by the extent of the power appertaining to the office, or exercised by the officer."
If, then, the Apostles exercised executive, judicial, or legislative authority in the Church, by virtue of their Apostleship,
they were officers in the Church; and if the extent of power
appertaining to the Apostleship was superior to that exercised
by Presbyters, or if the Apostles exercised official authority
over Presbyters, they were superior to Presbyters, and the
Apostolic Church contained three orders of officers and ministers.


* This is the position taken by those who deny the three orders in
the ministry.                               t Ante. p. 22




APOSTOLIC COMMISSION.


169


Our attention will now be directed to an examination of
these questions. But we are not left to make out by inference, from brief ambiguous references, the nature of the
Apostolic office; for we have the Apostolic commission, in
which they received their authority to act in CHRIST'S stead,
and by virtue of which they acted.  We shall, therefore,
1. Inquire into the nature of that commission, and the extent
of power therein granted.
2. Endeavor to ascertain the power exercised by the Apostles
under that commission.
OF THE APOSTOLIC COMIMISSION.-This commission, which
is generally regarded as dating from the appearance of
CHRIST to the eleven after his resurrection, as collected from
the Evangelists who have recorded it, reads as follows:" Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel unto every
creature, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST; teaching them to observe
all things wlatsoever I have commanded you. And unto
you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven;
and whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto him,
and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained; AS THE
FATHER HATH SENT ME, EVEN SO SEND I YOU; and lo, I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt. xvi.
19; xviii. 18; xxviii. 19, 20; John xx. 21, 23.)
This commission, as it here reads, is one of the most important things of which we can conceive, and yet the rule
of construction furnished by the Scriptures, tends rather to
enlarge than to limit the powers granted in it. It is a sound
rule of evidence, tnat when one instrument contains an express
reference to another instrument, for further description, the description contained in the instrument referred to, thereby becomes a part of the description of the instrument in which the
15




170


POWERS GRANTED IN THE


reference is contained.  Now the phrase, " As the Father
hath sent me, EVEN SO SEND I YOU," contains a direct reference
to the manner* in which CHRIST was sent by the Father, accompanied by the declaration that the Apostles were sent in
like manner. The manner in which CHRIST was sent by
the Father, thus becomes descriptive of the powers granted
in the Apostolic commission; and reference to that must be
had, in order to ascertain the full extent of the powers conferred by that commission. But lest it be said that we overestimate the authority conferred upon the Apostles, we shall
first show, that the things included in the phrase " even so,"
most, or all of them, had been actually promised before; and
that this was, therefore, only a renewal of previous grants,
accompanied by an enlargement of the field of action. The
powers granted in this commission, are:1. Of preaching.  That this was given in. the early part
of their Apostleship, is acknowledged by all, and a simple
reference to the gospel history will be sufficient.t
2. Of baptizing. We are told, at the very outset of our
Saviour's ministry, that the "Pharisees heard that JESUS
made and baptized more disciples than John; though himself baptized not, but his disciples." (John iv. 1, 2.)
3. The power of the keys; that is, of admitting to, or rejecting from, the Church.:: "Unto you I will give the keys
of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. xvi. 19.)
And this power, which was first promised (not, as some erro* This must not be confounded with the object for which he was
sent, as is often done.
t Matt. x. 7, 27; xi. 5. Mark iii. 14; vi. 12. Luke ix. 2, 6, 60; xvi.
16; xxiv. 27.
t Rob. 445.




APOSTOLIC COMMISSION.


171


neously say, given) to Peter, was shortly after promised to
all of the twelve. (Matt. xviii. 18.)
There are several other points of comparison which will
be seen to best advantage by contrast.   Indeed, without
bearing this in mind, we shall hardly feel the full force of
the language made use of in this commission.
4. CHRIST was set apart to his ministerial office, by the
HOLY GHOST descending upon him, (Matt. iii. 16;) and he
caused the Apostles to be set apart in like manner. (John
xx. 22; Acts ii. 3, 4.)
5. He had a kingdom appointed unto him, and he appointed one to his Apostles, in like manner. (Luke xxii. 29.)
6. CHRIST had power to forgive sins, (Matt. ix. 2; Mark
ii. 5, 10,) and he gave authority to his Apostles to absolve
and remit the sins of repenting sinners: "Whatsoever ye
shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, (Matt. xviii.
1.8,)* and whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
him." (John xx. 23.)t
7. The Father committed all judgment to the Son, (John
v. 22;) and at the time he instituted the sacrament of the
Holy Communion, he appointed to his Apostles, (6,aLr-sOaL,
made over or committed to them, as by devise or bequest,) the
kingdom which the Father had appointed or committed to
him, (Luke xxii. 29;)t (Ova) in order that~ they might eat
and drink at his table, and sit on thrones, (the emblems of
power,)11 judging (in a judicial sense)~ the twelve tribes (or
persons composing "the commonwealth) of Israel," (Eph. ii.
22;) which in the New Testament signifies the Church.
* Rob. 176.
t Rob. 458, and comp. Matt. vi. 12, 14, 15; ix. 2, 5, 6; xii. 31, 32.
Mark ii. 2, 5, 7, 9, 10; iii. 28; iv. 12; xi. 31, 32. Rob. 119.
t Rob. 191; comp. ix. 16, 17.
~ Rob. 388.                      11 Rob. 376. Matt. xix. 28
~ Rob. 460  Comp. Matt. xix. 28. 1 Cor. v. 12; vi. 2, 3.




172


CONFERRING APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.


8. He consecrated bread and wine, and declared them to
be his "body and blood;" or, as others understand the lan.
guage, "made them the authoritative and acknowledged
signs of his body and blood;" and he gave his Apostles authority to do the same. (Matt. xxvi. 26-30; Mark xiv. 22 -26; Luke xxii. 17-30; 1 Cor. xi. 23-27.)
There are several other points in which the conduct of
CHRIST before, and of the Apostles after his ascension, were
similar; but, as some of them involve questions concerning
the extent of the powers of an Apostle, we shall proceed to
inquire how the Apostles understood the commission which
they had received; which must be gathered fiom the acts
they performed under it.  This must be conclusive evidence concerning the meaning of their commission; for, as
they were inspired men, it was impossible that they could be
mistaken about the meaning of the commission under which
they acted, or the extent of powers granted by it. Hence,
whatever they did, they had a right to do; and what they
had a right to do, that was granted to them in the commission, or followed by force of the phrase, "even so." In the
Acts of the Apostles, then, we have an inspired commentary
upon a divine commision.
OF THE POWERS EXERCISED BY THE APOSTLES UNDER THEIR
COMMISSION.
1. The Apostles alone possessed the power of conferring
Apostolic authority on others. This is a natural, if not a
necessary inference, from the tenor of their commission, and
that CHRIST intended they should do this, is evident from the
language, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world;" which could not be true, if limited either
to the Apostles, or the Christians then living, personally.
This leads us, therefore, to inquire. whether the Apostles
ever committed this authority to others. We have already
seen, that the power to judge in the Church was exclusively




APOSTLESHIP OF TITUS-TIMOTHY.


173


an Apostolic right; and hence, imparting this authority to
others, is evidence of a transmission of Apostolic authority.
This authority was conferred on TITUS by Paul.  "For
this cause, I left thee at Crete, that thou shouldst set in order
the things that are lacking, (or wanting,)* and ordain Presbyters in every city." (Titus i. 5.) All antiquity testifies to
the fact, that Titus was ordained Bishop of Crete, by St.
Paul. Thus Eusebius, out of the records of the Church,
tells us, that "Titus was appointed over the Churches in
Crete,"t and Chrysostom,: and Theodoret,~ Jerome, [ and
the Apostolical Constitutions,~ tells us the same thing, adding, that he was ordained by St. Paul.
The same authority was also conferred upon TIMOTHY.
To Timothy he says, " The things that thou hast heard of
me among many witnesses, do thou give in charge (commit,
or entrust)** the same to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also;" but "lay hands suddenly on no man."
(2 Tim. ii. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22.) Timothy, also, is said by the
ancients to have been ordained by St. Paul, the first Bishop
of Ephesus, which some say, was the metropolitan Church
of Asia Minor. Mention is made of this by Eusebius,tt by
the author of the Life of Timothy, in Photius;: and by the
Bishop present at the Council of Chalcedon, who was the
twenty-seventh in descent from Timothy.~~ The same thing
is also asserted by Chrysostom,|lll by Theodoret.~~f by the
Apostolical Constitutions,*** and indeed, by all the ancient
historians.
* Rob. 478.       t Ecc. H. iii. 4.  t Horn. Tit. i. 1.
~ Arg. Ep. ad Tit.  11 Cat. Ecc. Scrip.  T B. vii. c. 46.
** Rob. 624.      tt Ecc. H. iii. 4.  t Biblio. No. 254.
~~ Coun. Chal. Act. 11.       III Horn. 1 Tim. iii. 1, 5, 9.
Tq Cor. 1 Tim. iii. 1.         *** B. vii. c. 46.
15*




174


OTHER APOSTLES THAN THE TWELVE.


These facts furnish conclusive evidence, that Paul gave
Timothy and Titus authority to ordain, and of course that he
committed to them at least one point of Apostolic authority.
There is also, as we shall show under the proper heads,
evidence that Timothy and Titus were clothed with various
other functions of Apostolic authority; but we propose now
to show, that both are called Apostles.* That there were
other Apostles beside the twelve, is conceded by all. Thus
Matthias, (Acts i. 26,) Paul, and Barnabas, were Apostles,
(Acts xiv. 4, 14;) and also Andronicus and Junia, (Rom.
xvi. 7,)t were Apostles; and in 2 Corinthians viii. 23, the
term Apostle is applied to Titus and several others whose
names are not mentioned.: It would seem also, from the language of Paul to the Thessalonians, that Timothy was called
an Apostle. We learn from his first Epistle to them, that
both Paul and Timothy had been at Thessalonica; and the
Epistle is addressed, " Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timotheus,
to the Church of the Thessalonians," (i. 1;) and in it they
say, (ii. 6,) " We were not burdensome to you as Apostles
of CHRIST."  And the language of St. Paul, in 2 Corinthians
(i. 1) and Colossians, (i. 1,) leads to the same conclusion.
"Paul, an Apostle, and Timothy, our brother." Now the
word our, used in the English version, is not in the original.
Hence, a literal translation would be, " Paul, an Apostle,
and brother Timothy."   But in what sense was Timothy
* The word Apostle was not considered, in primitive times, so peculiarly apprropriated to the twelve, as to be inapplicable to any one else.
Thus, Clement of Alexandria says, (Strom. vi. 667:) " It is lawful now,
to enroll in the company of the Apostles, those who are well versed in
the commands of the LORD, and live perfectly and intelligently according to the gospel."
t Rob. 91.
t Rob. 91. This passage is quoted by Areus, Archbishop of Crete,
about 750, as proving the Apostleship of Titus.




APOSTLESHIP OF EPAPHRODITUS.


175


brother?  Professor Robinson renders it,* "an associate, or
colleague in office or dignity." In either case, Timothy must
have had an office similar to that of St. Paul.
Epaphroditus is also called the Apostle of the Philippians.
(Phil. ii. 25.)  The verse, according to the English version,
reads thus: " Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in
labor, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger." The word
rendered messenger is, in the Greek, apostolon, (arro'roXov,)
usually rendered Apostle, and the fact of the Apostleship
depends upon the question of what is the true rendering of
the word in this place.  To enable our readers to form their
own opinion upon this point, we give the following summary of the arguments by which the question must be
decided.
The Greek word Apostolos, from acOroorsXXw, to send away,
send off, send forth, send out, signifies, one sent, a messenger,
ambassador.t   In this, and in a higher sense also, it is applied to the twelve, chosen to be messengers of Christ, ambassadors of the Gospel, and Apostles, as being the founders and
governors of the Churches.    It is so used in the singular
number, in a great variety of places.:
3. It is once used in a similar sense, and applied to CHRIST
himself. (Heb. iii. 1.) 4. In three other places, the word in
* Rob. 26.
t Synonymous with this word, or nearly so, is the word Angel, employed in the first and second chapters of Revelation. " AyyeA9s, a messenger, one sent," &c., (Rob. 6,) from " ayyeXXw, to bring tidings, or a
message, to do the office of an envoy or messenger."
t Rom. i. 1; xi. 13. 1 Cor. i. 1; ix. 12; xv. 9. 2 Cor. i. 1; xii. 12.
Gal. i. 1. Eph. i. 1. Col. i. 1. 1Tim. i. 1; ii. 7. 2Tim. i. 1,11. Tit.
i. 1; and in the same sense in the plural, in Matt. x. 2. Mark vi. 3.
Luke vi. 13; ix. 10; xi. 49; xvii. 5; xxii. 14; xxiv. 10. Acts i. 26;
ii. 43; iv. 35; v. 18; viii. 1. Rom. xvi. 7. 1 Cor. iv. 9; xii. 28, 29;
xv. 9. 2 Cor. xi. 5, 13; xii. 11. Gal. i. 17, 19. Eph. iii. 5; iv. 11.
I Thess. ii. 6. 2 Pet. iii. 2. Jude 17. Rev. ii. 2; xviii. 20.




176


APOSTLESHIP OF EPAPHRODITUS.


the common English version is rendered differently.       John
xiii. 16-The servant is not greater than his Lord, neither
he that is sent, greater than he that sent him. 2 Cor. viii.
23-Our brethren, the messengers of the Churches.          Phil.
ii. 25-But your messenger.*
The authority of the English version, as far as any argument can be drawn from the use of the word in the
New Testament, is in favor of our conclusion. The word
Apostolos, we have seen, is used in fifty-four places, and in
fifty-one of them, is rendered Apostle. In order, therefore,
to justify a different translation, it must clearly appear from
the sense, that an Apostle, in his ofticial character, could not
have been meant. That Epaphroditus was a messenger and
ambassador from the Church of Philippi, the narrative deter* On the origin and authority of the English version, the following
remarks may be made:-The passage in John (xiii. 16) was rendered
by Tyndal, and the Bishop's Bible, "neither the messenger greater than
he that sent him;" by Coverdale, " neither the Apostle," &c.; by the
Genevan translators, " neither the ambassador," &c. But the translators, in the time of King James, differed from all, and substituted,
"neither he that is sent," &c. The verse in 2 Corinthians, (viii. 23,)
was rendered by Tyndal, the Bishop's Bible, and the Genevan translators, " the messengers of the congregations;" but Coverdale rendered
it, "the Apostles," &c. In Philippians, (ii. 25,) Tyndal, Coverdale,
and the Bishop's Bible, rendered Apostolos, by Apostle; while the
translation made at Geneva, under tne eye of Calvin, substituted " vour
messenger," and in this they were followed by King James' translators.
As far, therefore, as an argument can be founded on the agreement
of the English versions, it is in favor of the Apostleship of Epaphroditus. We see, also, that the present rendering had its origin among the
Genevans, whose system of Church government it would contradict, if
not destroy, if otherwise translated. We may also add, that Luther
translated this word Apostle, in all three places, and that there is not a
single version of the Scriptures, to our knowledge, that dues not render
the word Apostle, in Philippians, (ii. 25,) exceot those that have followed the Genevan.




APOSTLESHIP OF EPAPHRODITUS.


177


mines. Was he any thing more? By an examination of the
narrative, we shall find the following circumstances in favor
of the Apostleship of Epaphroditus:(1.) Notwithstanding the eminence of St. Paul, and the
near relation he bore to the Church at Philippi, he supposed
it more necessary to send Epaphroditus to them, than to send
his tried and beloved son Timothy, or more necessary, even,
than to go himself.  "I trust in the LORD JESUS, to send
Timotheus shortly unto you; yea, that I shall myself come
shortly unto you. Yet I supposed it necessary* to send you
Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labor, and fellowsoldier, BUT YOUR APOSTLE, and the minister to my wants."t
The relation which Epaphroditus bore towards the Apostle,
was that of a "brother and companion in labor, and fellowsoldier;" but, on the contrary,f to the Philippians he was an
Apostle.
(2.) If Epaphroditus were merely a delegate or messenger
of the Church in Philippi, it is not easy to conceive why his
presence was more necessary in that Church, than that of
Paul or Timothy. History gives no account of any preeminence of this man, that will account for the application
of this language to him, unless he was, in an official sense,
their Apostle, the highest officer and ruler of the Church in
Philippi.
(3.) The anxiety experienced by Epaphroditus while sick,
is such as supposes the existence of ties of no ordinary kind,
binding him to that place. " He longed after you all," that
is, he earnestly desired to see you all.~  It will be difficult to
imagine any motive which could operate thus strongly upon
his mind, if he were merely a messenger of the Church; but
if he were their Apostle, how intense must have been his
* Rob. 45.               t Phil. ii. 19, 24, 25. Rob. 478.
t Rob 169.              ~ Rob. 313.




178


APOSTLESHIP OF EPAPHRODITUS.


anxiety for them. And how appropriate the language of
the Apostle. In sending Epaphroditus " the more speedily,"*
St. Paul was, therefore, consulting the good of the Church
at Philippi, and the pleasure and gratification of its members.
(4.) That Epaphroditus was more than simply a member
of the Church in Philippi, before he went to bear their alms to
Paul, seems probable from the active part he took in procuring
them. " He spared not his own life, to supply me with that
service which was lacking on your part," is the strong language of St. Paul. The whole tenor of this account, is, therefore, in exact accordance with the character of an Apostle,
having the care, supervision, and government of the Church,
while the language can not be applied to the character
of a mere delegate, without doing violence to its natural
import.
(5.) The language of the Apostle describes an office similar to that which he held himself, calling him " my brother
and companion in labor, my fellow-soldier," (Phil. ii. 25,)
and " a true yoke-fellow," (Phil. iv. 3,) epithets which could
not, with any propriety, be applied to a person not associated
in office with the Apostle.
(6.) Another argument in favor of this view of the subject,
may be derived from the admitted uniformity of the Apostolic
Churches. As we have proved the existence of this class of
officers at Ephesus, Crete, and other places, it follows that
there must have been such an officer at Philippi also; and
as the language applied to Epaphroditus is in exact accordance with that supposition, and there being no contradictory
evidence, we need not hesitate to say, that he filled that office,
and that there was in the Church at Philippi, one Apostle,
having under him many Presbyter-bishops and Deacons.
* Rob. 766.




APOSTLESHIP OF EPAPHRODITUS.


179


This conclusion is also favored by the practice of the Primitive Church, in sending their most eminent ministers, as messengers, to such as were in affliction, and hence, perhaps,
they received the name of Angels. Thus when Ignatius
was on his way to Rome to be offered, the " Churches came
to meet him by their governors;"* among whom were Onesimus, Bishop of Ephesus;t Damas, Bishop of the Church in
Magnesia: Polybius, Bishop of the Trallians; and others
whose names are not mentioned. Bishops who went on these
errands of mercy and love, might with propriety be called
Apostles and Angels, both in the sense of an Apostolic-bishop,
and as messengers of the Churches. And that this was the
capacity in which Epaphroditus visited St. Paul, there can
be no reasonable doubt.-l
To these considerations may be added the testimony of an
tiquity, as all who speak of Epaphroditus, call him the Apo.
tle of the Church in Philippi.  Thus Jerome says: " In pro
cess of time, others were ordained Apostles, by those whom
our Lord had chosen, as that passage in Philippians shows,
' I supposed it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus,
your Apostle.' "~  And Theodoret says: "Epaphroditus is
called the Apostle of the Philippians, because he was their
Bishop."**
We see, therefore, that the Scriptural use of the word Apostle; the language of the narrative; and the testimony of the
Fathers sustains the Apostleship of Epaphroditus.
There is no reasonable doubt, therefore, that Timothy,
Titus, and Epaphroditus, are called Apostles in the New
* Martyr. Ign. c. 4.            t Ign. Ep. Eph. c. 1.
t Ep. Mag. c. 2.               ~ Ep. Trall. c. 1.
l| See on this practice, Col. iv. 12, 13; 2 Tim. i. 15, 16, 17, and Hug's
ntd. N. T. Par. ii. c. 2, ~ 129.
~ Cor. Gal. i. 19.             ** Cor. Phil. ii. 25.




180


CHARACTERISTICS OF APOSTLESHIP.


Testament. But it is sometimes answered to this,* that
"The DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTIC of the Apostleship was to
goforth and testify AS eye witnesses, among all nations, to the
great facts connected with the history of JESUS CHRIST, especially to the fact of his resurrection from the dead.  They
must have seen him alive after his crucifixion. A small num.
ber of competent witnesses, originally twelve, were appointed
for this purpose."
Hence it is said, there could be no Apostles but the twelve.
This argument is based upon the language of CHRIST, (Luke
xxiv. 48,) "Ye are witnesses of these things;" the language
of Peter, (Acts ii. 32; v. 22,) "We are witnesses;" (x. 40,
41,) "Was showed openly to chosen witnesses;" and on the
language made use of at the election of Matthias, and the
account given by Paul of his conversion.  (Acts xxii. 14,
15; xxvi. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 12; xv. 8.) From this it has been
inferred by some, that, " to have seen the LORD JESUS," was
an indispensable requisite of the Apostleship.  Each of these
passages we shall examine by itself.
The first passage usually cited in support of the preceding
supposition, is Luke xxiv. 48: " Ye are witnesses of these
things."  The "things" of which the persons to whom this
language was addressed, were to be witnesses, is agreed to
have been "the death and resurrection of CHRIST," and this,
it is said, " was the object of the special appointment" of the
twelve. No'w the whole force of this argument depends
upon the truth of two assumed facts; (1,) that this language
was addressed directly to the eleven, and to them only, for if
it was addressed to others than the eleven, then they too were
* This point was discussed at length by Bishop H. U. Onderdonk,
of Pennsylvania, and Rev. Albert Barnes, of Philadelphia, and the
language of "the objector" under this head, is copied from Mr.
Barnes.




CHARACTERISTICS OF APOSTLESHIP.


181


to be "witnesses" of the same things; and if others beside
the eleven were to be " witnesses," then the witnessing was
not a "peculiarity of the Apostolic office;" and, (2,) it
is assumed that this was a peculiarity of the office, for
it would by no means follow, that this was a characteristic of that office, if there were no other witnesses.  We
are surprised that no attempt has been made to prove the
truth of that most material point-the first of the above positions, and more surprised, that no one has even averred its
truth.
But though no one has attempted to show that this language was not spoken to others beside the eleven, we will
show that it was spoken to others; and hence, that this point
was not "a peculiarity of the Apostolic office," or that there
were more than eleven Apostles. " And they [the two disciples which had been to Emmaus] rose up the same hour,
and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and they
that were with them, gathered together, saying,... And
as they spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and
said unto them-... It behooved CHRIST to suffer, and to
rise again the third day; and that repentance and remission
of sins should be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things." (Luke xxiv.
33-48.)
The whole of this transaction, according to St. Luke, took
place at the same time; and hence, all to whom this language was spoken, were equally witnesses of the same things.
Now the persons present were, the two disciples who returned
from Emmaus, and who could not have been of the eleven,
as " they found the eleven gathered together, with those [persons] who were with [that is, who consorted or associated
with] the Apostles."  This assembly was therefore composed
of the brethren generally, and the declaration, " ye are witnesses," is applied equally to all; hence, all the brethren pres16




182


CHARACTERISTICS OF APOSTLESHIP.


ent were made Apostles, or, the witnessing was not "a peculiarity of the Apostolic office."*
The next passage cited is Acts i. 21, 22, which gives an
account of the election of Matthias, when Peter said, "One
must be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."
On this we need only remark, that as there is nothing here
which declares this to be the only object of the election of
Matthias, the conclusion attempted to be drawn, does not
follow. Besides, St. Luke, who wrote this account, can not
be understood as saying that none but the Apostles were to
be witnesses, as we have seen the last chapter of his own
gospel informs us that the fact was not so.
The next passage cited, is Acts ii. 32: "This JEsus hath
GOD raised up, whereof we are all witnesses." Now it is
important for those who set up the claim we are considering,
to show who were intended by " we all," as it is essential to
their argument that it should include the twelve, and no more
* We can not but express our surprise that men of intelligence
should insist upon such a supposition as this, which the reading of tel
verses in connection would have overthrown; and not only this, but
that they should entirely overlook things so vitally important to the truth
of their conclusions; and also at the very strange, if not absurd position, in which this hypothesis places the sacred historians-since all of
the Evangelists have given us an account of several things con'ained
in the Apostolic commission, which the objectors consider of minor importance; while Luke, who was not one of the twelve, is the only one
who has taken the least notice of that which our opponents profess to
consider the only essential thing in that commission. It is indeed passing strange, if the hypothesis under consideration be the true one, that
neither Matthew nor John, who were of the twelve, have alluded to
that which is said to be the main object and design of their appointment. Surely they must have known the facts, and it is fair to presurne, that if they had considered this point of as much consequence as
some moderns would be glad to make it, they would at least have men.
tioned it.




CHARACTERISTICS OF APOSTLESHIP.


183


and no less. But this they can not do, as will be seen from
the following considerations. It is said, Acts ii. 1, that " they
[the Christians] were all with one accord, in one place."
And after the news of the miracle which had been wrought
had gone abroad, a multitude of people came together, and
when they had thus assembled, "Peter stood up with the
eleven, and said," (ii. 14.) Now if Peter, when thus situated, had said, as is represented, " We are witnesses," and
said nothing more, it would only include the eleven, and hence
Matthias would not be included, as it is not said that he was
there; but when he uses the strong language, " We are all
witnesses," it is evident that he intended to include all "the
brethren" present.
Next, Acts v. 32: "And we are his witnesses." If Peter,
when saying that the Apostles were " his witnesses," had intended to say that they were " his only witnesses," it is matter of surprise that he did not give some intimation of the
kind.
Again, Acts x. 39-41: "And we are witnesses of all
things which JESUS did, both in the land of the Jews, and in
Jerusalem, whom they slew and hanged on a tree; Him GOD
raised up and showed openly; not to all the people, but unto
witnesses chosen before of GOD-to us who did eat and drink
with him after he rose from the dead." In regard to this
passage, two things deserve consideration. First, who was
intended by "we" and " us"? The narrative gives no account of any one being present who had seen the LORD, save
Peter himself; and hence, the words refer simply to the
speaker himself. The second point is, who were the " chosen witnesses" to whom CHRIST was shown? The Apostle
tells us that " GOD showed him not openly to all the people,
but to witnesses chosen before of God." Every person, therefore, to whom CHRIST was shown after his resurrection, was
a " chosen witness" to his resurrection, " chosen of GOD" for




184


CHARACTERISTICS OF APOSTLESHIP.


this very purpose. It will, therefore, be incumbent on the
objector to prove, either that CHRIST was seen only by the
twelve,* or that St. Peter was mistaken; or else give up
this hypothesis in regard to the peculiarity of the Apostolic
commission; or else allow that there were more than twelve
Apostles. But this can not be done; for, if the fact of having seen the Saviour after his resurrection constituted an
Apostle, the election of Matthias was unnecessary; as upon
the principles in question, he was as much an Apostle before,
as after his election, as he had witnessed things from the beginning. (Acts i. 19-22.)
The foregoing passages, it is claimed by the objector, contain " all that is said in the New Testament of the original
design of the appointment of the Apostolic office."  And
surely, our readers will agree with us, that if this be "all
of the peculiarity of the Apostolic office," then there was no
peculiarity of that office; at least, none which can affect the
government of the Church.
All the other passages referred to, relate to the conversion
of Paul, and the language relied upon is, he was " called to
be a minister and witness of the things he had seen and
heard." (Acts xxii. 14, 15; xxiii. 11; xxvi. 16. 1 Cor. ix.
1, 2; xv. 8.) Now the question whether the "witnessing"
was the peculiarity of this Apostle's commission, depends
mainly upon the fact, whether that was the distinguishing
feature of the Apostolic office, which we have seen was not
the case. Hence, this could not be the material point in the
commission of St. Paul.
That the Apostles appointed successors to themselves, in
all Churches, is proved by the unanimous voice of all antiquity. Thus, Clement of Rome, the disciple and associate
* But he was seen "by above five hundred brethren at once."
I Cor. xv. 6.




APOSTLES AND APOSTOLIC BISHOPS.


185


of St. Paul, expressly says,* that "they appointed persons
[to the ministerial office] and then gave direction in what
manner, when these should die, other approved men should
succeed in the ministry."   And in another place,t he says,
" GOD hath himself ordained by his supreme will, both where
and by what persons [our offerings and services] are to be
performed." The same thing is testified to, by Irenmeus,
the disciple of Polycarp,: and by Tertullian, in the same
age.~
Many of the names of the persons so appointed, have
been preserved to the present day.  Thus, Hegesippus, who
wrote about 150 or 160, says, that "JAMES received the government of the Church at Jerusalem, from the Apostles."[I
And Clement of Alexandria, bears witness to the same
fact.1  PHILIP is also said to have been first Bishop of
Hierapolis;** THOMAS, first Bishop of Parthia;tt ANDREW,
first Bishop of Scythia.4    So TIMOTHY was ordained by
St. Paul, first Bishop of Ephesus;~~ TITUS, ordained by St.
Paul, first Bishop of Crete;11 l   POLYCARP, ordained by St.
John, second Bishop of Smyrna;~~    EVODIUS, ordained by
St. Peter, first Bishop of Antioch,*** and IGNATJUS, the second Bishop, by St. Paul;ttt LINUS, ordained by St. Paul,
* Ep. Cor. c. 44.                  t Ep. Cor. c. 40.
t Adv. Har. iii. 3.               ~ Pres. Adv. Her. c. 32.
I1 Corn. L. v. in Euseb. Ecc. Hist. ii. 23.
Ir Inst. L. vi. in Euseb. Ecc. Hist. ii. 1.
** Ep. Polycr. in Euseb. v. 24.
tt Euseb. iii. 1.                  St Euseb. iii. 1.
~~ Euseb. iii. 4. Phot. Bib No. 254. Apos. Cons. vii. 46. Chrys.
Horn. 1 Tim. iii. 1, 5. Theod. Com. 1 Tim. iii. 1.
IIII Euseb. iii. 4. Chrys. Horn. Tit. i. 1. Theod. Argum. Tit. Jerome
Cat. Ecc. Scrip. Apos. Cons. vii. 46.
~1f Iren. Adv. Her. iii. 3. Apos. Cons. vii. 4t
*** Euseb. iii. 22. Apos. Cons. vii. 46.
ttt Apos. Cons. vii. 46.
16*




186


APOSTLES AND APOSTOLIC BISHOPS.


first Bishop of Rome,* but CLEMENT, the third Bishop, by
St. Peter;t ANNIANUS, ordained by St. Mark, first Bishop
of Alexandria; DIONYSIUS, ordained by the Apostles, first
Bishop of Athens.~
In the age of Irenaus and Tertullian, this fact was appealed to, as a test of orthodoxy, and as one unfailing Note
of a true Church.  Thus Tertullian addresses the Heretics,1
' If any dare mingle themselves with the Apostolic age, that
thus they may appear to be handed down from the Apostles,
because they were under the Apostles, we may say: Let
them show the beginnings of their Churches; let them declare the series of their Bishops, so running down from the
beginning by successions, that the first Bishop may have
been one of the Apostles, or Apostolic men who yet continued with the Apostles, for their author and predecessor.
For in this manner the Apostolical Churches trace their
origin."
And Irenaeus also says,1f "It is easy, therefore, for all in
the whole Church, if they desire to know what is truth, to
ascertain it, the tradition of the Apostles having been manifested to the whole world. And we are able to enumerate
those who were appointed by the Apostles, Bishops in the
Churches, and their successors, in a continued course to us,
who have taught nothing of this, neither have they known
(any thing) of what is idly talked of by them, (i. c. heretics.)
For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they
taught secretly to the perfect, separate from the rest, they
would most assuredly have taught it to those to whom they
also committed the Churches. For they desired those to be.

* Iren. Adv. Hear. iii. 3. Euseb. iii. 2. Apos. Cons. vii. 46.
t Apos. Cons. vii. 46.
t Euseb. ii. 24.              ~ Ep. Dion. Bp. Cor. in Euseb. iv. 23.
i Prws. Adv. Har. c. 32.. 1 Adv. Her. iii. 3.




UNIVERSAL IN THE SECOND CENTURY.


187


very highly perfect and irreproachable in all things, whom
they left their successors-giving (to them) their own office
of governing; as great usefulness would result from their
acting correctly, but the greatest evils from their falling."
2. To the Apostles, and those to whom they had committed
apostolic authority, belonged the exclusive right of appointng or ordaining Presbyters and Deacons. It is sufficient
proof of this, that there is no mention of an appointment or
ordination to such an office, by any one but an Apostle;' for
it is agreed that the Apostolic history and epistles contain allusions to the organization of the Apostolic Church, sufficiently distinct to enable us to determine what it was. We
are not permitted, therefore, to infer or presume any thing
in regard to the organization of that Church, except from
statements made concerning it, or references to it, contained
in the Apostolic writings. Hence, to assume that the exclusive right of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons was not
vested in the Apostles, because it is not expressly alleged in
Scripture to be so, is to give up every principle of argument
upon which these inquiries must proceed.  If, then, the
Apostles did ordain, they had a right to ordain; and, if no
one else ordained, then no one else had a right to ordain.
To take any other ground, is to deny that we can ascertain
the organization of the Apostolic Church from the Bible-is
to say there is no use in inquiring about it. If, then, we
can prove that the Apostles, and those upon whom they had
conferred Apostolic authority, did ordain, we are authorized
to say, that they only had the right to ordain; unless it can
be clearly shown that others also ordained.
That the Apostles did ordain, is conceded by all, and
testified to by the whole body of ancient writers in the
Primitive Church. Thus we have the record of numerous
ordinations by the Apostles, in particular Churches, which
will be considered elsewhere, to which we add a quotation




188


ORDAINED PRESBYTERS AND DEACONS.


from Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 175. He says, after the
death of the Roman Emperor, the Apostle St. John returned
" from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus. He went also to the
neighboring regions of the Gentiles; in some to appoint
Bishops, in some to institute entire new Churches, and in
others to appoint to the ministry those that were pointed out
by the HOLY GHOST. '*
In order, however, to place the subject beyond doubt, we
shall briefly consider the various instances in the New Testament, where an ordination or appointment to such an office
is spoken of. The first account of this kind is that of the
seven Deacons, (Acts vi.,) which has been claimed by those
who deny the official character of the Apostles, as an election by the people, instead of an Apostolic ordination. But
we have before shown, that the act of the Church was not
an election or an appointment to office, but a testimony to
the character of those the Apostles were to appoint;t and, in
this case, we know the Apostles were the ordainers. The
next case relates to the "ordination of Presbyters in every
Church," (Acts xiv. 23;) which has also been claimed by
the same class of persons, as an election to office by the
votes of the members of the Church; but which we have
shown could not have been the fact, and that the concurrence of the brethren, if any, consisted only in bearing testimony to the unblemished and Christian character of those
the Apostles were about to ordain.t:
The next case claimed as an ordination by others than
Apostles, is that of Timothy; and the proof cited is the language of Paul, (1 Tim. iv. 14,) " Neglect not the gift which
was given thee by prophecy, with the laying an of the hands
of the Presbytery." In connection with this, however, we


* Quis Dives Salv. in Euseb. iii. 23.
t Ante. p. 155.


+ Ante. p. 142




ORDINATION OF TIMOTHY.


189


must consider what the same Apostle says to the same person, (2 Tim. i. 6:) " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance,
that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of MY hands." Now these are distinct, independent
statements of a matter of fact, and are both universally admitted to have reference to an ordination. Hence, then,
either Timothy was ordained, first, by the Presbytery, and
subsequently by an Apostle; or else both refer to the same
ordination. But the most strenuous opponents of the exclusive right of the Apostles to ordain, do not contend for two
ordinations, but agree in referring both to the same transaction. To refer this to two transactions, would be to suppose
two ordinations; one by the Presbytery, and a subsequent
one by St. Paul, which would lead us to suspect the first insufficient. We must, therefore, put such a construction on
both accounts, as will harmonize them. Putting the independent parts of the two passages together, and it will read
thus: " Neglect not the gift of God which is in thee, BY
the putting on of my hands, W.ITH the laying on of the hands
of the Presbytery." Nothing can be plainer than this. The
ordination was BY an Apostle, with the concurrence of the
Presbytery. And yet, plain as it appears, a thousand shifts
have been made, a thousand subterfuges laid hold of, in order to evade the force of this evident conclusion. This fact
must be our apology for devoting more time to a consideration of these passages, than otherwise would be necessary.
In 2 Timothy, (i. 6,) the gift is said to have been given by
(Jia) the putting on of my hands; and in 1 Timothy, (iv. 14,)
with (pt.sia) the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.
The force of the language here used, depends upon the signification of by and with, and much time and labor has been
expended to show that both were the same thing; that the
Apostle merely used by, for the sake of euphony. This




190


ORDINATION OF TIMOTHY.


notion, however, is as fallacious as it is contrary to the evident language of Scripture.
Dia, says Prof. Robinson,* " is a preposition with the primary signification, through, throughout, governing the genitive
and accusative; with the genitive (as in this case) through.
When the instrument or immediate cause, that which intervenes between the act of the will and the effect, through
which the effect proceeds, is spoken of, through, by means of;
and when applied to persons through whose hands any thing,
as it were, passes through, or by whose agency or ministry
an effect takes place or is produced, denotes the efficient
cause."  "By the laying on of Paul's hands," denotes,
therefore, that " the gift of God," as it were, passed through
Paul, and was conveyed to Timothy, by the imposition of
the Apostle's hands, he being " the efficient cause, by whose
agency the effect was produced."
" Meta," says Prof. Robinson,t " is a preposition governing
the genitive and accusative; in poets also the dative, with
the primary signification, mid, amid, i. e. in the midst, with,
among, implying accompaniment, and thus differing from sun,
which expresses conjunction, union. With the genitive (as
in this case) implies, companionship, fellowship; signifying
with, i. e. together with, and with the genitive of athing designates the state or emotion of mind which accompanies the
doing of any thing, with which one acts; or, (as here,) designates an external action, circumstance, or condition with
which another action or event is accompanied." The ordination of Timothy was, therefore, by Paul, with the concurrence of the Presbytery. And this concurrence was, no
doubt, manifested in the same manner as the concurrence of
the people, in the selection of Deacons. Such a concurrence
could not have been necessary for the Apostle, and conse-,.18.59


~ P. 178.


+ P. 509.




NATURE OF THE PRESBYTERY.


191


quently must have been designed as a precedent to guide the
Church in after ages.*
We have pursued this question thus far, as though the
meaning of Presbytery had been settled, and that it signified
a council composed solely of the order of ministers in the
Apostolic Church, called Presbyters. This however has not
been shown, nor can it be proved.  The word IIpei/Surepol,
(Presbytery,) is used in Luke, (xxii. 66,) to denote the elders
of the people, or council before which JESUS was arraigned,
and in Acts, (xxii. 5,) to signify the estate of the elders, or the
council before which Paul was arraigned, and in 1 Tim.,
(iv. 14,) to signify the body, (if any,) that concurred with
Paul in the ordination of Timothy. Now as Presbytery
literally signifies a council of elders,t and a name does not
determine the nature of an office in the Church, and as this
is the only place in the New Testament where this word is
used in this sense, we are not authorized to infer the nature
of this body from the name by which it is called. There are
various ways in which this body might have been made up,
entirely consistent with the meaning of the word, whether it
is determined by Scripture or other authority.  (1,) It might
have been composed of Apostles alone; (2,) of Presbyters
alone; (3,) of Apostles and Presbyters together; or (4) of
Apostles, Presbyters, and people. Amid such uncertainty, it
is altogether illogical, as well as unauthorized, to assume that
the second of these meanings is the true one, and to make
that the- foundation of an argument, whereon to rest the authority of the ministry in any Church, as those who assert
the authority of ordination by Presbyters are obliged to do.


* It, was decreed by the 4th Council of Carthage, A. D. 399, that at
the ordination of a Presbyter, all the Presbyters present should lay their
hands upon the head of the candidate, along with the Bishop.
t Rob. 697.




192


NATURE OF THE PRESBYTERY.


But further, if Presbytery here denotes an ecclesiastical
council, the admitted uniformity of the Apostolic Churches
compels us to suppose that it was composed of the same class
of persons who made up the other councils in the Apostolic
Church, that is, of Apostles and Presbyters, as in Acts xv.
Again, it is not certain that Presbytery denotes a council,
and it has been held by some strong advocates of ordination
by Presbyters, to denote the office to which Timothy was appointed, and not the means by which he was appointed to it.
Such was the opinion of John Calvin, as expressed in his
Institutes.*
Another case sometimes quoted as an instance of ordination by Presbyters, is that of Paul and Barnabas. (Acts xiii.
1-3.)  To this it is sufficient to reply, that Paul and Barnabas were both in the ministry before this time; and that
St. Paul had been a preacher, at least several.  Consequently, this act could not have been an ordination to the
priesthood. If, then, it was an ordination at all, it must have
been to the Apostleship.  But this is rendered altogether improbable by St. Paul's own account of the matter. He assures the Galatians, (c. i. 1,) that he was " an Apostle, not
of (acro) men, neither by (&ia) man, but by JESUS CHRIST,
and GOD the Father." This language, according to Professor Robinson, signifies, "an Apostle, not from, or of men,
nor by the agency or ministry of men, but by the agency and
ministry of JESTS ('HRIST, and GOD the Father."t  If, then,
St. Paul did not i eceive his Apostleship from man, nor by the
agency or ministry of men, this transaction could not have
been an ordination to the Apostleship.
The passages we have examined are the only ones which
* L. iv. c. 3, as quoted by Abp. Potter on Church Gov. p. 267.
t Rob. 179. So in Rom. i. 3-5: "JESUS CHRIST our LORD... by
whom we have received Apostleship."




OPINION OF JEROME ON EPISCOPACY.


193


can be urged in favor of Presbyter-ordination, and as they do
not authorize it, the inference is inevitable, that the Apostles,
and those to whom they had committed Apostolic authority,
had the sole and exclusive power of ordaining Presbyters and
Deacons in the Apostolic Church.
If we turn to the Fathers, we shall find the evidence entirely conclusive, that the Bishops, who were considered the
successors of the Apostles, and they alone, had the exclusive
power to ordain. The Apostolical Canons, which describe the
customs of the Greek and Oriental Churches in the second
century,* give directions concerning the ordination of the
several orders of the clergy. The first canon enacts, that
"A Bishop must be ordained by two or three Bishops. A
Presbyter.or Deacon, by one Bishop."
And the whole current of ancient authorities are all so uniformly to the same purpose, that no one has pretended to find
a single opposing authority, until more than two hundred and
fifty years after the death of St. John, A. D. 100; that is,
not before A. D. 350. Such a person can not be authority,
(1,) because he did not live at the time; and (2) because he
is directly contradicted by earlier authorities. Yet as much
stress is laid upon an author of this period, we shall quote all
he says, entire.
That the opinion of Jerome concerning the distinction between Bishops and Presbyters, was different from that of his
predecessors, those acquainted with ecclesiastical history are
well aware. Hence, he has become the favorite author of
two classes of opponents of Apostolic organization: those
who would subvert it, by teaching the original equality of
all the clergy, and those who would subvert the independency
of it, by teaching that all Bishops are mere delegates of a
chief Bishop; and both classes of opponents use much the
* Murdock's Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 224.
17




194


OPINION OF JEROME ON EPISCOPACY.


same arguments, to gain their respective ends. But though
it is generally known that the opinions of Jerome on this subject were different from those of his predecessors, it does not
seem to be generally known, what his opinions were. Now
it matters not what they were, so far as the authority of Apostolical organization is concerned, since he lived and wrote about
250 years after the death of all the Apostles, and could not,
therefore, know any thing on the subject, except from history. And we have numerous earlier authors, who contradict the usual interpretation put upon his writings; yet for
the better understanding of the subject, we shall quote all the
passages at length, usually cited from Jerome against the
Apostolic practice. In this way, our readers will be able to
see how far anti-Apostolic Jerome was, and of course, how
much his pretended followers of the present day, can make
out of his testimony.  The three passages relied upon, are,
his Epistle to Oceanum,* his Epistle to Evangelum,t and his
Comment on Titus i. 7.
In his Epistle to Oceanum, Jerome is commenting on
the language of St. Paul, in his Epistles to Timothy and
Titus, when he says: "In both Epistles, whether Bishops or Presbyters, (although among the ancients, the same
who were Bishops, were also Presbyters,) they were commanded to be chosen into the clergy, who had but one
wife."
The Epistle to Evangelum, (if it be genuine,) was written
on hearing that some one had given Deacons preference to
Presbyters, as though they were of a superior order. Upon
this, he says: " I hear that one was so impudent as to rank
Deacons before Presbyters, that is, Bishops. Now the Apostle plainly declares the same to be Presbyters, who also are
Bishops." And after mentioning some of the duties of Dea

* 82, or 83.


t Old Editions, Evagrius, 101, or 85.




OPINION OF JEROME ON EPISCOPACY.


195


cons and Presbyters, he proceeds to quote Phil. i. 1; Acts
xx. 17, 18; Tit. i. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 8, in proof of the position he had before laid down, when he adds:
"Who are significantly called in the Greek, episcopountes,
from whence the name of Episcopi (Bishops) is derived."
He then quotes from one Caius, a Presbyter, who says:"In the See of Alexandria, from St. Mark, the Evangelist,
to Heraclas and Dionysius, Bishops, the Presbyters always
elected one from among themselves, and raising him to'a
higher rank, they called him Bishop; much as an army
chooses an Emperor, or as Deacons elect one fiom among
themselves, and call him Arch-deacon.  Indeed, what can a
Bishop do, that a Presbyter may not do, except ORDINATION?"    Then, after saying that the same practice existed
in all places, he adds: " VWherever the Bishop be, whether at
Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanais, he is of the same degree, and of the same
Priesthood; FOR ALL ARE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES. *
And after some remarks concerning the Roman custom, he
adds: " Let them know wherefore Deacons were established;
let them read the Acts of the Apostles, and remember their
condition.  Presbyter is a title of age; Bishop of office.
Wherefore, [in the Epistles,] to Timothy and Titus, is mention made of the ordination of Bishops and Deacons, but not of
Presbyters? BECAUSE IN THE BISHOP THE PRESBYTER IS CONTAINED. We are advanced from the less to the greater; if,
therefore, the Deacon is ordained from among Presbyters,
then is the Presbyter the least; but.if the Presbyter is ordained from among Deacons, then is the Presbyter of a
higher order of the Priesthood. And we know from Apostoli* In his 54th Ep. he condemns the Montanists, for denying that
the Bishops are the Apostles' successors, and the first order of the
clergy.




196


OPINION OF JEROME ON EPISCOPACY.


cal tradition, taken front the Old Testament, that what Aaron
and his sons and the Levites have been in the Temple, the same
the Bishops, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons may claim as
their own in the Church."*
The other passage from Jerome, on which reliance is
placed by the objector, is from his Comment on Titus i. 7,
where, after some remarks on the necessary qualifications of
a Bishop, he applies the same to Presbyters, and goes on to
say:-" The same, therefore, is a Presbyter, who also zs a
Bishop; for before, by the instigation of the devil, parties
were formed in religion, and it was said by the people, I am
of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were
governed by the Council of Presbyters.  But after some began to consider those which he had baptized to be his own,
not CHRIST'S, it was decreed throughout the whole world, that
one be elected, who should be put over the rest of the Presbyters, to whom the care of all the Church should pertain; and
thus the seeds of schism were taken away. If any one esteems it not of Scripture, but to be our opinion, that Bishops
and Presbyters are one; this being a title of age, that of
office; he is referred to the language of the Apostle to the
Philippians." Here follow the same passages quoted in the
Epistle to Evangelum, referred to above, when he goes on to
say:-" This much, therefore, that we might show the same
to have been Presbyters among the ancients, who also were
Bishops; but by degrees, that every sprout of dissension
might be rooted out, all the authority was conferred upon
one alone. As, therefore, they know the Presbyter himself
to be in subjection, by the usage of the Church, who of himself may have been chief, so the Bishops themselves, more
by the introduction of a new custom, than by virtue of the


* The same idea is brought out in another Epistle, Ad. Nepot.




OPINION OF JEROME ON EPISCOPACY.


197


LORD'S direction, are greater than the Presbyters, who have
the right to rule the Church in common."
On these passages, the following remarks should be made:
(1.) Jerome does not say that the office of Presbyter is the
same as that of Bishop; but he expressly asserts, that the
name Presbyter did not originally signify office, but age.
(2.) He does not deny the existence of the second grade of
the ministry, now called Presbyter, at the time the Apostle
wrote the Epistles above referred to; but indirectly admits
their existence, by giving as a reason why this rank is not
mentioned, that the Presbyter is included in the Bishop. (3.)
He does not say, that the office of Presbyter was ever the
same as that of Bishop. (4.) And though he did not consider the office of Presbyter as ancient as that of Bishop, he
considered it Apostolic. (5.) He expressly says, the power
of ordination, even at Alexandria, was never vested in the
Presbyter.  (6.) He plainly declares, that the offices of
Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, in the Christian Church, are
as distinct, and are related to each other, as were those of
High Priest, Priest, and Levite, in the Jewish Church. (7.)
And finally, he tells us, that all, who in his day held the
office of Bishop, were successors of the Apostles, that is, in
the government of the Churches.
We have given the above quotations, that our readers may
see what were the real sentiments of Jerome on the subject
of Apostolic Order. That he differed from those of his own
time, he himself admits; and we know this to be a fact, because it is admitted by all who have examined the subject,
that, " No Church without a Bishop, has been a fact as well
as a maxim, since the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian,"
A, D. 175.*  After allowing all the weight to the testimony
* Gib. Dec. and Fall, vol. I. p. 272, n. 111.
17*




198


TESTIMONY OF SEVERUS, OF ASHMONIA.


of Jerome which can be claimed for it, it still remains true,
that according to his own account of the matter, the sole and
exclusive power of ordination belonged to the Apostles and
their successors, in accordance with the testimony of the
Primitive Fathers.
But there is another objection to the testimony of Jerome;
we know the facts were not as stated by Caius, in regard to
the practice in Alexandria. This will appear from the ancient historians, especially from the testimony of the great
ecclesiastical historian of the Copts, Severus, Bishop of
Ashmonia, whose station in the Church gave him        access to all its records, and who expressly states that he
had consulted the Greek and Coptic Monuments, which
in his time were preserved in the monastery of St. Macarius.
The statement of Caius is, that " in Alexandria, from St.
Mark to Heraclas, the Presbyters chose one from among themselves," and ordained him.  Now this statement is not true,
as a matter of history.  We give the list of the Patriarchs
of Alexandria, down to the time of the Council of Nice,
A. D. 325, with the length of their episcopates, and the time
of their death, as they stood in the Oriental Chronicle, in order to show the minute accuracy with which the records of
the Alexandrine Church had been kept. The reader may
easily reduce the dates to our computation, from the table
already given.*
* Those marked with a star, are taken from the Senkesar, or Calendar of the Ethiopian Christian Church. (Harris's Ethiopia, App. viii.)
The Ethiopians commemorate the memory of twelve of these twenty,
viz.; 1st, 2d, 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 16th, 19th, and 20th;
and with a single exception, on the days above mentioned. Two translations of the Oriental Chronicle are given in the Byzantine Historians
vol. xvii., one by Ecchellensis, the other by Assemani. The last is best,
and the dissertations are valuable.




TESTIMONY OF SEVERUS, OF ASHMONIA.      19


1.99


Y. Day.
7


D)ied.


At. D.


1 St. Mark,
2 Ananias,
3 Melianus,
4 Cerdon,
5 Primus,
6 Justus,
7 Eumenius,
8 Marcianus,
9 Claudianus,
10 Agrippinus,
11 Julianus,
12 Deinetrius,
13 Heraclas,
14 Dionysius,
15 Maximus,
16 Theonas,
17 Peter-martyr,
18 Archelaus,
19 Alexander,
20 Athanasius,


18
12
10
12
10
10
9
14
11
10
32
16
19
12
9
10
0
22
46


216,
286,
280,
52,
315,
122,
86,
183,
211,
33,
219,
56,
281,
211,
263,
333,
200,
308,
15,


Sunday,    Athor 20th,      86
Monday,    Thoth 1st,       99
Saturday,  Paoni 1 1th,    109
Sunday,    Mesont 3d,      124
Saturday,  Paoni 22d,      135
Sunday,    Paophi 10th,    146
Sunday,    Tobi 6th,       155
Thursday   Epiphi 9th,     169
Friday,    Mechir 5th,     181
-   [Phamenoth 8th,*] 191
-   [Phanmenoth 12th,*] 224
Monday,    Choiak 8th,     240
-     -            261
Sunday,    Pharmuthi 14th  273
Wednesday, Tohi 8th,       284
Friday,    Athor 29th,     295
Tuesday,   Paoni 19th,     295
Monday,    Pharrnuthi 22d,  318
Trhursda y,  Pachon 7th,   364


Concerning some of these, we make the following extracts
from Severus.* The numbers refer to the preceding list.
(2.) ANIANus, or Hananias, (called by Eusebius, Ananius.) 1 WXhen St. Mark received information of their design, [viz, the design of the Heathens to put him to death,]
he constituted Anianus Bishop of Alexandria, and likewise
three Presbyters and seven Deacons; which eleven persons
he instituted for the service and confirmation of the faithful
brethren. He himself departing thence, went to the Pen'tapolis, and remained there two years, preaching and ordaining, or constituting Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in all
the provinces thereof."
(4.) CERDON. "The Priests and Bishops who had been
*See also Oriental Chronicle, by Assemani, Byz. Hist., and Hist.
Pat. Alex. by Renaudot.




200


TESTIMONY OF SEVERUS, OF ASHMONIA.


before him in that region, having notice that the Patriarch
was dead, assembled with grief in the city of Alexandria,
and having consulted with its orthodox inhabitants, cast lots
to decide who should be worthy to hold the See of St. Mark
the Evangelist, after Melianus. And by the aid of our LORD
JESUS CHRIST, their minds were agreed upon a chosen man,
who feared GOD, and whose name was Cerdon."
(9.) CLAUDIANUS, (called in the Coptic catalogues Kelasdianos, and by Eusebius, Celadion.)  "There was in those
days a man among the people [i. e. a layman] who loved
GOD, and whose name was Claudianus. Him the orthodox
people, assembling with the Bishops who were in those days
in Alexandria, took and constituted, or ordained, Patriarch,
and placed him in the Evangelical See, and he was beloved
by all the people." Several instances are recorded of laymen thus chosen.   Thus Primus and Demetrius, (5, 12,)
were also elected from among the laity.
(11.) JULIANUS. " There was a certain Presbyter, a wise
man, who had studied the Holy Scriptures with great diligence, whose name was Julianus, and who walked in the
way of continence, religion, and -meekness. The Bishops,
therefore, being assembled in council, and at the same time
the orthodox people in the city of Alexandria, and making
diligent inquiry among the whole people, they found no man
like this Presbyter. Wherefore hands being laid upon him,
they constituted him Patriarch."*
* In Egypt the custom anciently was, and now is, to have a threefold imposition of hands in the creation of Bishops. The votes of the
people were given and numbered by lifting up of hands, and confirmed
by the laying on of hands of the principal laity. The Presbyters laid
their hands twice on the head of the person elected, first in giving their
votes, and afterwards their solemn approbation of his admission to the
Episcopate. The Bishops also twice laid on their hands, first to confirm the suffrage, and finally at his consecration. The following is the




TESTIMONY OF SEVERUS, OF ASHMONIA.


201


There are a few other places occasionally referred to, as
authority for ordination by Presbyters.     Thus it is sometimes said, that "Hermas uses the terms Bishop and Presorder prescribed in the ancient constitutions of the Church in Alexandria. " Let the Bishop be constituted on the first day of the week, all
giving their consent for his promotion, and the people and the Priests
attesting for him. Let the Bishops, who are present to lay their hands
on him, wash their hands that they may then consecrate him, the people standing by with silent reverence; and let them raise their hands
over him, saying, We lay our hands upon this chosen servant of GOD,
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST, to
constitute him into a good and stable order of the one unspotted Church
of the living invisible GOD."  It then goes on to speak of the final act
of consecration, in the following words: "After these things, let the
presiding Bishop.primus Episcopus ex illis) lay his hands upon him,
and pronounce the formula of consecration or ordination; and let all the
people say, Amen. Then let all the Bishops give him the kiss, and let
all the Priests and people say, Worthy, worthy, worthy; and let them
all give him the kiss, and pray that he may have peace and health."
This also furnishes an answer to another argument sometimes urged
against this conclusion. During the troubles in the reign of Charles I.
an attempt was made to prove that the Church of Alexandria, founded
by St. Mark, was originally Presbyterian.* An extract from the Annals
of Eutychius, who succeeded Christodulus, A. D. 933, as the Melchite
Patriarch of Alexandria, was employed for this purpose. Selden, who
made this discovery, had not a profound knowledge of Arabic, nor was
he well versed in ecclesiastical history. His translation, therefore, was
inaccurate in several points which vitally affected his argument; and
he seems not to have been aware, that the ancient records of the Egyptian Church were inaccessible to Eutychius, and that his testimony is
of no value, excepting with regard to the history of the Melchites.
These facts show most conclusively, that both Caius and Eutychius
were mistaken, and that at Alexandria, as elsewhere, none but Bishops
ordained. This Jerome himself allows, in opposition to the authority he
had quoted, if indeed it is quoted correctly. S. F. J.
* Eutych. p. xxix. ed. Seld. in Geis. E. H. Q 32. The translation of Selden has been
controverted by Morinus, Pearson, Le Quieu, Renaudot, Petavius, Ecchellensis, etc.




202


SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY,


byter promiscuously, and speaks of Presbyters as presiding
over the Church at Rome."* This is a mistake, as Hermas,
who wrote in Latin, says nothing of Presbyters, and seldom
speaks of Bishops.
Also that "Clement, of Alexandria, sometimes speaks of
Bishop and Presbyter as the same."t  Never having been
able to find the place where Clement says this, we apprehend this is also an error.
Also, that "Eusebius affirms that in his day, Evangelists
sometimes ordained Pastors."T The facts related by Eusebius in the chapter referred to, took place in the days of
Quadratus, who lived, not in the time of Eusebius, that is, in
the beginning of the fourth century, as is affirmed, but in the
beginning of the second century, 200 years before; and the
"Evangelists" were those "who," according to Eusebius,
"held the first rank in the Apostolic succession,"~ that is, in
the language of Eusebius, who were Bishops.
3. To the Apostles belonged the sole power of administering Confirmation. By Confirmation, we mean a rite which
existed in the Apostolic Church, and which consisted in the
laying on of an Apostle's hands, upon those who had re.
ceived the ordinance of baptism. This is implied in Hebrews vi. 2: " The doctrine of baptism, and of the laying on
of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal
judgment." There can be no doubt, that baptism and the
laying on of hands" spoken of in this passage, are entirely
distinct; as much so as the resurrection and eternal judgment. The order in which the things are mentioned, also
compels us to believe, that as the judgment follows the resurrection, so " the laying on of hands" succeeds to baptism.


* Prof. Pond, of Bangor, in The Church, p. 62.
t Ib. 66, and Euseb. iii. c. 37


t Ib. 65.
~ H. iii. 37.




IN REGARD TO CONFIRMATION.


203


But this text furnishes no evidence as to who performed the
rite; and we must, therefore, have recourse to other portions
of Scripture to determine the question.
When Philip went down to Samaria and preached the gospel, many believed and were baptized. As soon as intelligence of this event reached Jerusalem, two Apostles, Peter
and John, were sent down to Samaria, " for as yet the HOLY
GHOST had fallen upon none of the Samaritans, only they had
been baptized." (Acts viii. 16.) These Apostles, therefore,
" prayed and laid their hands on those who had been baptized,
and they received the HOLY GHOST." (viii. 15, 17.) So also
at Ephesus, when Paul " laid his hands on those who had been
baptized, they received the HOLY GHOST." (xix. 6.)  Here,
then, is the doctrine or fact of the laying on of hands subsequent to baptism, existing at Samaria and Ephesus; and, as
it is agreed that the Apostles had an uniform system of organization, we are compelled to believe the same practice
existed in the other Apostolic Churches, although there is no
account of it in Scripture.  There is, however, mention of
something which appears to be equivalent to, or identical
with it.
After Paul and Barnabas had preached the gospel in several cities of Asia, they returned " to Lystra and Iconiun,
and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, [that is,
those who had before been made such by baptism,] exhorting
them to continue in the faith; ordaining Presbyters for them
in every Church, with prayer and fasting." (Acts xiv. 22,
23.)  This confirimation, therefore, in whatever it consisted,
was something distinct from, and in addition to, preaching,
praying, and the ordinary means of edifying the Church.
Some time subsequent, and after the great dissension at Antioch relative to the rite of circumcision, Paul and Barnabas
returned again to Antioch, in company with Judas and Silas,




204


SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY,


and after much exhortation "confirmed." (Acts xv. 32.)*
It is worthy of remark, that " and confirmed" (xca sxTrsrspitcv)
is an independent sentence, the narrative not informing us by
whom the Confirmation was performed, or by whom received;
and it should also be borne in mind, that Antioch is the only
place where we have any account of Confirmation being performed a second time; and that the foregoing is the only
place in the Scriptures where such a sentence occurs. We
are led, therefore, to infer that this Confirmation was limited,
for on no other hypothesis can we account for the change of
language in this place. And if limited, then only such were
now confirmed, as had not received the rite when administered by Paul and Barnabas some time previous.
Leaving Antioch, Paul passed " through Syria and Cilicia,
confirming the Churches," (xv. 41;) and still later, passed
through the "country in Galatia and Phrygia, in order, confirming all the disciples." (xviii. 23.)  That the Confirmation
here mentioned does not signify any act of the mind, an addition to, or strengthening of the faith, but some outward and
external rite, is evident, both from the meaning of the word,
and from its use by the sacred historians.t
* The Old Syriac version of the New Testament furnishes presumptive evidence of the correctness of this conclusion. In that language,
the word denoting BAPTISM, is from a root which signifies to stand, to
cause to stand, and hence to establish, (ante, p. 84;) that signifying
'ORDINArION, is also from a root signifying to stand, to cause to stand, to
raise up, and hence to constitute, (ante, p. 156;) and the word signifying
CONFIRMATION, or whatever else is referred to in these passages, is from
the same root, '-,, (kom.)
t The word trLaropT o w signifies literally to fix firmly in or on some
place, and hence to lean upon or to be supported on, and is only used in
this latter sense in the Greek version of the Old Testament, (2 Sam. i. 6;
Is. xxxvi. 6,) and is not used in the New, except in the passages quoted
in the text.




IN REGARD TO CONFIRMATION.


205


St. Paul evidently contrasts this Confirmation with mental
strengthening, or addition to the faith, and reckons this as
one means of obtaining it. After he left Antioch in company with Silas, (Acts xv. 40, 41,) he passed through various cities, "colfirming [the members of] the Churches,"
delivering "to theni the decrees of the Apostles and Presbyters to keep."  And so "were the Churches established in
the faith," (xvi. 5,) that is, by the praying, preaching, exhortation, and Confirmation of the Apostles, of which the
historian had just given an account.  We have, therefore,
the laying on of an Apostle's hands on those who had received
baptism in the Churches of Samaria and Ephesus, and something called Co7firmat:on, which was administered to them who
had been baptized in the Churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, Galatia, and Phrygia. Now,
as the Apostolic system was uniform, both of these must
have existed in all the Churches; and hence, either the
same rite is intended in both cases, or else there were two
distinct rites performed upon all persons in the Apostolic
Church, who had received the sacrament of baptism. The
first conclusion is the most probable, and is strengthened by
the consideration, that both were administered only by an
Apostle, upon only such as had been baptized, and there is
no intimation that both were ever administered in the same
Church. It is, therefore, certain, that if they were not like
each other, they were unlike every thing else.
The same inference must also be drawn from the parallel
language in Acts, (xv. and xvi.) 2 Corinthians, (i. 21, 22,)
and Ephesians, (i. 13, 14; iv. 30.) Thus in Acts, the historian, after giving an account of the acts and labors of the
Apostles, adds, "so were the Churches established in the
faith." (xvi. 5.) And Paul to the Corinthians says, (2 Ep.
i. 21,) "he which stablisheth us with you in CHRIST, and hath
anointed us, (Xp,% ' hath consecrated or set us apart to the ser18




206


SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY,


vice and ministry of CHRIST and his gospel,')* is GOD, who
hath also sealed us, (dppay7jw, 'hath set his seal or mark upon
us, Zn token of our being genuine and approved') [Christians;]t
and given the earnest (appac3wv, ' the pledge, scil. something
given to ratify a contract')t of the Spirit in our hearts."
This passage evidently contains a reference to the performance of some external rite, by which the recipient was consecrated or set apart to the worship of GOD through CHRIST,
which was to them, not the evidence of their Christian character, but a token of it, and not the Spirit, but a pledge of it
in the heart.
Of the same purport is the language in Ephesians, (i. 13,
14,) " after ye believed in CHRIST, ye were sealed with the
HOLY SPIRIT of promise; which is the pledge of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession;"
where believing and being sealed are so removed from each
other, as evidently to be distinct things.  It is needless for
us to dwell upon the coincidence of thought in these various
passages.  The reference is so direct, the allusion so distinct, as to be apparent even to the casual reader.  Here,
then, are several presumptions, arising from different sources,
tending to the same point, uncontradicted by any evidence
whatever, all coinciding to prove the existence of a rite called
Confirmation in the Apostolic Church, which was performed
by the imposition of the hands of an Apostle, on those recently baptized; and according to the rules of evidence by
which we are guided in these inquiries, we may say the
existence of the rite is proved.
The language made use of by Paul in his Epistle to the
Corinthians, was used in the Church immediately after the
age of the Apostles, to signify Confirmation. Thus Clement,


* Rob. 900, and comp. xpoapas, p. 899.
t Rob. 800.


t Rob. 100




IN REGARD TO CONFIRMATION.


207


of Alexandria, in the second century, in a work entitled,
" What rich man shall be saved?" gives an account of a
young man who was first baptized and then "sealed with the
Lord's seal as a perfect safeguard."* Tertullian also, employs similar language. " That faith [of the Christian,] she
[the Church] sealeth with water [in baptism,] clotheth with
the Holy Spirit [in Confirmation,] feedeth with the Eucharist."t  We add a single quotation from the epistle of Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, about A. D. 250, to Fabius, concerning the heretic Novatian.  According to the account
there given, Novatian was baptized in sick-bed, but, when
he recovered, "neglected to be sealed by the Bishop."t.
The rite of Confirmation, however, is more accurately described by Cyprian in the same century. He says: " those
who have been baptized in the Church, are brought to the
President of the Church, that by our prayer and imposition
of hands, they may receive the HOLY GHOST, and be consummated with the Lord's seal."~ But we learn from Tertullian, in the second century, who was the instructor of Cyprian,
the nature of this rite, with equal certainty. He informs us
that " hands were imposed upon those who had been baptized,
with prayer and invocation of the HOLY GHOST."[I This describes the rite so accurately, as to leave no doubt of its existence.
4. The Apostles, and those to whom the Apostles had
committed Apostolic authority, had the rule over Presbyterbishops and Deacons. St. Paul exhorts the Hebrews, to
"obey them that have rule over them."  (Heb. xiii. 17.)
And Timothy was besought to abide at Ephesus, " that he
might charge, or commands that none teach other doctrines,"


* Euseb. iii. 23.                      t De Prlescrip. c. 37.
t Euseb. Ecc. Hist. v. 43.             ~ Ep. 73.
U De Bap. c. 8, conip. also De Resur. Car. c. 8.  ~ Rob. 615.




208


THE ANCIENTS ON CONFIRMATION.


(1 Tim. i. 3,) than those he was to "command and teach."
So also, he was to allow no man to despise him, (iv. 11, 12;)
and Titus was to exhort "and rebuke with all authority."
(Titus ii. 15.) Timothy too was to "count the Presbyters
that ruled well, worthy of double honor," (1 Tim. v. 17,)
and he was "not to receive an accusation, i. e. a judicial
complaint,* against a Presbyter, except in the presence of t two
or three witnesses," (1 Tim. v. 19;) which is proof that he
had authority over Presbyters, and must therefore, from the
nature of the case, have been superior to them. Indeed, the
whole tenor of the language in the Epistle to Timothy and
Titus so evidently authorizes them to speak in a tone of authority, that nothing can make it plainer than it now is.
The terms " command," (1 Tim. i. 3; ii. 11; iv. 17; 2 Tim.
ii. 14,) "rebuke," (1 Tim. v. 20; 2 Tim. iv. 2,) "with all
authority," (Titus ii. 15,) " and sharply," imply rule, power,
and authority, and demand a corresponding submission, subjection, and obedience in the persons over whom these were
to be exercised.
Obedience to the Bishops, as the successors of the Apostles, is one of the leading topics in the epistles of Ignatius.
The times in which he lived, were full of disquiet. Heresy
had begun to show itself, and schism had become rampant
in many places. It required, therefore, a strong and steady
hand to preserve the Church in quiet. And such a man was
Ignatius; who, for active zeal and ardent piety, was early
called to a martyr's grave. On his way to his death, with
the evils of the times full in view, he wrote seven epistles to
six different Churches. In all, a prominent topic is, obedience to the Bishops. Nor does he advise it simply as a matter
of expediency, but urges it as a matter of divine appointment.


*~~~~~ ~ Rob 43.1Rb      5,29


* Rob. 436.


t Rob. 257, 299.




OFFICIAL CHARACTER OF APOSTLES.


209


And he must have known whether it was so, as he was the
disciple and pupil of St. John.*
To the Ephesians, he says:t " Wherefore it becomes you
to run together, according to the will of your Bishop, even as
also ye do."
To the Magnesians, he says:t "It is your duty also, noi
to despise the youth of your Bishop, but to yield all reverence
to him, according to the power of GOD the Father. As, also,
I perceive your holy Presbyters do..... It is, therefore,
fitting that we should not only be called Christians, but be
so; as some call a Bishop by the name, but do all things
without him."
To the Trallians,~ "It is, therefore, necessary that ye do
nothing without your Bishop, even as ye are wont.... He
that is within the altar, is pure.  But he is not, that doeth
any thing without the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons."
To the Philadelphians,lI "For as many as are of CHRIST,
are with their Bishop...... I cried whilst I was among
you, I spake with a loud voice. Give ear to the Bishop, and
to the Presbyters, and to the Deacons...... See that ye
follow your Bishop, as JESUS CHRIST, the Father; and the
Presbytery, as the Apostles; and reverence the Deacons, as
the command of GOD."
To the Smyrneans,~T l He that honors the Bishop, shall be
honored of GOD."
And to Polycarp, he says:** " Hearken unto the Bishop,
that GOD may hearken unto you. My soul be security for
those who submit to their Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons."
The same thing is also clearly apparent from other primi* Martyr. Ign. c. 3. The reasons why some of our quotations from
Ignatius are different from the ordinary translations, may be seen in the
Appendix.
t Ep. c. 4.          t Cc. 3, 4.          ~ Cc. 2, 7.
II Cc. 3, 7, 8, 9.   I C. 9.                C. 6
18*




210


APOSTLES AND APOSTOLIC BISHOPS,


tive writers. Thus it is said in the account given of the
martyrdom of Ignatius, A. D. 109 or 116, that " he governed
the Church of Antioch with all care."* So it is said by Hegesippus,t that James " received the government of the Church
at Jerusalem, from the Apostles." And Irenaeust says, that
the Apostles " delivered their own place of government to their
successors."  And Tertullian~ tells us, that neither Presbyters nor Deacons might baptize, " without the Bishop's consent." Towards the close of this century, or as early as
A. D. 200, it was directed,ll that " A Presbyter who, disregarding the Bishop, should form a separate congregation,
and build a separate altar, should be deposed. And that the
laymen who followed him should be excommunicated."
5. To the Apostles, and those to whom they had committed
Apostolic authority, belonged the exclusive right of disciplining the Church. We have already shown that the Apostles had rule over, and of course, the power of disciplining
the inferior orders of ministers, and also, that these inferior
orders had the oversight and inspection of the laity, or the
members of the Church. Hence, it would follow, that the
Apostles had the ultimate authority over the people, if there
were no other evidence on the subject. But this is not all.
The language of Paul to Timothy, is still more emphatic.
Speaking of HIymeneus and Alexander, he says, " I have delivered them unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme."   (1 Tim. i. 20.) And to Titus, he says, "A man
that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject," (iii. 10,) which being spoken only of those who were
in the Church, necessarily implies, that they were to be cast
out of the Church. The whole tenor of the epistle sustains
this opinion. The Romans were directed to avoid all who
* Martyr. Ign. c. 1.            t Cor. v. in Euseb. ii. 22.
t Adv. Her. iii. 3.  ~ De Bap. c. 17.  11 Apos. Can. 24.




RULERS IN THE CHURCHES.


211


brought in dissensions and contrary doctrines, (xvi. 17,) and
the Thessalonians were commanded to withdraw themselves
from every one that walked disorderly, and to have no company with them. (2 Thess. iii. 6, 14.) John also commands
those to whom his epistle was addressed, not to receive those
into their houses who brought not the doctrine he taught, nor
to bid them GOD speed. (2 John 10, 11.)
The language of Paul to the Corinthians, is still more authoritative.  "Shall I come to you with a rod of scourging,*
or in love?"  (1 Cor. iv. 21.)  "The LORD hath given
our authority for edification, and not for your destruction."
(2 Cor. x. 8.)  And "I write to them that heretofore have
sinned, and to all others, that if I come again, I will not
spare." (2 Cor. xiii. 2.) If Paul did not possess the power
of disciplining the Churches, this must be the language of vain
declamation, or bold usurpation. We are authorized, therefore, to say, that he did possess it, and hence, that to the Apostles belonged the exclusive right of disciplining the Church.
6. It was the right and duty of the Apostles, and those on
whom they had conferred Apostolic authority, to preside in
all councils, and to declare the sentiments of the council.
The account in the fifteenth chapter of Acts is proof of this
point. The decrees of that council were "the decrees of
Apostles and Presbyters," (xvi. 4,) though James alone
"gave sentence."  (xv. 19.)  James, therefore, was only
the organ of the council, in declaring their opinion, and it
would be strange if that should be done by any other than
the presiding officer; and though this is the only instance of
the kind recorded in Scripture, it is conclusive evidence of
the Apostolic practice. In addition to this, it should be remembered, that all antiquity declares St. James to have been
the first Bishop of Jerusalem.t


* Rob. 734.


t Ante, p. 185.




212


ONE APOSTOLIC BISHOP


7. In every Apostolic Church, there was one Apostle, or
person endued with Apostolic powers, having under him a
plurality of Presbyter-bishops and Deacons. This, as we
have already remarked, is an important and fundamental
question touching the Constitution of the Apostolic Church.
It is therefore necessary that we examine it somewhat in
detail.
(1.) In the Church at Jerusalem, we have seen there was
one Apostle, St. James, and the narrative shows that there
were many Presbyters and Deacons in that Church. And
this is said to have been the model Church, after which all
others were formed.* In the language of Irenteus, Jerusalem was the Metropolitan city of the New Testament, and
from that Church, all other Churches had their beginning.t
If, then, other Churches were modeled after this, there must
have been one Apostle, or person clothed with Apostolic
powers, in every Church, having under him a plurality of
Presbyter-bishops and Deacons. Besides, when we have
proved the existence of these in one Church, the admitted
uniformity of the Apostolic Church requires us to suppose
they existed in all. But we are not permitted to rest here,
as there is much more evidence to be examined.
(2.) Titus, whom Paul calls an Apostle, (2 Cor. viii. 23,)
was possessed of Apostolic authority in Crete. He alone
was "to ordain Presbyters in every city," (Tit. i. 5,) and
the better to prepare him for that business, Paul gives him
directions concerning the qualifications and character of the
persons he should ordain. But the power of ordaining was
not the only power conferred upon this Apostle.  He was to
"exhort and rebuke with all authority," (ii. 15,) and if ne

* Gies. Ecc. Hist. Div. 1, ~ 28: comp. Synod. Ep. Conc. Const. in
Theod. Ecc. Hist. v. 9, Jerome, in Is. ii.
t Adv. Her. iii. 12.




IN EVERY APOSTOLIC CHURCH.


213


cessary to do it, "sharply, yea, to stop their mouths, i. e. to put
them to silence;"* by which we understand, that he was to
deprive them of "the authority or license to preach," which
they obtained at their ordination. He alone was to reject
heretics, (iii. 10,) and was to suffer no man to despise him,
(ii. 15.) We see then, that in Crete, there was one Apostle
or person endowed with Apostolic powers, with authority to
ordain and depose Presbyter-bishops, and therefore Deacons,
and with all disciplinary powers over the whole Church.t.
(3.) At Ephesus we find Timothy, who was also an Apostle, possessed of Apostolic powers, quite as extensive as those
of Titus, in Crete.  To Timothy, who was a young man,
(1 Tim. iv. 12,) very particular directions were given concerning the qualifications of Presbyter-bishops and Deacons,
and various other topics, "that he might know how he ought
to conduct himsef in the Church of God."t But after all, he
was " to lay hands suddenly on no man," (1 Tim. v. 22,) was
not to ordain without due consideration.  His authority also
included the supervision, trial, and judging of inferior orders
of the ministry. He was "to charge some, that they teach
no other doctrine," (1 Tim. i. 3;) he was to count the Pres
byters " who ruled well, worthy of double honor,",1 Tim.
v. 17;) and "not to receive an accusation against a Presbyter, except in the presence of two or three witnesses."
(1 Tim. v. 19.)~
It has been objected, that Timothy had no regular charge
at Ephesus, that he was left there only for a short period,
and that his residence there was temporary.  But were this
objection sound, it would not affect the question of his superiority over Presbyter-bishops and Deacons. It should, however, be borne in mind, that there is no evidence whatever,


* Tit. i. 10, 13. Rob. 316.
1 Tim. iii. 15. Rob. 54.


t See ante, pp. 173, 187-194
6 See ante, pp. 173-5.




214


ONE APOSTOLIC BISHOP


that Timothy ever exerted the least authority in any other
place than Ephesus, nor any evidence, that he ever resided
anywhere else after he was intrusted with authority there.
If, then, it could be shown, that he was often away from that
city, it would not affect the question in the least.
From these considerations it appears, that Timothy and
Titus were officers and ministers in the Churches at Ephesus
and Crete, with official jurisdiction over those places; and
that by their offices they were entitled to the sole power of
ordaining, supervising, and ruling Presbyters and Deacons.
They had also various other rights, and performed many
other duties; but as they were all incident to the Apostolic
office, it is not necessary to examine them further at this
time.
(4.) Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Church at Philippi, having under him Presbyter-bishops and Deacons.
The Epistle to the Philippians is directed to the "Bishops,
Deacons, and Saints at Philippi," and seems to have been
sent to them by Epaphroditus, whom Paul calls " their Apostle." (Phil. ii. 25.) As we have already alluded to the
Apostleship of Epaphroditus, and enumerated some of the
circumstances which lead us to infer that he was the Apostle
of that Church, it can not be necessary for us to consider it
further.*
(5.) The case of the seven Churches of Asia, also tends to
prove the existence of an office higher than that of Presbyterbishop, in the Apostolic Church. From the first three chapters of the Revelation of St. John, we learn, that in each of
the seven Churches, there was an Angel, who is addressed as
if responsible for the conduct and character of the Churches
in which he was placed. The word Angel, like that of Apostle, signifies literally, one sent, that is, a messenger, and hence
* Ante. pp. 175-180.




IN EVERY APOSTOLIC CHURCH.


215


we might infer the identity of their office, But as a name
of itself determines nothing, we must look to acts. We
read, then, that one of the complaints against the Angel of
the Church of Pergamos was, that he suffered the Nicolaitans
and those that taught the doctrine of Balaam, to remain in the
Church. (Rev. ii. 14, 15.) So against the Angel of the
Church in Thyatira, it is said that he suffered the false prophetess Jezebel, to continue in the Church. (Rev. ii. 20.)*
It then it was wrong for the Angel to permit these things, it
follows from the very nature of the case, that he had power
to prevent them, and consequently, that he exercised some
power and authority in the Church, and, therefore, must have
been an officer in the same.  Now we have shown, that in
the Church of Ephesus, one of the seven Churches, there
was an Apostle, possessing authority to rule and govern the
Church, and, therefore, should very properly be held in some
degree answerable for the character of the Church over
which he presided. Indeed, the language in this very place
supposes such authority.  The "seven stars," which were
"the Angels of the seven Churches," (Rev. i. 16, 20,) were
in the hand, and consequently the executioners of the will of
the Son of Man.   We are, therefore, led lo conclude, that
there was in the Church at Ephesus, and hence in all others,
an Apostle and an Angel, or else that both of these words
denote the same officer, as their primary signification would
lead us to conclude.  The last conclusion is the most rea* Instead of " that woman Jezebel," as our English Bible reads, most
of the ancient versions, and many excellent manuscripts have, "thy wife
Jezebel," and this reading has been adopted by Griesbach. Tertullian,
however, in the second century, reads as the present English. (De Pudicit. c. 19.) And so does the Vulgate, which dates from about the
same period. This alteration, however, proves two things; (1,) that the
Angels of the Churches were then regarded as individual persons, and
(2) that at that period the Bishops were permitted to marry.




216


ONE APOSTOLIC BISHOP.


sonable, and is much strengthened by the fact, that the capacity in which both appear to have acted was the same, while
there is no intimation in Scripture that two offices of that
kind existed in any one Church. In addition to this, it should
be borne in mind, that in the Church at Ephesus, we know
there was a plurality of Presbyter-bishops, (Acts xx. 17, 28,)
and if the Angel was an officer answerable for the conduct
of the whole Church, these were included, and hence he must
have been superior to them. We conclude, then, that the
Apostles and Angels of the Churches were the same, and
have proved, therefore, the existence of Apostles in Jerusalem,
Ephesus, Crete, Philippi, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, and consequently, in all the
Apostolic Churches, having under them a plurality of Presbyter-bishops and Deacons.
(6.) To the foregoing, we must add the Church at Colosse,
in which Epaphras appears to have been the Apostolic Bishop.
The epistle is addressed to " the saints and faithful brethren
at Colosse," (i. 2,) and in it Epaphras is described by the
Apostle as " our dear fellow-servant, who is for you afaithful
minister of Christ; who also declared unto us your love"'
(i. 7, 8,) and though in bonds, (Philemon 23,) is spoken of as
"always laboring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may
stand perfect and complete in all the will of GOD." (iv. 12.)
(7.) So also, Archippus appears to have been the Apostolic
Bishop, probably in the Church of Laodicea.* To the Co.
lossians, the Apostle says: "And when this epistle is read
among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the
Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read that from Laodicea.
And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou
hast received in the LORD, that thou fulfill it."  (iv. 16.)


* The Apostolical Constitutions say, "of Laodicea, in Phrygia."
(B. vii. c. 46.)




HOUSEHOLD CHURCHES.


217


From this, it seems evident, that Archippus did not belong to
the number of brethren at Colosse, as in that case St. Paul
would have addressed him, and not directed others to do it.
That he was the head of a Church, is clear from what is
said in the epistle to Philemon: " To Archippus, our fellowsoldier, and to the Church in thy house." (ver. 2.) This
evidently implies that Archippus was over this Church,
wherever it might have been.
(8.) We have just spoken of " Archippus, and the Church
in his house." To this we must add, that we find the Apostle making mention of "Nymphas, and the Church in his
house," (Col. iv. 15,) and of " Aquila and Priscilla, and the
Church in their house." (Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19.) By
the phrase, "the Church in their house," is frequently, if
not generally understood, " a body of Christians accustomed
to meet in the private houses of these particular individuals."
If the signification be thus limited, then we must render
these phrases, not as signifying those Christians which assembled in his house, but those which dwelt in his house; the
words "that is," in Romans xvi. 5, and 1 Corinthians xvi.
19, not being in the original. Hence, it must be translated,
"the Church within thy house," that is, those belonging to
it, and consequently, of his household; in which case, the
word Church is used figuratively, to denote the Christians of
his household.
The existence of Apostles or Angels in these and other
Churches, is also attested by early history, and we know the
names of many of them. Among those in the first century,
we can enumerate the following, who occupied the seat of
the Apostles, or who succeeded to the Apostles in the government of the Churches. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem;* Anianus, ordained by St. Mark, the first Bishop of


* Euseb. Ecc. Hist. iii. 5.
19




218


ONE BISHOP IN A CHURCH.


Alexandria;* Philip, one of the twelve, Bishop of Hierapolis;t Thomas, one of the twelve, Bishop of Parthia;t Andrew, one of the twelve, Bishop of Scythia;~ Timothy,
the first Bishop of Ephesus;l Titus, the first Bishop of
Crete;T Polycarp, ordained by St. John, the first Bishop of
Smyrna;** Linus, ordained by St. Paul, the first Bishop of
Rome;tt Dionysius, ordained by St. Paul, the first Bishop
of Athens;:t and Evodius, ordained by St. Peter, tle first
Bishop of Antioch.~~  Inasmuch, then, as all the Churches
of which we possess any account, did, in the first century,
have a Bishop, and only one Bishop; and as all had under
them a plurality of Presbyters, or, as we have called them,
Presbyter-bishops and Deacons; the inference is irresistible,
that these officers existed in all the other Churches: for, if
they did not exist in all the Churches, the organization was
not uniform, and our inquiries are fruitless. And if they
did exist, then the Angels of the Churches in Asia Minor
must have belonged to the first class or order of ministers;
that is, must have been Bishops who succeeded to the Apostles, in their places as governors of the Churches.
That there could be only one Bishop in a city, is evident
from what Ignatius says in his Epistles. But there is still
stronger evidence of this fact, in St. Cyprian's Treatise on
the Unity of the Church;\1I1 where he expressly declares, that
"the Episcopate is one and indivisible."   And Cornelius,
Bishop of Rome, in an epistle to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 252, speaks of the rule of "tile Catholic (or* Euseb. ii. 1, 23; iii. 5. Clem. Inst. 6.
t Ep. Polycr. Euseb. v. 24.        t Euseb. iii. 1.
~ Euseb. iii. 1.                   II Ante, p. 173.
' Ante, p. 173.                    ** Eureb. Ign. and Iren.
tt Iren. Adv. Haer. iii. 3. Apos. Cons. vii. 46.
tt Euseb. iii. 4; iv. 23. Apos. Cons. vii. 46.
~~ Euseb. iii. 22. Apos. Cons. vii. 46.         Uj1 C. 4.




AN APOSTOLIC BISHOP AT EPHESUS.


219


thodox) Church," that there should be " but one Bishop in a
Church."*
It has been oljected to this conclusion, by those who deny
the original superiority of Bishops, that inasmuch as there is
no mention made of Timothy, nor of any other Apostolic
Bishop at Ephesus, in the Epistle to that Church, there
could have been no such officer there at that time. But it
will be seen upon consideration, that this inference by no
means follows. The admitted uniformity of the Apostolic
Churcles, enables us to infer the existence of a particular
office in one Church, from its known existence in another
Church. But, on the other hand, the omission to mention a
particular office, in a general epistle on another subject, does
not even raise a presumption against its existence. Now it
was evidently no part of St. Paul's design in his Epistle to
the Ephesians, to say any thing of the ministry of the
Church, except in so far as it tended ilmmediately to spiritual
edification. Consequently, he has scarcely any thing on the
subject in this Epistle. Now, if the omission to mention
Timothy's residence there, and authority in that Church,
proves that he was not an officer in that Church; the omission to mention either Bishops or Deacons would also prove
that none of these existed there, and that there were no offi
cers at all in that Church.
But the assumption that there is no mention of any Apostle as existing in the Church at Ephesus, is opposed to the
fact. In chapter second, St. Paul assures the Ephesians that
CHRIST had broken down the wall of partition which had
before his death separated the Gentiles from the Church of
GOD, and that then the Gentiles also were fellow-citizens
with the children of Israel, in the Christian Church, which,
he assures them, is "built upon the Apostles and Prophets,
* Euseb. iii. 43.




220


APOSTLES AND PROPHETS RECOGNISED


JESUS CHRIST himself being the chief corner-stone." (Eph.
ii. 20.) Here, then, is an express recognition of the two
superior orders mentioned in 1 Corinthians, (xii. 28,) accompanied by an unequivocal declaration, that these are the
frame-work of that Church, which, resting upon the divine
authority of CHRIST himself, for its sure foundation-stone,
contains and supports "the Church of the living GOD."
Now it would be marvellous indeed, if St. Paul should thus
publicly and solemnly assure the Ephesian Christians, that
' the Apostles and Prophets" were the very frame-work of
the Church, when at the same time there was no such thing
as an Apostle in the Church he was addressing. Such a
conclusion can not be admitted without strong proof.
It may, however, be said, as it has been before, that by
"Prophets" in this place, the Apostle meant the Prophets of
the Old Testament; but this can not be allowed, since
it would overturn the whole of the Apostle's argument
concerning the Christian faith. For, (1,) the Prophets are
placed posterior and inferior to Apostles, which would not
have been done, had men of previous times been referred to.
(2.) Because in no sense can it be said that the Prophets of
the Old Testament are the frame-work, or foundation of the
Christian Church, unless we suppose that, by a figure of
speech, the Apostle put the men for the doctrine. But if we
assume that by Prophets, is meant the doctrine of the Prophets, consistency requires us to construe the Apostles, to signify the doctrine of the Apostles; and JESUS CHRIST, to
signify the doctrine of JESUS CHRIST; making, therefore, as
the Socinians do, the Church to rest for its foundation, NOT
on the atonement and mediatorial sacrifice of CHRIST, but
merely on the doctrine he preached. And (3,) it is clear,
that by Prophets St. Paul did not mean the Prophets of the
Old Testament, from what he has said in the same Epistle.
Thus he tells us, (Eph. iii. 5,) that "the mystery of the




IN THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.


221


Christian dispensation,.... was not in other ages, made
known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his
holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit." The Prophets
here spoken of, must be the same mentioned only seven
verses before, and which, with the Apostles, compose the
frame-work of the Church; and these Prophets were living
when St. Paul was writing. If any doubts remained concerning the persons designated by " Prophets," they would be
removed by chapter iv. 11, 12, where it is said that these very
"Apostles and Prophets" were created "for the perfecting
of the Saints,for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of
the body of CHRIST-the Church."  So far, therefore, from
there being any thing in the Epistle to the Ephesians opposed
to the idea that Timothy was the Apostle of that Church,
we are obliged to infer, that if he was not, somebody else
was.
But there is another consideration, connected with this
Epistle, deserving of notice. It is allowed by all, that the
superintendence of the inspiring Spirit over the Apostles, is
a safeguard against their committing any error relative to
the gospel or the Church; and that, whatever was necessary
to be done, they did, and what they did, it was their duty to
do. Hence, we may not suppose, that any thing was omitted
by the Apostles in any Church, necessary to its existence or
well-being. Consequently, when we find the Apostle assuring a Church in any place, that the Church is "built
on the Apostles and Prophets," we are compelled to conclude,
that both Apostles and Prophets must have existed in all those
Churches to which such an Epistle was sent.
Now it will be no news to many of our readers, that the
Epistle to the Ephesians is believed by many learned men,*


* As Archbishop Usher; and after him, Michaelis, Haenlein, Bengel, etc. Home, Intd., P. VI. c. 3.
19*




222


APOSTLE OF EPHESUS.


to have been an Encyclical or Circular Epistle to the
Churches of Asia Minor, and was entitled, "to the Ephesians," on account of the priority or pre-eminence of that
city. The reasons for this opinion are, briefly: (1.) The
words " at Ephesus" (c. i. ver. 1) are wanting in some of
the best manuscripts. (2.) The same words appear to have
been wanting in the manuscript copies of this Epistle, used
by the commentators of the Primitive Church.* (3.) Some
of the persons to whom this Epistle was addressed, had never
seen Paul, as is evident from what he says, (c. iii. 1, 2, 3;
iv. 20, 21,) although he had resided at Ephesus two years
before he wrote this Epistle. (Acts xix. 10.)  (4.) Paul
wrote an Epistle, which was sent to the Church at Laodicea,
and from thence to the Church at Colosse, (Col. iv. 16,)
which is lost, if this be not the very same, as many learned
men have supposed.t   (5.) This is rendered probable, also,
by the fact, that the Epistle to the Ephesians seems to have
been written at the same time, and we know it was sent by
the same person, as that to the Colossians. (Eph. vi. 21;
Col. iv. 7.) And (6) this is still further evident, from the
identity of thought and expression, occurring in both; especially in Ephesians v. 19-vi. 9, compared with Colossians
iii. 16-24.: The most reasonable conclusion, therefore, is,
that the Epistle to the Ephesians was originally an Encyclical Letter, addressed to all the Churches of Asia Minor, and
if so, it proves the existence of Apostles and Prophets in all
the Churches within that territory.~
* Basil, Adv. Eunonium.
t Hug. Intr. N. T., Par. ii. ~ 121-126.
t See Paley's Horme Paulinte, cc. 6, 8.
~ Another view is, that Timothy was not simply Bishop of Ephesus,
but Metropolitan Bishop of Asia Minor, and hence the reason why he
is not mentioned in the Epistle. (Usher Codex. Can. c. v. Bev. Cod.
Can. L. c. 5. Ham. Praef. Corn. Ep. Titus.)




BISHOP OF PHILIPPI.


223


It has also been objected to our conclusion, that the Epistle to the Galatians is addressed to the "Churches of Galatia." (Gal. i. 2.) It is sufficient, in reply, to mention that
Galatia was a country, not a city; that it comprised two civil
provinces; and, at the time of the Council of Nice, had ten
Dioceses, and of course ten distinct Churches. According to
the plan pursued by the Apostles, there must have been at
least two distinct Churches, or Dioceses, in this country
when that Epistle was written; and hence the reason why
it was addressed to them in the plural number.*
It has also been asked, in answer to our conclusion,
"Who was Bishop of Philippi, when Polycarp wrote his
Epistle to that Church?"  And because it does not clearly
appear from the Epistle itself, that there was then a Bishop
in that city, it has been inferred that there were no Bishops
in the Primitive Church. Now, if we were to admit that the
fact was as is alleged in regard to Philippi, the inference
would by no means follow, as it might have been without a
Bishop at that juncture, or be subject to the provisional supervision of some other Bishop, as among us.  It does not
follow, that because a Church is without a Bishop at a particular time, that it is not Episcopal. In regard to the Church
at Philippi, when Polycarp wrote his Epistle, the fact seems
to have been, that it had no Bishop at that time, and that it
was subject to the temporary supervision of Polycarp, until
it had elected a Bishop.
This opinion is fairly inferred from the language of Polycarp himself.  His epistle is addressed, " POLYCARP, and the
Presbyters who are with him, to the Church of GOD at Philippi," &c. In this address two things are to be noted: (1,)
the language is such that Polycarp could not have been one
* Bing. ix. c. 23, ~ 5. An. Univ. Hist. XII. 349, XVIII. 351. Liv.
xxxviii. cc. 12-28.




'224


POLYCARP, PROVISIONAL BISHOP


of the Presbyters; (2,) the Epistle was to the Church of
Philippi, but not from  the Church of Smyrna, over which
Polycarp was Bishop, but from Polycarp himself. Indeed, it
does not appear from the Epistle, that the Church of Smyrna
had any knowledge of its existence, as they are not, as was
usual, even joined in the closing salutation. The act was,
therefore, the personal act of Polycarp, done with the consent
"of the Presbyters who were with him," but in which the
Church in Smyrna took no part.  That Polycarp had such
a supervision, seems to be expressly asserted in the beginning
of chapter third. " These things, brethren, I write to you concerning justice, not because I would arrogate to myself power,
but because ye yourselves have before called upon ne for aid."
There will be no doubt on the part of any one concerning
the correctness of this translation, unless it be in regard to
the word we translate, to call upon for aid.  That this is the
proper meaning of the word, is evident, both fiom its popular
use among the Greeks,* and from the connection in which it
stands. The Philippians had called upon Polycarp for something; but clearly not to write to them on these subjects, for
in that case he would not have disclaimed all "arrogance,"
but rather have said, "in compliance with your request I
write," &c. In fact, he uses such language as this in reference to another subject, about which they had written to
him.t  Now as the fact is universally admitted, that in the
primitive Church, the Bishops of one Church were not allowed
to exercise any function of the ministry within the limits of
another Bishop, without his permission, or, in case of his
death, without the consent of those who had the oversight of
the Church,: any exercise of Episcopal functions within the
* Rob. 309.                              t C. 13.
t Apos. Can. 28. Nice, Can. 15. Antioch, Can. 13. 3 Constantinopie, Can. 1. 1 Carthage, Can. 5, 10. 3 Carthage, Can. 20.




OF THE CHURCH OF EPHESUS.


225


limits of the Church in Philippi, by Polycarp, must have been
performed at the request of the Church, or its Bishop. The
most obvious inference, therefore, is, that Polycarp had been
requested by the Church in Philippi to exercise Episcopal
jurisdiction over that Church. Upon this supposition a good
and sufficient reason is afforded, why Polycarp should write
to the Church at Philippi, and to that Church alone; and
hence, also, the reason of his peculiar phraseology, which is
to the following effect: "I write these things, brethren, not
because I would arrogate power to myself, but because ye
have desired me to exercise a provisional supervision over
you."   Nothing can be plainer, nothing more probable,
nothing more consistent. And having thus prepared the
way, he proceeds to exhort and admonish " every class of
persons among them; Presbyters and Deacons, young men
and maidens, old men and widows, husbands and their wives;"
directing them in what manner they ought to behave themselves, and that too, in a tone of authority which even the
much abused Ignatius did not assume.* This conclusion is
also supported by what is said in chapter thirteen. "Both
ye and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went hence into
Syria, he should also bring back your letters with him;
which also I will do, if I have a convenient opportunity, either
by mysel, or by the Legatet I shall send on your account."
From this it is evident, that Polycarp must either soon visit
Philippi in person, or "send a legate on their account;" and
that this " legate" was not to be a mere Presbyter, or inferior
member of the Church, appears fiom the next chapter, where
it is said that this same epistle was sent to Philippi by Crescens, who seems to have been a Presbyter, originally at
Smyrna, and afterwards at Philippi, and whom (if a conjec* Comp. cc. 3-11.
t Ancient. Ver. legatus, Greek of Nicophorus, (7rpeooaovovra,) iii. 19.




226


SOME LANGUAGE OF CLEMENT


ture might be allowed) Polycarp thought worthy of being
elected Bishop of that Church. " These things I have written unto you by Crescens, whom by this present epistle I
have recommended to you, and do now again commend. For
he hath had his conversation without blame among us, and I
trust in like manner also with you."* One other fact which
goes to strengthen this conclusion, should also be mentioned
in this place. Ignatius, in his Epistle to Polycarp, requests
him to take the oversight of the Church at Antioch, until all
things should be again quietly settled there.t  Upon a review
of all the evidence, there is every presumption in favor of
supposing that, at the time Polycarp wrote his Epistle to the
Church at Philippi, that Church was without a Bishop, and that
Polycarp was exercising a temporary supervision over it, at their
own request.
There are also two passages quoted from the fathers, one
from Clement of Rome, and the other from Irenueus, which
are claimed to be opposed to our conclusions. Clement of
Rome, according to the common translation, says:t "The
Apostles thus preaching through countries and cities, they
appointed the first fruits of their conversions to be Episcopous
(s'Trixo0'ous) and Diaconous, (Jsaxavovu,) over such as should
afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit.
Nor was this any new thing; seeing that long before it was
written concerning Episcopon (set'rxor.v) and Diaconon, (6laxovov,) as saith the Scripture in a certain place, ' I will appoint
their Episcopous in righteousness, and their Diaconous in
faith.'"
The argument of the objector is based upon the assumption, that Episcopous and Diaconous are to be interpreted in
an official, and not in a general sense. But to this we object,
(1,) that there is no evidence that Clement ever uses these
* C. 14.  t Ep. Pol. cc. 7, 8. Euseb. iii. 36.  t Ep. Cor. c. 42.




OF ROME, AND IRENiEUS, CONSIDERED.


227


words in an official sense; (2,) that in another place,* he
describes the three orders by other names; (3,) that to sustain the interpretation given to this text, we are obliged to
suppose that Clement understood the text quoted from Isaiah,
(Ix. 17,) as describing the names of the offices of the Christian
ministry.  But this is absurd, for in the Greek of the Old
Testament, which was his own language, the words are
rulers (apXovra-c) and overseers, (esriJxo07ro.) If then, he quoted
this passage for the purpose alledged by the objector, he was
guilty of forging Scripture to suit his purpose, and that too,
when he could have no possible motive for doing it. (4.)
And it is evident from the whole tenor of the chapter from
which this quotation is made, as well as from the one following, that he intended to apply the language to a'single office.
Hence the words should be rendered overseers and ministers,
throughout the passage.
The other passage is from Irenmus.t  "Such Presbyters
the Church nourisheth, and of such the Prophet saith, 'I
will give them rulers (apXovraS) in peace, and overseers (sriXOtro) in justice.'"  The objector, here, also, makes Irenaeus
guilty of the absurdity of supposing that this passage describes
the name of an office in tle Christian ministry; than which
nothing could have been further fiom his mind.
8. To each Apostle, there seems to have been allotted a
particular portion of country, in which he preached the gospel, and over which he exercised jurisdiction.  Thus St.
Peter addresses those to whom  he preached the gospel,
"scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia,
and Bithynia."f (1 Pet. i. 1.) That he had authority in


* C. 40.                               t Adv. Hmr. iv. 44.
1 It is worthy of observation, that Paul and Silas "were forbidden by
the HOLY GHOST to preach the word in Asia," where Peter was to
preach; and that when they " assayed to go into Bithynia, [which was




228


EACH APOSTLE HAD JURISDICTION


all these Churches, is evident from what he says in the same
epistle: "The Presbyters which are among you, I, who am
a co-Presbyter, exhort."* Hence it follows, that Peter not
only had general authority over all these Churches, but also,
that he had authority in each particular Church; and consequently, was entitled to exercise jurisdiction in them. For
if he had no authority in particular Churches, he could not
have been a co-Presbyter.
But this point is more fully illustrated in the history of St.
Paul. To the Romans, he writes, (Rom. xvi. 19, 20,) " For
I will not presume to speak of those things which CHRIST
hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient by
word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the
power of the Spirit of GOD, so that from Jerusalem, and round
about Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of CHRIST.
Yea, so'have I strived to preach the gospel, not where CHRIST
was named, lest I should build on another man's foundation."
These verses, in the language of Mr. Locke's paraphrase,
read: "For I shall not venture to trouble you with any thing
concerning myself, but only what CHRIST hath wrought by
me, for the bringing of the Gentiles to Christianity, both by
profession and practice, through mighty signs and wonders,
by the power of the HOLY GHOST, so that from Jerusalem and
the neighboring countries, all along, quite to Illyricum, I have.
effectually preached the gospel of CHRIST; but so as studiously to avoid the carrying of it to those places where it wAas
in Peter's region,] the Spirit suffered them not." (Acts xvi. 6, 7.) And
there is no intimation that Peter and Paul ever proclaimed the gospel in
the same portion of country, unless it were in " the regions of Galatia."
These facts afford an intimation, at least, that the Apostles were to confine their labors to districts not yet Christianized.
* 1 Ep. v. 1. Rob. 783, and Gcis. Ecc. Hist. p. 59. The Bishops in
later times called themselves co-Presb/ters. Dion. Alex. in Euseb. vii.
20. And the Address in the Epistle of Polycarp is to the same effect.




OVER A PARTICULAR PORTION OF COUNTRY.


229


already planted, and where the people were already Christians, lest I should build on another man's foundation." This
principle is still more fully illustrated in his second Epistle to
the Corinthians. As the figurative language of the original,
the imagery of which was borrowed from the technical language of the Grecian games,* prevents the mere English
reader from obtaining the full import of the language, we
shall give, on the authority of Professor Robinson, a modified
translation, to which will be subjoined Mr. Locke's paraphrase. From these, we trust every reader may obtain a
very distinct idea of the meaning of the passage. " We will
not boast of things without our allotment,t but according to the
limit of the allotment which GOD hath distributed to us, an
allotment to reach even unto you. But we stretch not ourselves beyond our limit, as though we reached not unto you;
for we are come as far as to you also, in the gospel of CHRIST;
not boasting of things beyond our limit, that is, of other men's
labors; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that
we shall be enlarged by you according to our limit, abundantly, to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, but
not to boast of things made ready to our hands, in another
man's limit."t In the paraphrase of Mr. Locke, the same
passage reads, " But I, for my part, will not boast of myself
in what has not been measured out, or allotted to me; i. e.
I will not go out of my own province to seek matter of commendation; but proceeding orderly in the province which
GOD hath measured out and allotted to me, I have reached
even unto you; i. e. I have preached the gospel in every
country, as I went, till I came as far as you. For I do not


* Adam Clark, in loco.
t Rob. pp. 415, 515, on peroov, and Iavov, and Locke on apsrpa, and
note on the passage
t 2 Cor. x. 13-16.
20




230


APOSTOLIC JURISDICTION LIMITED.


extend myself further than I should, as if I had skipped over
other countries in my way, without proceeding gradually to
you; no, for I have reached even unto you, in preaching the
gospel in all countries as I passed along; not extending my
boasting beyond my own bounds, into provinces not allotted
to me, nor vaunting myself in any thing I have done in
another man's labors; i. e. in a Church planted by another
man's pains; but having hope, that your faith increasing,
my province will be enlarged by you yet further; so that I
may preach the gospel to the yet unconverted countries beyond you, and not take glory to myself from another man's
province, where all things are made ready to my hand."
In this language of the Apostle, the principle is most fully
recognized, that to him a particular portion of country was
allotted or assigned; that his labors were mainly confined
to this territory; and if we take the trouble to examine the
various epistles of St. Paul, we shall see that all of them are
directed to some Church within this territory; except that to
the Hebrews, which is general in its direction. This construction makes the meaning of the Apostle's language evident; while on no other hypothesis can it be made intelligible. To this we may add the express declaration of this
Apostle, that upon him came "the care of all the Churches,"
(2 Cor. ii. 28;) that is, as the Corinthians would understand
him, "of all the Churches within his limit," and to which he
had preached the gospel.
In accordance with this conclusion, is the testimony of the
primitive historians, who uniformly assign the several Apostles to different countries. Thus Origen tells us, " That according to tradition, Thomas received Parthia as his allotted
region; Andrew received Scythia; John, Asia."* Other
historians inform us to what places others of the twelve were
* Expos. Gen. L. III. in Euseb. iii. 1.




APOSTOLIC JURISDICTION LIMITED.


231


sent. From these facts, and from the admitted uniformity
of the Apostolic Churches, we are authorized to infer, that
to each Apostle a particular portion of country was assigned,
in which he preached the gospel, and over which he exercised
jurisdiction.
9. The country thus allotted to the Apostles was divided
into several districts, and Apostolic authority committed to
particular individuals in each of those districts. In order
fully to appreciate the evidence on this point, it is necessary
to bear in mind, that the Apostles were not permanently located in any particular place; that they went to one place,
gathered a Church, appointed officers, and established laws
for its government, and then proceeded to still other places.
Indeed, their character seems to have been almost precisely
like that of our present Missionary Bishops.  It is not probable, however, that every Church was completely organized
at once. Suitable persons might not have been procured, or
the Churches might at first have been so small that no Bishop was appointed.
Among these smaller districts, we have already enumerated the following places, where we have proved the existence of an Apostolic Bishop: (1,) Jerusalem; (2,) Corinth;
(3,) Ephesus; (4,) Philippi; (5,) Crete; (6,) Rome; (7,)
Smyrna; (8,) Pergamos; (9,) Thyatira; (10,) Sardis;
(11,) Philadelphia; (12,) Laodicea; (13,) Antioch; (14,)
Alexandria; (15,) Magnesia; (16,) Trallia; (17,) Colosse;
(18,) Hierapolis; (19,) Parthia; (20,) Scythia, and other
places.  It devolves, therefore, on those who deny these
conclusions, to prove, either that we have entirely mistaken
the nature of the evidence, or, that the Churches in other
places were differently organized. And if they can not do
either, our conclusions must stand.




232


ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLIC


CHAPTER XVI.
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH DESIGNED TO
BE PERMANENT.
HAVING ascertained what was the organization of the
Apostolic Church, we are led to inquire, whether it was
designed to be permanent or temporary?  It is admitted
by all, that Christianity was designed to be permanent, and
that its requirements are of perpetual obligation. The natural and obvious inference, therefore, is, that those institutions which were formed for propagating and preserving it,
should have the same perpetuity. In the absence of opposing evidence, we must believe such an inference the true
one. This follows from the principles on which we have
shown all argument in this case proceeds; and which, for
the purpose of illustration, we shall here repeat. Thus, in
the case we then supposed, the bare mention of a custom,
regulation, or practice of the American army, in one of the
letters before described, without any intimation of its being
either unusual or extraordinary, would be conclusive evidence of its forming a customary regulation. Now every
customary regulation forms a part of the practice or discipline of the army; and hence, unless countermanded, continues while the army exists. The same reasoning applies
to the organization of the Apostolic Church, or it is fruitless
to inquire concerning that organization. The fact, therefore, that numerous things are mentioned in the letters of
St. Paul to his friends, concerning the practice and discipline of the Church, without any intimation of their being
unusual, extraordinary, or temporary, makes this case parallel to the one supposed; and hence, what would be conclusive in that, must be final in this.  Whatsoever things,




CHURCH DESIGNED TO BE PERMANENT.


23~.


therefore, we find existing in the Apostolic Church, unaccompanied by any intimation that they were temporary, we
must reckon among the customary regulations of that Church.
And these, of course, must continue while the Church continues, unless countermanded by some authority equal to
that by which they were established. UIpon every principle
of sound reasoning, therefore, it is not necessary there should
be an express command to render the Apostolic practice
binding upon succeeding generations.  On the contrary,
there should be an express permission to authorize a deviation from it.
Yet the truth of this reasonable inference is sometimes
denied, and it is claimed, that, as the Apostles did not command that the ecclesiastical organization which they had
adopted should be continued in the Church, it is not obligatory upon us, and we are at liberty to follow it or not, as
we choose. But if we examine the principle from which
this conclusion is drawn, we shall find it so broad, as to be
of dangerous tendency; for if one man may fairly urge that
the Apostolic form of the Church is not binding on us, because there is no command requiring our obedience to it,
another may urge, upon the same principles, that the doctrines which they preached are not obligatory upon us, as
there is no command requiring us to obey them. Some persons, however, have obtained the belief, that the doctrines of
the gospel are of divine authority and of perpetual obligation, because delivered under the influence and guidance of
the Holy Spirit; while the form of the Apostolic Church
they suppose not to be of divine authority, and, therefore,
not of perpetual obligation; because, as they imagine, the
Apostles, in establishing it, were not guided by inspiration,
but left to consult their own views of expediency. If such
persons would endeavor to look up some authority for this
opinion, they would find it not only destitute of any Scrip20*




234


ORGANIZATION OF THE APOSTOLIC


tural foundation, but in direct opposition to the whole tenor
of it.*
When speaking of the orders of the ministry, St. Paul is
unusually explicit as to their divine original. In order, however, to see the full force of the language where he enumerates them, we must bear in mind, that the first Epistle to the
Corinthians was written in answer to one they had previously
written to him.  Thus, St. Paul says to them: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote," (vii. 1;) that is, having
finished that part of his Epistle which related to things not
spoken of in their letter, he recurs to it and says: "Now
concerning the things whereof ye wrote;" continuing to reply to their inquiries to the end of the Epistle.  One of
these inquiries related to "spiritual gifts," (xii. 1,) and especially to the degree of precedence, which should be observed
among those who were endowed with such gifts. It would
seem, also, from the tenor of his argument, that they had inquired "whether those who wrought miracles and spoke
with tongues, were not entitled to the highest places or rank
in the Church, even above the permanent officers thereof?"
In reply to this, St. Paul says, (xii. 28:) " GOD hath set in
the Church, first, (qrpwTov,) that is, first of all, or before all,t
APOSTLES; secondarily, PROPHETS; thirdly, TEACHERS; afterwards, (sEsi-ro,) miracles, gifts of healing," &c.
Now epeita, according to Buttnan,t often expresses "censure and reproach, the cause of the indignation or surprise
being first stated," which is precisely the usage in this place;
* Unless they take that ground of Dr. Whately, that the Apostles
were supernaturally withheld from recording these things, in order to
allow us to deviate from their forms, if we please; a position which
seems to us absurd, and the arguments urged in its support, sophistical.
See King. Christ.
t Comp. Matt. xxiii. 26. Acts xiii. 46. Rom. i. 8. 1 Cor. xL 18.
t Gr. Gram. ~ 149, p. 429.




CHURCH DESIGNED TO BE PERMANENT.


235


and, consequently, the Apostle expresses his surprise that
they should have thought of asking such a question; and
censures them for so far forgetting the order of GoD's Church
as to ask it. The question of the Corinthians was a plain
one, and the answer of the Apostle, strikingly explicit.
This answer asserts, (1,) that the ministry is of divine appointment; (2,) that it consists of three orders, called Apostles,
Proplets, and Teachers; and (3) that the power of working
miracles, and the gift of tongues, form no necessary part of
tile ministerial office, and is, in fact, to be regarded as inferior to it. The orders of ministers in the Apostolic Church,
were, therefore, the suggestions of divine wisdom, equally
with the doctrine contained in the gospel; and hence, the
Apostles had no more right to change them, than they had to
vary the doctrines they had received fiom CHRIST. And if
the inspired Apostles did not possess such authority, surely it
would seem that their uninspired successors could not be endowed with it.
We have proceeded thus far, as though the Scriptures
gave no intimation concerning the perpetuity of the Apostolic
Church, and that, therefore, the whole was to be made out
by inference; but we shall now show, that this is not the
fact. We have already seen, that the Great Head of the
Church, in the commission he granted to his Apostles, expressly promised, "to be with them always, even unto the end
of the world." But as this could not be fulfilled in their own
persons, it requires us to suppose a perpetual succession. It
would not be enough to suppose perpetuity without succession, for in that case, the language could not apply to the
Apostles. The language, " I will be with you always, even
unto the end of the world," is equivalent to the phrase, I will
be with you and your successors, to the end of the world.
This conclusion is in exact accordance with the every-day
practice of mankind, and is sanctioned by the plainest dic



236


THE PRIESTHOOD PERPETUAL.


tates of common sense. If a body of men were made a
perpetual corporation, with power to fill all vacancies which
should happen in their numbers, either by death or removal,
no one would hesitate to say, that a grant to such corporation
forever, was for the benefit of the present members and their
successors, though the latter were not mentioned.*  So in the
case under consideration, Christianity is made permanent
and perpetual, and the Church which was founded to preserve and propagate it, must, therefore, be alike durable;
and as we have shown that the Apostles were officers in the
same, having authority to add to their numbers, it follows
that a grant or promise to them forever, must inure to their
successors, though they are not named.
The command of Paul to Timothy is decisive of the continuance of the office which Timothy held, which we have
already shown was that of an Apostle.   " The things that
thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou (i. e. give in
charge, or intrust)t to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also." (2 Tim. ii. 2.) The same inference
flows from the language of Paul to the Ephesians, where it
is said the ministry which CHRIST established, will continue
" until we come unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of CHRIST," (Eph. iv. 13;) or, " until
the Church of GOD shall have obtained a state of perfection
in a future world."t The language of St. John, in the Revelation, is to the same effect. To the Angel or Apostle of
the Church of Ephesus, he says: " Repent, or I will come
unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of its
* This is the common law, (which is said to be " the perfection of
common sense,") on this subject, so that a grant of lands to a corporation aggregate, passes a fee simple, without the word successors. (Coka
on Littleton, L. ii. ~ 133, fol. 94, b, and Hargrave's Note, No. 4.)
t Rob. 624.
t Storr and Flatt, Elem. Bib. Theol. B. 4, Sec. 102, Ill. 6.




THE MINISTRY OF DIVINE APPOINTMENT.


237


place," or, destroy the Church, (Rev. ii. 5; and comp.
i. 20;) which threat would be idle and unmeaning, unless
the Church and the office of Apostle were designed to be
Dermanent.
The argument made use of by Paul, in his Epistle to the
Hebrews, leads to the same conclusion. Thus he tells us,
ihat "perfection came not by the Levitical Priesthood,"
therefore " the Priesthood iwas changed, and has now become
an unchangeable Priesthood."  (Heb. vii. 11, 12, 24.)
From this, we are led to infer, that the Apostolic Church,
with its three orders of ministerial officers, viz., Apostles,
Presbyter-bishops, and Deacons, was designed to be a permanent and perpetual institution-a conclusion sustained by
every presumption of Scripture. We are led to believe,
therefore, that this conclusion is just; and, therefore, binding
on all succeeding ages.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE MINISTRY OF DIVINE APPOINTMENT.
HAVING seen that the Scriptural evidence compels to the
conclusion, that the ministry was of divine appointment, and
was designed to be permanent, and is of universal and perpetual obligation, we might rest our inquiry. But to render
assurance doubly sure, to do away all possible ground of
cavil, and to examine all the evidence that can be produced
on the subject, we shall proceed to inquire how the Primitive
Christians understood this matter. But first, we must ascertain when a thing can properly be said to be of divine appointment or authority.
In reply to such an inquiry, we answer, whatever is done




238


THE MINISTRY BELIEVED IN THE


by the command of God, is of divine authority.  If, then, the
Church was instituted by the command of GOD, then the
Church is of divine authority.  Or if any part of its organization was directed by GOD, then that also, is of divine authority. And if the Church, or any part of its organization,
is of divine appointment, then that may not be changed or
modified, except by divine authority. Now we have seen
that the Apostle makes the ministry of the Church of divine
appointmnent, (1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11, 12;) and consequently, it may not be changed or modified, but by the same
authority.  We shall now proceed to show how this thing
was understood by the immediate disciples of the Apostles.
Clement of Rome, A. D. 87, says: " We ought to take
heed, that looking into the depths of divine knowledge, we do
all things in order,* whatsoever our LORD hath commanded us
to do: that we perform the [eucharistic offering] and public
worship to GOD, at their appointed seasons; for these he hath
commanded to be done, not rashly and disorderly, but at certain determinate times and hours. He hath himself ordained
by his supreme will, both when and by whom they are to be
performed."t  And in another place: " The Apostles have
preached to us from our LORD JESUS CHRIST; JESUS CHRIST
from GOD. CHRIST, therefore, was sent by GOD; and the
Apostles by CHRIST. Thus both were orderly sent, according to the will of GOD.:  For having received their command,... they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom
* Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 40.
t C. 40. The usual mode of evading the force of this language, is,
to say that Clement spoke of the Jewish dispensation, and uses language applicable to that. But this interpretation requires us to suppose,
that the Christian Churches had nothing in common with the Temple,
and that Clement was guilty of the absurdity of talking of the Jews
when speaking to Christians, as though they were one and the same.
t Tert. Prees. Haer. c. 2, holds the same language.




SECOND CENTURY TO BE OF DIVINE APPOINTMENT.  239


of GOD was at hand. And thus preaching through countries
and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their conversions
to be overseers and ministers over such as should afterwards
believe."* In the opinion of Clement, therefore, the ministry was of divine appointment. Ignatius entertained the samt
opinion. But we shall understand his language better by
considering that of Clement of Alexandria first.
Clement of Alexandria says:t "In the Church, the celestial is the image of the terrestrial."  And in another place
he adds: "I take the progressions of Bishops, Presbyters,
and Deacons, to be imitations of the Angelic glory."  The
point here brought out, is, that the Church Militant is a type
of the Church Triumphant.  This seems evidently to have
been the opinion of Ignatius, and explains language which
on any other hypothesis it is not easy to understand.  We
quote a few sentences, inserting in brackets what the language evidently implies, according to this figurative, or typical character of the Church, which both he and his readers
would take for granted.
To the Magnesians, he says:~ "I exhort you that ye study
to do all things in a divine concord, your Bishop presiding
[in the Church Militant, as] in the place of GOD [in the Church
'riumphant;] and your Presbyters [filling in the Church Militant,] the place of the council of the Apostles [in the Church
in heaven."]
To the Trallians:11 "Let all reverence the Deacons as [the
visible ministers of the invisible minister,] JESUS CHRIST; and
the Bishop, as [the representative in the visible Church of]
the Father [in the invisible;] and the Presbyters, as [the
visible representatives in the Church on Earth of] the council
of GOD and assembly of the Apostles [in the Church above."]


* C. 42.
C. 6.


t Strom. iv. p. 500.


Strom. vi. p. 667.
II C, 3.




240      ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH, EPISCOPAL.
This interpretation gives a common sense meaning to language, which otherwise does not seenm to have any meaning
at all, or at least a very extravagant or strange one. And
if this be the meaning, there can be no doubt Ignatius considered the ministry of divine appointment. In another place,*
he speaks without figure. "The Bishops, Presbyters, and
Deacons, appointed according to the will of JESUS CHRIST."
We see, therefore, that Clement, of Rome, A. D. 87, Ignatius, A. D. 107, or 116, and Clement, of Alexandria, A. D.
175, all held the Church to be divine, and its ministry of
divine appointment. To which we may add Irenaeust and
Tertullian,: about the same age. But we need not enlarge
upon this point, as all the evidence tends to prove that this
was the universal opinion in that time.
There is another consideration deserving of notice here,
which goes to sustain this conclusion, as also to prove the
original Apostolic institution of Episcopacy. That the organization of the Church was uniform so early as about A. D.
200, no thorough scholar, however strongly he may be opposed to Episcopacy, pretends to deny. And that that organ
ization was Episcopal, every one allows. It is also conceded
by all, that whatever changes might have occurred between
the Apostolic age and that, there is no intimation of any
change, in any of the writers that have been preserved.
Now this Episcopal organization had existed from the beginning, or had been introduced within less than a century and
a half, and so introduced, as to be adopted by every one.
Now upon the supposition, that there was no particular form
of Church government prescribed by the Apostles, as many
pretend to believe, and that each Church was left to devise
such system as might seem best adapted to their particular
wants, is it credible, from what are known of men, and the
* Intd. Ep. Phil.  t Adv. Hwer. iii. 3.  t De Pres. Her. cc. 21,37




BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.


241


principles of human action, that in the midst of despotisms, and
monarchies, and republics, and democracies, the same form
of Church government should have grown up, or have been
adopted? If the several Churches had been left to plan the
model of their Ecclesiastical organization, can we believe they
would have been uninfluenced by the forms of governments
around them? Would the democratic Greek, and the republican Roman, and the Theocratic Jew, and the despotic Persian. be likely to agree on this point, when they differed upon
every other? Besides, we know that the various Churches
did differ about matters of much smaller moment, and that
each adhered most pertinaciously to its own customs. Would
they be unlike themselves, in regard to this one?  Every
presumption, arising from our knowledge of men, and of the
men of that age in particular, leads us to the conclusion. that
this perfect uniformity, at that early period, in the organization of all Churches, could not have been secured by any
thing short of a firm belief in its divine original. Since, then~
there is in history, no intimation of any change, and as every
presumption is against it, we must conclude, not only that the
government of Bishops was primitive, but also, that it has
always been held to be of divine institution.
In addition to this, it should be mentioned, that the testimony of the council of Nice, 325, was as full and explicit to
the universality and apostolicity of Episcopal government, as
to the canon of Scripture, or the faith of the Church.
CHAPTER XVIII.
BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.
THE next point to which our attention is naturarry turned,
is, were the Bishops of the second century considered successors
21




242


BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.


of the Apostles in governing the Churches? That they were
so, is evident from all the Fathers who have written on the
subject.  Thus Clement, of Rome, A. D. 87, says: "Our
Apostles knew by our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that contentions
would arise concerning the authority of (ovocLa) the Bishop.
And, therefore, having a perfect foreknowledge of this, they
appointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave direction in what manner, when they should die, other approved
men should succeed in their ministry."* Here then is the
doctrine of a future succession, taught so explicitly that it
can not be misapprehended. The Church of Ephesus was
commended A. D. 107, as one who had " always agreed with
the Apostles,"t and the Trallians for "continuing in the
Apostolic character."4  So Ignatius is said by those who
witnessed his martyrdom, to be " a man in all things like
unto the Apostles who governed the Church at Antioch with
care;"~ and the Church at Smyrna describes Polycarp as " a
truly Apostolical and prophetical teacher and Bishop of the
Church at Smyrna."'l   The whole tenor of the language at
this period denotes that those Churches were considered the
most eminent, and their opinions entitled to the most weight,
who had an Apostolic man for a Bishop, and had ever maintained their Apostolic character.
In the latter part of this century, however, when all the
* Ep. Cor. c. 44. The general signification of ovopa, "name," does
not answer the argument of Clement. The word office, perhaps, would
express his idea best, and is not without sanction. But authority is
more in accordance with Scripture usage. See Mark xvi. 17; Luke
xxiv. 47; John v. 43; Acts iii. 6, iv. 7; 1 Cor. v. 4, and 2 Thess. iii. 6,
where it has the sense of authority. Also, Acts i. 15; Rev. iii. 4, and
xi. 13, where onoma is put for person, or thing. Comp. also, Tert. Apol
c. 2, Apos. Cons. v. 7, for similar usages.
t Ign. Ep. c. 11.                t     Trall. Introd.
~ Martyr. Ign. c. 1.            1[ Martyr. Pol. c. 16.




BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.


243


Bishops ordained by the Apostles were dead, another mode
of reasoning became necessary, and gave rise to another
mode of proving the Apostolic character. This consisted in
appealing to the succession of Bishops, and that Church which
could not trace its succession, so that its first Bishop should'
have been ordained by an Apostle, or one commissioned by
an Apostle, was considered as wanting in one of the essential
characteristics of a Church.  And the minister who could not
trace his succession in the registers of the office, was left out
of the priesthood, as was done in the days of Nehemiah.*
Thus Tertullian, in reply to the Heretics, A. D. 190, says:
"If any dare to mingle themselves with the Apostolic age, so
that they may appear to be handed down from the Apostles,
because they were under the Apostles, we are able to say, let
them produce the origin of their Churches, let them set forth
the series of their Bishops, so running down from the beginning
by successions,t that the first Bishop may have some of the
Apostles, or Apostolic men who continued with the Apostles, for
their author or predecessor.  For in this manner the Apostolical Churches trace their origin, as the Church of Smyrna,
having Polycarp, relates that he was placed there by St. John.
In like manner also, the rest of them show that they have
grafts of the Apostolic seed, who were appointed to the Episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics do any thing like
this."t  Had it not been, in the days of Tertullian, a wellknown fact, that all the Apostolic or orthodox Churches were
able to trace the succession of their Bishops as such, to the
days of the Apostles, and to show that the first Bishop had
* Neh. vii. 61.
t One of the first signs or Notes of a Church, according to Irenaeus,
(Adv. Haer. iv. 63,) is the " succession of Bishops."
$ De Prao. Haer. c. 32. This argument is employed by Ireneus. Adv.
Her. iii. 1, 2, 3; iv. 26, Orig. de Princ. Pref. 2, etc.




244


BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.


been ordained by an Apostle, or some one authorized by an
Apostle, this public challenge to the heretics would never
have been made, as it would have recoiled upon himself.
Irenaeus, also, who lived and wrote about the same time,
and who had himself been a pupil of Polycarp, says: " We
can enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles,
Bishops in the Churches, and their successors, even unto us."
And again, "The Apostles wished those to be very perfect
and irreprehensible, in all things, whom they left their successors, delivering to them their own place of government."
But because it would be tedious to enumerate the succession
in all the Churches, he gave only that of Rome, when he
adds: " By this ordination and succession,* the tradition which
is from the Apostles, and the doctrine of the truth hath come
even to us."t  We have, therefore, the positive testimony of
Irenaeus and Tertullian, that all the Orthodox Churches of
their day, that is, from A. D. 150 to A. D. 200, were able to
trace the succession of their Bishops back to those who were
appointed Bishops by the Apostles, and to whom the Apostles
delivered their own place of government in the Churches.
There is, therefore, no room for doubt, that the Bishops of the
second century were believed to be the successors of the
Apostles in governing the Churches. Indeed, the primitive
writers of the Church seem not to have entertained a thought
of the possibility of any other lawful organization.  They
believed that all legitimate authority must come from the
Apostles; and, consequently, that all lawful rulers in the
Church must have derived their authority from the Apostles,
or some of the Apostolic men. They knew of no other foundation of Christian communities, than the institution of CHRIST,
or his Apostles, and they knew no other mode of transmitting
it, than that of regular succession, in the way pointed out, or


* Cyprian (Ep. 75) holds similar language.


t Adv. Haer. iii. 3.




EARLY HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS.


245


sanctioned by the founders of the Churches.* Those, therefore, who would seek authority for other organizations, and
for other modes of transmitting authority, must seek elsewhere than in the practice or principles of the primitive
Church.
CHAPTER XIX.
HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND
CENTURIES.
HAVING seen that the Primitive Christians, in the first and
second centuries, regarded the Church as a divine institution,
and its ministry as of divine appointment, and of perpetual
obligation, and the Bishops as the successors of the Apostles
in the government of the Churches, we shall consider several
other questions immediately connected therewith. But' before
we do this, we ought to remark, that writers on this subject
have too generally regarded the whole period as one, not
attending to the different circumstances which have characterized different periods, and not sufficiently discriminating
between the statements of early and later writers. There
have been great and striking differences at different times,
producing an almost entire change of phraseology, in reference to ecclesiastical organization. What the most important of these differences were, and the influences they have
exerted on the history of the Church, within the first and
second centuries, it is our design briefly to point out.


* Tert. De Praescrip. c. 21. "If the LORD JESUS CHRIST sent the
Apostles to preach, no others ought to be received as preachers than
those whom CHRIST appointed."
21*




246


HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE


The history of the Church in this period may be divided
into four divisions, each characterized by something which,
in reference to the account given of its organization, was
peculiar to that time, and which ought to be regarded when
considering the history of that period. The first of these
periods may be considered as reaching from the crucifixion
to the death of St. Paul, A. D. 67, being thirty-three years,emphatically the Apostolic period; the second, as extending
from the death of St. Paul to the death of St. John, A. D.
100, being thirty-three years, including the period when the
government of the Church was passing from the hands of the
Apostles into those of their successors, and may be called
the transition period; the third, as reaching from A. D. 100
to 150; and the fourth, from A. D. 150 to 200-each of
which we propose to examine by itself.
1. The peculiar characteristic of the first period, was the
general superintendency of the Churches by the Apostles in
person, having Presbyters and Deacons under them, as ministers and rulers in the Church.  Out of this relation grew
three orders of ministers in the Church, called at this time,
Apostles,* Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacons. But with
the death of St. Paul, as far as history informs us, ended this
relation, and, of consequence, this phraseology. After his
death, therefore, we hear little of the existence of Apostles
in the Church, in any capacity, although St. John remained
thirty-three years longer.
2. The second, or transition period, was characterized by
a peculiarly unsettled state of ecclesiastical phraseology, consequent on the unsettled state of things in the Church itself.
This was the time when the government of the Churches
* During this period, all the governors of the Churches were called
Apostles. (Theod. Com. Phil. i. 1; ii. 25. 1 Tim. iii. 1. Ambrose,
Com. Eph. 4. Gal. i. 1. Bing. B. ii. c. 2, ~ 1.)




FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES.


247


was passing from the Apostles, into the hands of their successors-when the spirit of pride and insubordination, which
even the authority of the Apostles had not been able wholly
to restrain, would be likely to break out with violence, and
rage with fury. Besides, though the power and duty of the
officers of the Church may have been well defined, and
generally understood, there was a difficulty not easily surmounted. Most of the Apostles had gone to their rest, but
some remained, and of course the name was still in existence and use.  To such, therefore, all appeals must be
made, and heresy and schism would rear itself under the
pretence of Apostolic sanction. This state of things was
peculiar to this period, and ended at the death of St. John,
A. D. 100.
While this state of things continued, the three orders of
ministers were designated by names different from those used
in the preceding period. The first and highest was called
by St. John, the Angel of the Church; while Clement, Bishop of Rome, the only writer of this period whose works have
been preserved, calls him the High Priest, and the other orders, Priests and Levites. The people or members of the
Church were, for the first time, denominated by him laymen;
a name by which they have ever since been known. The
language of Clement is clear to this point. " God hath himself ordained by his suprelme will, both where and by what
persons we should perform our service and offerings unto
him. They, therefore, who make their oblations at the appointed seasons, are accepted and happy; for they sin not,
inasmuch as they obey the commandments of the Lord. For
to the Chief Priest, (Bishop,) his peculiar offices are given;
and to the Priests, (Presbyters,) their own place is appointed;
and to the Levites, (Deacons,) appertain their proper ministries; and the layman is confined within the bounds of what




'248


HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE


is commanded to laymen."* It will be evident to every one
who examines the epistle of Clement with attention, that he
not only considered the ministry of the Church as divinely
instituted, but that it was also made by the same authority
to consist of three orders.
Similar language is occasionally used by still later writers.  Thus Tertullian speaks of the "High Priest, who is
the Bishop."t And Jerome tells us, that the Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons, hold the same place in the Christian Church,
that the High Priest, Priests, and Levites did, in the Jewish
Church.:   This language also occurs at a still later period.
Thus, in the Liturgy of St. Basil,~ "Grant, therefore, that
we, thy servants, my Fathers and Brethren, the Priests and
Levites, and all thy faithful people, may all be freed," etc.
The Bishop is also called the " High Priest," and his office
the "High Priesthood," in the Apostolical Constitutions, in
the third or fourth century;[ in the ancient Ordinal of the
Greek Church, for consecrating a Bishop;~ also, in the Ordinals of the Gothic Churches, before A. D. 550;** in the
Pontifical of Egbert, Archbishop of York, A. D. 800;tt and
occasionally by other writers.
3. The peculiar characteristic of the third period, consisted in ascertaining the extent of authority appertaining to
the clerical office, and in settling the meaning of ecclesiastical phraseology as it remains.to the present day.   Thus,
within seven years after the death of St. John, we find that
* Ep. Cor. c. 40. Those who deny our conclusions, apply this language to the Jewish Church; but this is unauthorized and improbable.
It is incredible that Clement should make an exhortation to the Jews,
when writing to Greek Christians.
t De Bap. c. 17.                  t Ep. Evang.
~ Brett. p. 79.                  11 B. viii. 4, 5.
I Goar. Ritual. Grcec. pp. 302-4.  ** Murator. vol. II. p. 670.
tt Martene Ant. Ecc. Rit. L. i. c. 8, Art. 11, Ord. 2.




FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES.


249


the three orders of ministers were denominated Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, and to each was assigned the same office,
with nearly or quite the same power and duty, as appertains
to them at the present day. This distinction of name and
office was made by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch,* and by
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, A. D. 107;t by the account
given of the martyrdom of Ignatius, by eye-witnesses of the
event, about A. D. 108 or 109; by the Church at Smyrna,
in the Circular Epistle which they addressed to the other
Churches, on the martyrdom of Polycarp,~ about 167 or
168, which properly belongs to this period, though written a
little later.
A good and sufficient reason for the strong language of
Ignatius, in reference to the orders of ministers, and the obligation of obedience to them, may be found in the peculiar
evils of those times. The presence, and of course, much of
the influence of the Apostles, was withdrawn; the enemies
of the Church were untiring in their opposition; heresies,
foul and dark, sprung up in the hearts, and were manifested
in the lives of hypocritical friends and misguided devotees,
while schisms and discordslj were originated by the envy of
* Ep. Eph. cc. 2, 4, 5, 20. Mag. cc. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13. Trail. cc. 2,
3, 7, 12. Phil. Intd. cc. 4, 7, 10. Smyr. cc. 8, 12. Pol. c. 6.
t Ep. Phil. cc. 5, 6, 13. Comp. with Intd. and Martyr. Ign. c. 3, and
Martyr. Pol. c. 16.
t Martyr. Ign. cc. 1, 3.
~ Martyr. Pol. c. 16.
|I The first attempt to corrupt the faith of the Church in Jerusalem,
was by Thebuthis, who was disappointed in not having been elected
Bishop, in place of Simeon, the second Bishop of that city. (Heg
Com. in Euseb. iv. 22.) One of the earliest heresies in the Roman
Church, the Novatian, arose A. D. 252, from a similar cause. (Euseb.
vi. 43.) Many similar cases are mentioned in the early history of the
Church, fully verifying the prediction of the Apostles, that dissension
should arise on account of the ministry. (Cerllm. Rom. Ep. Cor. c. 44.)




250


HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE


disappointed ambition, or the cunning of false professors.*
At such a time, deep, heartfelt, pervading piety, united to
the highest degree of wisdom and skill, accompanied by bold,
decisive, and energetic action, were indispensable requisites
in the character of those who were to be the defenders of
the Church-who were to bear the ark of GOD with safety
through the difficulties and dangers which so thickly beset it
on every side. And such was the character of Ignatius, as
every one can see, who reads his epistles; and such, save
the boldness and energy of character, was Polycarp, whose
praise is in all the Churches; and such, no doubt, were
many others, whose names are only recorded in the Lamb's
book of life.
We shall make a few extracts, that our readers may see
in what light these things were viewed by the Christians of
this period.  The Church at Philadelphia is saluted by Ignatius: "Especially if at unity with the Bishop, and the
Presbyters, and Deacons with him, appointed according to
the will of JESUS CHRIST, whom he hath settled according to
his own will, in all firmness by the Holy Spirit."t From
the Epistle to the Ephesians, we learn that Onesimus was
Bishop of the Church in that city,: having under him Pres* The following remarkable passage on this subject from Hegesippus,
A. D. 150, is copied from Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iii. 32. "The Church
had continued until then, [the time of Simeon,] as a pure and uncorrupt
virgin; whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the
sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in dark
retreats. But when the sacred choir of the Apostles became extinct,
and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their
inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combinations of
impious error arose, by the fraud and delusion of false teachers.
These also, as there were none of the Apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame, to preach their false doctrines against the
gospel."
t Intd. Ep. Phil.            t Ep. Eph. c. 1.




FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES.


251


byters and Deacons,* and that that Church "had always
agreed with the Apostles."t  At the same time, Damas was
Bishop of the Church at Magnesia,: having Presbyters and
Deacons under him.~ We learn from the same source, that
Polybius was Bishop of the Church at Tralles,i and that
there were many Presbyters and Deacons in that Church at
the same time.~  At this time, also, Polycarp was Bishop
of the Church at Smyrna,** having many Presbyters and
Deacons subject to him.tt And to the Philadelphians, Ignatius says: " Give ear to the Bishop, and to the Presbytery,
and to the Deacons."#  To the Trallians: " He that doeth
any thing without the Bishop and Presbyters, and Deacons,
is not pure in his conscience;"~~ and in another place he
says: " without these, there is no Church."1'11 It is certain,
therefore, that at this time there were three orders of ministers in the Church; and that the distinction between Bishop
and Presbyter was well understood.
But we are not obliged to rely on the authority of Ignatius
alone, for evidence that this distinction was well understood
when he wrote. The account given of the martyrdom of
Ignatius,~~ and the epistle written by the Church of Smyrna
on the martyrdom of Polycarp,*** as well as Irenaeus, who
was the disciple of Polycarp,ttt all agree in calling Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna.  This Polycarp, in the epistle he
* Cc. 2, 4, 20.           t C. 10.
t Ign. Ep. Mag. c. 2.     ~ Cc. 2, 3, 6, 7, 13.
11 Ign. Ep. Trall. c. 1.  T Cc. 2, 3, 7, 12, 13.
** Ign. Ep. Pol. Intd. Ep. Mag. c. 15. Martyr. Ign. c. 3. Martyr.
Pol. c. 16.
tt Ign. Ep. Smyr. cc. 8, 12. Ep. Pol. 6. Pol. Ep. Phil. Intd. cc. 5,
6, 11.
tt Ep. Phil. c. 7.    ~~ Ep. Trail. c. 8.
1111 lb. c. 3.        If~   C. 3.
*** C. 16.            ttt Ep. Ad. Flor. Euseb. iv. 14, v. 19.




252        HISTORICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
wrote to the Church at Philippi, says: " The epistles which
Ignatius wrote to us, (i. e. that to Polycarp, and that to the
Church of Smyrna,) and others, as many as we have we
send to you, according to your order;" when he adds,
"they treat of faith and of patience, and of all things pertaining to edification in the Lord."*  Now we have seen that
Polycarp was expressly called Bishop in one of these same
epistles, and that the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was made in the other; and hence, as he has endorsed
these same epistles without exception, he has adopted the
distinction in question. The testimony of Polycarp on this
subject is, therefore, precisely that of Ignatius.
4. The peculiar characteristic of the fourth period, was
the introduction of technical terms of ecclesiastical jurisprudence and theological science, from the Greek into the Latin
tongue, accompanied by an enlargement of the ecclesiastical
phraseology, both in the Greek and Latin Churches. Thus,
we find almost at the commencement of it, Hegesippus in
Palestine, A. D. 160,t and Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth,:
speaking of the office of Bishop as " the Episcopate and the
Episcopal seat." The same language was also used by the
Churches of Lyons and Vienne, about the middle of this period, in a Circular Epistle which they addressed to the other
Churches,~ immediately after the martyrdom of their Bishop,
Pothinus; and from this time to the year 200, it is of frequent occurrence. But what proves more conclusively than
any thing else the general use of such words, is the fact,
that they had, before the middle of this period, become technical terms in ecclesiastical history, and though Greek words,
were in common use among those who spoke the Latin language, and are used by the Latin writers without any inti* C. 13.             t Euseb. ii. 23, iv. 22.
t Euseb. iv. 23.     ~ Euseb. v. 1.




FIRST AND SECOND CENTURIES.


253


mation of their having been borrowed from another tongue,
which would not have been done, had they not been common
words. This usage is frequent in Tertullian, the oldest of
the Latin Fathers, who writes the Greek Episcopos, " Bishop," Presbuteros, "Presbyter," and Diaconos, " Deacon,"
with Roman letters, only changing their terminations to accommodate them to the genius of that language, as Episcopus, Presbyter, and Diaconus.  So also he copied the word
Eucharistia, " the LORD'S Supper,'"* Ecclesia, " the Church,"
Exomologesis, "confession,"t baptisma, "baptism," and some
other words.:  This fact.alone is proof, that before the days
of Tertullian the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter
was well understood and definitely settled, as also, Episcopate and Episcopal seat, which are frequent in his writings;
that they had become, as it were, naturalized in that language, and must, therefore, have been familiar to Christians
of different nations.
The leading characteristics of these different periods in
reference to the organization of the Church, were; in the first,
three orders of ministers, called Apostles, Presbyters, and
Deacons; in the second, three orders of ministers, called
High-Priests, Priests, and Levites, and the word layman was
introduced to designate, as it has ever since, the members of
the Church; in the third, three orders, denominated Bishop,
Presbyter, and Deacon; and in the fourth, an enlargement
of ecclesiastical phraseology in the Greek, and its transplantation into the Latin tongue,~ each of which should be borne in
mind when consulting the writings of the primitive Christians,
in reference to the organization of the Church.
* De Orat. c. 14. De Cor. c. 3. De Prescr. Haer. c. 36, 37, etc.
t De Penit. c. 9.
t See, Diabolus, Holocaustama, Idoleum, Idolicus, Monogamia, Neophytos, Patriarcha, Prophetis, Propheticus, Sabbatizo, Satan, Schisma, etc.
~ Some terms of ecclesiastical technology were also made in the Latin
22




254


ONE BISHOP IN A CHURCH,


CHAPTER XX.
ONE BISHOP IN A CHURCH, BUT MANY INFERIOR CLERGY.
THAT there was to be one, and only one Bishop in a Church,
may be inferred from what we have already proved; for if
in every Apostolic Church there was one Apostle or Apostolic Bishop, having under him a plurality of Presbyterbishops and Deacons, it is reasonable to conclude, that there
was but one Apostle, or Apostolic Bishop in a Church. That
this was the case at Jerusalem, Crete, Ephesus, Philippi,
Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea,
Rome, Athens, Antioch, Alexandria, Magnesia, Trallia, Colosse, and elsewhere, we have already shown; and the admitted uniformity of the Apostolic Churches authorizes us to
infer a similar organization in all other Churches. But this
is not the whole amount of the evidence we have on the subject. The language of Ignatius is clearly to the same purpose.
Thus he says to the Smyrneans:* " Let no one do any
thing which belongs to the Church, separately from the
Bishop.  Let that Eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is either offered by the Bishop or one whom the
Bishop has approved." And to the Magnesians he says:t
" Wherefore, come ye all together as unto one temple of GOD,
as unto one altar, as unto one JESUS CHRIST." So also the Apostolical Canonst go upon the supposition, that all exercise of
ecclesiastical authority within certain limits was committed
language. Thus Tertullian seems to have made, from the adjective Justificus, the verb justifico, from whence our verb to justify, and its deriv
atives. At least, he is the earliest author that used the word.
* C. $.       t C. 7.      t Can. 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 66.




BUT MANY INFERIOR CLERGY.


255


solely in one Bishop. And so rigidly was this rule enforced,
that any Bishop who should presume to perform ordination,
or any other Episcopal function, in any place not within his
jurisdiction, without the consent of the Bishop, or if no Bishop,
of those who had the direction of ecclesiastical matters, he
was to be deposed.*  And this rule was subsequently recognized and adopted by several general Councils.t  That this
principle was a law of the Church before 250, is evident from
the epistle of Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, addressed to Fabius,
Bishop of Antioch, concerning Novatian and his schism,: and
also from the Epistle of Cyprian to Cornelius.~
There is, however, one exception to this, that of assistant
Bishops.  The first instance on record of the translation of a
Bishop, was about A. D. 250, when Alexander, a Bishop of
Cappadocia, was elected assistant to Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem. This is also the first recorded instance of an assistant Bishop. [ There is also another instance in early
times of two Bishops in one city, that of Novatian, who procured himself to be ordained Bishop of Rome, while Cornelius held the Episcopate, for which he was condemned by a
large council, and excommunicated as a schismatic.~
But though there was never but one Bishop in a Church,
there were, when the Church was completely organized,
many Presbyters and Deacons. We have already seen that
in the Apostolic Church, there was a plurality of Presbyters
and Deacons under every Apostle, or Apostolic Bishop. This
arrangement also continued in the succeeding age. That
there were a number of Presbyters in the Church of Corinth,
* Can. 28.
t Nice, Can. 15. Antioch, Can. 13. 3 Constantinople, Can. 1. 1 Carthage, Can. 5, 10. 3 Carthage, Can. 20, and in England, Coun. Hereford, A. D. 673, Can. 2, 6, 8.
t Ep. Cor. ad Fab. in Euseb. vi. 43.  ~ Ep. 45.
1 Euseb. vi. 11.                    ~ Euseb. v. 43.




256


ORIGINAL INDEPENDENCE OF BISHOPS.


when Clement wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians, is evident
from his language, for he speaks of "Presbyters that have
been driven out of the ministry;"* of" a sedition against the
Presbyters,"t and exhorts them to be "at peace with the
Presbyters.": There were too a number of Presbyters and
Deacons in the Church in Smyrna when Polycarp wrote his
Epistle to the Philippians, A. D. 107;~ a number of both in
the Church at Philippi;ll as also at the same time in the
Church in Ephesus;~ in Magnesia;** in Trallia;tt and in
Philadelphia.:J So A. D. 176, there were many Presbyters
in the Church at Lyons.~~ And at A. D. 252, there were
no less than forty-six Presbyters and seven Deacons in the
Church in Rome.1111 The number of Presbyters and Deacons
would of course depend upon the number of Christians.
CHAPTER XXI.
INDEPENDENCE OF THE BISHOPS.
THE original independence of each Bishop may be inferred,
(1,) from the nature of the constitution of the Church, for we
have seen that the language of the Apostle, giving to every
Church a head, negatives the idea of a head over other heads;
(2) from the nature of the Apostolic commission, which confers equal authority upon all; and (3) from the fact, that in
every Apostolic Church there was one and only one Apostle or
Apostolic Bishop, having under him a plurality of PresbyterC. 44.             t C. 47.           t Cc. 54, 57.
~ Intd. Ign. Ep. Smyr. c. 8. Ep. Pol. c. 6.  II Cc. 5, 6, 11.
' Ign. Ep. Eph. cc. 2, 4, 20.  ** Ign. Ep. Mag. cc. 2, 6, 7, 13.
tt Ign. Ep. Tral. cc. 2, 3, 7.  tt Ign. Ep. Phil. cc. 4, 7, 10.
H~ Ep. Ecc. Lug. in Euseb. v. 4. 1|11 Ep. Corn. ad Fab. Euseb. vi. 43




ORIGINAL INDEPENDENCE OF BISHOPS.


257


bishops and Deacons. The same inference might also be
drawn from the fact, that the earliest Fathers make no mention of any superiority of one Bishop over another. This
conclusion is also sustained by the course pursued by the
Eastern and Western Bishops, relative to the time of keeping
Easter. In the Eastern Churches it was customary to commemorate the death of CHRIST on the dav in which the Jews
prepared to eat the passover,-that is, the fourteenth day of
the first new moon after the vernal equinox, being the fourteenth of the Hebrew month Nisan; while in the Western
Churches the Friday following that day of the moon was observed for this purpose. This difference of practice gave
rise to much discussion and controversy; and Polycarp,
Bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, about
A. D. 166, held a conference on the subject. About A. D.
200, several Councils were held, one at Caesarea, at which
Theophilus, Bishop of that Church, presided; one at Jerusalem, at which Narcissus presided; one in Pontus, at which
Palmas presided; and another in Gaul, at which Irenmus
presided; all of which recommended the practice of the
Western Churches.* Another Council of Asiatic Bishops
was convened at Ephesus, at which Polycrates, Bishop of
that city, presided, which adhered to the custom of the Eastern Churches, defending it by reference to the practice of the
Apostle St. John.t At the same time Victor, Bishop of Rome,
interposed his influence, first to persuade, and second, to compel the Bishops of Asia to come into the practice of the Western Churches, but without effect.  To all this Polycrates
replied in an epistle, from which we make the following
extract.
"I, therefore, brethren, am sixty-five years in the LORD,
[i. e. having been a Christian sixty-five years,] who having


* Euseb. vi. 23.  t Euseb. iii. c. 31. Ep. Polycr. Euseb vi. c. 24.
22*




258


ORIGINAL INDEPENDENCE OF BISHOPS.


conferred with the brethren throughout the world, and having
studied the whole sacred Scriptures, am not at all alarmed at
those things with which I am threatened to intimidate me."*
The language of St. Cyprian is equally pertinent and decisive. "Our LORD gives to all the Apostles an equal power,
and says: ' As my Father sent me, even so send I you; receive ye the HOLY GHOST; whosesoever sins ye remit, they
shall be remitted to him, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they
shall be retained.'... Certainly the other Apostles also
were what Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of
honor and power."t  And in his Epistle to Jubianus, he says,
"No one ought to make himself Bishop of Bishops, or pretend
to awe his brethren, for every Bishop is at liberty to do as he
pleases."
A custom, however, was early introduced into the Church,
of holding Synods in the principal or Metropolitan cities, at
which the Bishops of those cities presided. In this way the
Bishops of such cities came to be considered as presiding
Bishops, and hence were called Metropolitans, and sometimes
Primates. This arrangement was in existence as early as
the second century, and the Apostolical Canons: directed that
two such Synods should be held each year, at which the
Bishops were to examine each other concerning their faith,
to settle all ecclesiastical difficulties, and to confer with each
other on subjects of importance. They also directed that no
Bishop should undertake any thing of general interest, without consent of his Metropolitan. Nor might the Metropolitan
himself undertake any thing of general interest, without the
consent of the Synod.~ But each Bishop was permitted to
do whatever pertained to his own Diocese, without consulting
any other Bishop.ll The existence of Metropolitans or Pri

* Apud Euseb. vi. 24.
~ Can. 27.


t Unity Church, c. 3.


t Can. 30.
U Can. 27.




ORIGINAL INDEPENDENCE OF BISHOPS.


259


mates, about A. D. 250, is testified to by Cyprian,* and their
authority and precedence was regulated by the Council of
Antioch, A. D. 341.t  There is abundant evidence that the
independence of every Bishop continued many years later,
and in many places continues to the present day. We are
authorized, therefore, to assert the original independence of
each Bishop, of every other Bishop.
Such an independence is also necessarily supposed, by the
very theory of the Apostolical system. The primitive Christians, as we have seen, regarded the Church as one, with a
visible organization, typical of the invisible and spiritual kingdom, in which CHRIST is the Great and only Head. Since,
then, there is but one invisible Bishop, so, theoretically, there
is but one visible Bishop. Consequently, every Bishop at the
time of his consecration, becomes, by virtue of that consecration, a Bishop, not of any particular Church, but of the whole
Church Catholic.  Each Bishop is, therefore, strictly speaking, Bishop of the Universal Church. But since it is impossible that any one man should perform all the duties devolving upon a Bishop, the Church within a particular region is
regarded, for certain purposes, as the Church, and its Bishop
is limited in the exercise of his power to that particular territory.  But, his power extending originally to the whole
Church, he may still perform the functions of his office, in
places not within his territory, when properly called upon to
do so. It follows from this, that every Bishop in the Church
Militant, is a type of the Head of the Church Triumphant,
so that each individual Bishop is but a reiteration of the same
type, the Episcopate itself being but one.t The language of
St. Cyprian upon this point is striking and pertinent: " The
* Ep. 45.                                 t Can. 9.
\ See on this subject, Thornton's note to Cyprian, De Unit. Ecc. in
Cyp. Treat. 8vo. Oxford, 1839, p. 150.




260


PRIMITIVE RULES CONCERNING BISHOPS.


Episcopate is one; it is a whole, in which each enjoys a full
possession."* If, then, the Episcopate be one, " in which
each enjoys a full possession," it is impossible there should
be any Bishop on earth over other Bishops.
CHAPTER XXII.
CUSTOMS OF THE CHURCH.
HAVING considered the most important points touching the
order and organization of the Primitive Church, we shall
glance at some customs and practices prevailing in the
Church at the close of the second century.  References are
occasionally made to later authorities, as showing the continuance of the same regulations.
BISHOPS.-To the powers and duties elsewhere enumerated, as pertaining to the Bishop, we may add the following.
They were to superintend and take care of the property belonging to the Church,t but were not permitted to apply any
of it to their own use, nor to the use of their friends, except
to supply their necessities, or to assist needy and travelling
brethren; and they were forbid to engage in secular pursuits, or to receive usury.t  Bishops were to be depos:d,
who separated themselves from their wives, under pretext of
devotion; who refused to receive the Eucharist; or who
communicated with persons who had been excommunicated;
or who had been guilty of fornication, or perjury, or theft,
or drunkenness, or playing at dice, or any other unlawful
* De Unit. Ecc. c. 4.      t Apos. Can. 31, 33, 34.
t Apos. Can. 31, 33, 34, 36. Elvira, Can. 18, 20. Aries, Can. 12.
Nice, Can. 17.




PRIMITIVE RULES CONCERNING BISHOPS


261


act.* So were those who procured their places by money,
or made use of civil rulers to procure the office.  So also
were those who re-baptized a person who had been sufficiently baptized; or submitted to a re-ordination; or performed ordination out of their own jurisdiction, without the
consent of the ecclesiastical rulers there; or abstained from
matrimony, meat, or wine, from pretended religious abhorrence; or were found eating at a public house, unless when
travelling.t  And so were those who neglected the clergy
or people of their charge; or refused to supply the wants of
needy clergymen, when able to do so; or held communion
with heretics; or read spurious books in Church; or denied their office; or celebrated the festivals either of the
Jews or heathen; or, having been ordained, refused to enter
upon the duties of their office.:
Bishops accused of any crime, were to be tried at a Synod
of Bishops, of which two were held annually.~ Though
each Bishop in the Primitive Church was held to be independent, the right of the brethren to call them to account for
crimes, or heresy, was distinctly asserted in the second century.ll  No person who had married a widow, or one that
had been a mistress or an actress, or two sisters, or his
* Apos. Can. 3, 6, 8, 9, 18, 21, 35. Laod. Can. 33. Elvira, 19, 79.
Antioch, Can. 4.
t Apos. Can. 22, 23, 28, 39, 43, 45, 46, 60. Carthage, A. D. 252.
Arles, Can. 8. 1 Carth. Can. 1, 5, 10. Nice, Can. 15. Antioch, Can. 3.
3 Const. Can. 3 Carth. Can. 20, 27. Alex. Can. 1. Ancyra, Can. 14.
Gangra, Can. 9, 10, 14, 24. Laod. Can. 55.
t Apos. Can. 29, 37, 50, 51, 52, 57, 63. 4 Carth. Can. 50.
Laod. Can. 59.  Elvira, Can. 50.  Ancyra, Can. 18.  Antioch,
Can. 17.
~ Apos. Can. 30, 66. 3 Carth. Can. 7. Nice, Can. 5. Antioch,
Can. 20.
11 Cyp. Ep. 67, 68. Dup. Hist. Ecc. Writ. Cent. iii. p. 130.




262


PRESBYTERS, DEACONS, AND LAYMEN.


niece, could become a Bishop.* Nor one who had been
guilty of adultery, fornication, or other forbidden act, after
his baptism; or had made a eunuch of himself; or was
insane; nor one recently converted; nor slaves, without the
consent of their masters.t  And no stranger was to be received to the communion of the Church, without letters of
commendation.:
PRESBYTERS AND DEACONS.-All that has been said of
Bishops, in regard to qualification and character, is equally
applicable to Presbyters and Deacons. To these, the following must be added. They were not permitted to baptize,
without the Bishop's consent; nor Presbyters to administer
the communion without the same consent.~   They were not
to leave their parishes without the Bishop's consent, and if,
when they had done so, they refused to return when requested by their Bishop, were to be deposed.l|  And so were
those who formed separate congregations, without the consent of the Bishop.  In short, they were not permitted to do
any thing relative to the Church, without the consent of the
Bishop.**
LAYMEN.-The same moral character was required of laymen, in the Primitive Church, as of clergymen; but some
regulations in regard to marriage did not include them, and
* Apos. Can. 14, 15. Elvira, Can. 61, 62. Neo-Ceas. Can. 2. Gangra, Can. 4.
t Apos. Can. 17, 33, 70, 71, 72. Tert. De Pudic. c. 12. Cyp. Ep. 52.
Nice, Can. 1. Alex. A. D. 235. Elvira, Can. 80. Gangra, Can. 2.
5 Carth. Can. 8, 82.
t Apos. Can. 26. Elvira, Can. 25, 28. Laod. Can. 41,42. Antioch,
Can. 6. 1 Carth. Can. 7. 2 Carth. Can. 7. Saragossa, Can. 5.
~ Ign. Ep. Smyr. c. 8. Tert. De Bap. c. 17.
1I Apos. Can. 12. Ant. Can. 3. Sardica, Can. 20.
~ Apos. Can. 24. Ign. Ep. Mag. c. 7. Antioch, Can. 5. Gangra,
Can. 5. Laod. Can. 34. 2 Carth. Can. 8.
** Apos. Can. 32.




FASTS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.


263


some acts which did not exclude them from communion, debarred from entering the ministry. No effort was spared
which would enable them to draw a broad line of distinction between Christians and the Jewish and Gentile world.
Hence the rule of the Primitive Church, that Christians who
frequented the synagogues of the Jews, or the temples of the
heathens, or who celebrated their festivals and fasts, were
to be excommunicated.* Christianity could be propagated,
only by requiring those who professed it, to come out and be
separate from the world; and they shrunk from no privation,
and from no duty which the cause of CHRIST and his Church
demanded at their hands. Indeed, no one can attentively
read the history of those early times, or the productions of
the eminent saints whose works have survived the ravages
of time, without being convinced that, for pureness of character, for rigidness of morality, for heavenly-mindedness
for holiness, and for disinterested devotion of life, the Chris
tians of the first and second centuries stand pre-eminent
above all succeeding times.
FAsTs.-Besides the things we have already mentioned,
the Primitive Christians made use of various other expedients
to quicken their devotion, and to keep alive a remembrance
of their duty. Among these, fasting held a prominent place.
Fasts were of two kinds, weekly and annual.
1. WEEKLY FASTS.-Fasting was common, even under the
former dispensation, and was adopted by the Apostles under
the Christian, (1 Cor. vii. 5,) though the Apostle would have
it done voluntarily.+  The days made choice of for this purpose, were Wednesdays and Fridays;  at which time, it


* Apos. Can. 62, 63.
t Col. ii. 16, 18, 23. Study of Celtic Lang. p 13, on ethelo-threskeia.
t Comp. Herm. Sim. iii. c. 5, and Fabric. Cod. Vet. Test. iii. p. 928.
Clern. Alex. Strom. vii. p. 744. Tert. De Jejune, c. 14.




264


FESTIVALS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.


was customary " to lay aside the expense which would have
been made on other days, and give it to the widow, the
fatherless, and the poor."*  Towards the close of the second
century, fasts were prescribed in some places for one or both
of these days.t  It was also customary to fast for some time
preceding baptism,: and on other important occasions.~
2. ANNUAL FAsT.-The only annual fast observed in the
Primitive Church, was on the day preceding our LORD'S crucifixion, now called Lent, and Passion Week. This fast has
been observed from the days of the Apostles. The Western
Church, from the earliest ages, observed it as we now do, on
the Friday following the Paschal full moon, but the Eastern
Christians observed it on the particular day of the moon in
which our Saviour suffered, without any reference to the day
of the week. This difference of practice gave rise to a controversy on the subject, as early as A. D. 150. About 166,
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, visited Rome, and held a conference on the subject, with Anicetus, the tenth Bishop of
that city.ll But nothing was effected, and things remained
as they were before. In the days of Victor, the thirteenth
Bishop of Rome, several councils were held on this subject,
and there is extant part of an epistle written by Polycratcs,
Bishop of Ephesus, in which he appeals to the practice of
the Apostle John, as authority for their usage.~ The extent of this was various, in various places. Some fasted but
a single day, (Good Friday;) others, two or more, up to forty.
FESTIVALS.-The evidence on the subject of the festivals
of the Church, is less full than on that of fasts, but is still
sufficient to enable us to tell what were the principal ones.
1. THE RESURRECTION, now called Easter Sunday; that
* Herm. Sim. iii. c. 5.       t Apos. Can. 61.
$ Just. Mar. Apol. i. c. 79.  ~ Tert. De Jejune, cc. 13, 14
II Iren. Ep. Victor. in Euseb. v. 25.  I Euseb. v. 24.




PENTECOST-ASCENSION.


265


is, the day of the resurrection.-Bede says: "So called
from the Goddess Eostre, whose festivities were in April."*
But we conjecture, that it is from the same root as East,
which denotes rising; hence East, "the place of rising;"
Easter, "the resurrection."  This festival is and ever has
been kept by all who observe a fast in commemoration of
the Crucifixion, and is acknowledged by all to have been
universal.t
2. PENTECOST, now called Whit-Sun-tide, or Whlitsunday.
-This day seems to have been observed as a festival by
the Apostles themselves.  Thus, on one occasion, St. Paul
" hasted if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem the
day of Pentecost." (Acts xx. 16.) And on another occasion, when about to visit the Corinthians, he tells them that
he shall "tarry at Eplesus until Pentecost." (1 Cor. xvi. 8.)
This festival is mentioned by Tertullian, A. D. 180,$ and
the Apostolical Canons, A. D. 200,~ and was then made to
include the whole fifty days from Easter to Pentecost. This
period was, even in the second century, one of the set times
for baptism. (
3. ASCENSION DAY.-Those who made the feast of Pen.
tecost continue for fifty days, necessarily observed this day
also. In the fourtl century, it was kept as a separate festival, and St. Austin says, that it was so ancient in his day,
A. D. 390, that its origin could not be traced; and he very
justly concludes, that those things which, not being commanded in Scripture, are nevertheless received throughout
the world, as coming down from Apostolic times, must have
taken their rise in the days of the Apostles.'f
* Bd., de Temp. Rat. Works, ii. 81.
t Bing. xx. 5. Mosh. B. I. Cent. I. Par. ii. c. 4.
t De Idol. c. 14. De Bap. c. 13.           ~ Can. 30.
11l Tert. De Bap. c. 13.    I Aug. Ep. 118, Ad. Januarium.
23




266


THE NATIVITY.


4. THE NATIVITY, now called Christmas.-The direct evidence of the observance of this festival in the first century,
is less than that of many others.  Still, there is every reason
to believe that it is primitive, if not Apostolic, and that, with
a few exceptions, it has always been observed on the twentyfifth of December.*   Chrysostom, about 390, says, that this
* There is a passage in Clement of Alexandria, which has been supposed to refer the birth of CHRIST to another season of the year. He
says, (Strom. i. p. 340,) that " some curious persons assign, not only the
year, but also the day of our Saviour's nativity, which they say was in
the 28th of Augustus, on the 25th of [the Egyptian month] Pachon...
but some say he was born the 24th or 25th of [the month] Pharmuthi."
Pamelius, in his notes on Tertullian, (Contr. Jud. c. 8,) says Pachon
answered to December, but Bingham says it was May. (Ant. xx. c. 4.
~ 1.) Which of these months was meant, if either, is uncertain, as the
Egyptians at that time employed two kinds of years, one fixed, consisting
of 3654 days, and the other variable, or revolving, of 365 days,-each
consisting of 12 months and certain intercalary days called Epagonianee.
The two kinds of years conmmenced on the same day, only once in 1460
years, when both began August 29th. The calendar of the fixed year
has been given on page 114, which corresponds with the account of
Bingham. But the other kind of year remained in common use much
later than the time of Clement, and he furnishes no clue to the kind of
year he employed himself, nor, as to that employed by those to whom lihe
referred. Consequently, no inference can be drawn from this language.
But there is another consideration, which goes to show that the inference drawn from the language of Clement, is far from being sustained.
In the Ethiopian Liturgy, which was copied from the Alexandrian, about
A. D. 330, the birth of CHRIST, like several other important festivals, is
celebrated on the 29th of every month of the year, corresponding to Dec.
25, Jan. 24, Feb. 23, March 25, April 24, May 24, June 23, July 23,
Aug. 22, Sept. 26, Oct. 26, and Nov. 25, while the " feast of Gena," or
of the vigil of the birth, (Christmas-eve,) is only celebrated on the 24th
of December. As far, therefore, as any inference can be drawn from
these calendars, it is in favor of December 25th being the true day.
Rev. Glid. Egpt. in Bib. Rep. [N. S.] x. 146, Harris' Ethiopia, App. No.
VIII.




THE NATIVITY.


267


festival was "one of great antiquity and long continuance,
the most venerable and tremendous of all festivals, being
famous and renowned in the Church from the beginning, far
and wide, from Thrace to the Gaddes, in Spain."* Augustin, about 390, speaks of " the ancient and universal tradition
concerning the observance of this festival;"t and Jerome,
twenty years before, speaks to the same effect.t  For some
years, the Greek Church observed the Epiphany and Christmas on the same day, January sixth, but Chrysostom, about
390, says, that that Church then began to celebrate this festival on the twenty-fifth of December.~  What the precise
evidence was, by which the day was determined, we do not
know. But that it was of a convincing nature, is evident
from the fact that it induced the Eastern Christians to change
the day from January sixth to December twenty-fifth.1  And
there was certainly no place where the true date could be so
well ascertained at that time, as at Rome, as all the records of
the Empire were there, and every means of fixing the time of
all the occurrences alluded to in the Gospels was then at hand.
It has been objected, that Christmas was copied from a
heathen festival-the Roman Saturnalia.   But ancient authors say, the Saturnalia was at first celebrated only on the
seventeenth of December.~ Other days were subsequently
added, until the number became three, and by order of
Caligula were extended to five.** Two other days, called
* Horn.' 31, De Bap. Ch. Bing. Antiq. L. xx. c. 4.
t De Trin. L. iv. c. 5.
t Corn. Ezek. c. 1. Bing. Antiq. L. xx. c. 4.
~ Orat. 31, De Nat. Ch. Bing. Antiq. xx. c. 5.
II One of the greatest obstacles in the way of determining the precise
day on which any event happened, in ancient times, is the diversity of
reckoning time which prevailed in those days.
~ Liv. L. xxii. c. 1. Univ. An. Hist. vol. XI. p. 311. B. iii. c. 2.
** Adams, ubi sup.




268


THE NATIVITY.


Sigilaria, were subsequently added;* but even then, the festival ended on the twenty-fourth of December.
The authority for this assertion, in regard to the festival of
Christmas, appears to be Gibbon, who says: " The Romans,
as ignorant as their brethren of the real date of the birth of
CHRIST, fixed this solemn festival to the twenty-fifth of December, the Brumalia, or winter solstice, when the Pagans
annually celebrate the birth of the Sun."t  But Bingham,
whom Gibbon professes to rely upon as authority, by no
means supports his. conclusion.  Bingham's language is,
"Some [i. e. objectors] say that the design of appointing the
feast of CHRIST'S Nativity and the Epiphany at this season of
the year, was to oppose the vanity and excess of the heathen,
in the Saturnalia and Kalends of January, at this very time
of the year." But he had before shown, that this opinion
was without foundation.
Nor does Beausobre say, as Gibbon would have his readers
infer, but, that this feast was instituted to oppose the heresy
of the Manicheans, who denied the reality of the birth of
CHRIST, and of his death and resurrection.  The Manichees,
therefore, with Cerdon, and the Priscillianists, who disbelieved the birth of the Saviour, very naturally refused to
keep a festival in commemoration of an event which they
said had never occurred.:
There is still another hypothesis of the objector, as to the
origin of this festival, and instead of deriving it from the Roman Saturnalia, they imagine that it was copied from the
Yule of the Northmen; an opinion so improbable and absurd, and so destitute of all historical probability, as not to
require an answer.
* Menol. Satur. L. i. c. x.
t Dec. and Fall Rom. Emp. c. xxii. n. 22, referring to Bing. Antiq.
xx. c. 4, and Beaus. Hist. Grit. Man. torn. 2, 690-700.
t Comp. Bing. xx. c. 4. Beaus. ubi sup.




COMMEMORATION OF SAINTS' DAYS.


269


The weight of evidence points to an early origin of the
festival of the nativity of CHRIST, probably within the first, at
any rate within the second century; and so soon as Christians were permitted to build houses of worship, the celebration of this festival became notorious; it occupied a share in
public attention, filled a larger space in the histories of the
day, and the errors of the heretics and the vices of the pagans
gave it still more celebrity.  It was celebrated, too, as we
now celebrate it, by the same or similar worship.*
5. EPIPHANY, or the manifestation to the Gentiles.-All the
Churches at all times have agreed in celebrating the Epiphany or Theophani on the 6th of January, on which day, for
some time, the Greek Church also kept Christmas. But as
early as 390 the Greek Church, in consequence of the facts
brought forward in proof that the twenty-fifth of December
was the real day of CHRIST'S nativity, acknowledged her
error and altered her practice.t
SAINTS' DAYS.-Another custom of the Primitive Church,
was that of celebrating the anniversaries of the martyrdom
of eminent Saints, and other important occurrences.  Thus
the martyrdom of Ignatius was celebrated by the Church of
Antioch.t And the martyrdom of Polycarp was celebrated
by the Church at Smyrna.~ These days were called the
birth-days of the martyrs, as being the day of their entrance
into the world of bliss. Thus it is said by Tertullian:11 "We
make anniversary oblations for the dead on their birth-days."
And Cyprian says:~T   We continually offer oblations for
them as often as we celebrate the passions and days of the
* Apos. Cons. v. 13, 14, viii. 33..t Greg. Naz. Orat. Nat. Christ, 38; Chrys. Horn. 31, de Bap. Ch.
Orig. Horn. 8. de dio; St. Aug. de Trin. L. iv. c. 5; St. Basil Serm. Nat.
Ch.; Bing. Antiq. Church, xx. c. 4.
t Martyr. Ign. c. 7.              ~ Martyr. Pol. c. 18.
11 De Coron. Mil. c. 3.           S Ep. 39.
23*




270


STATED HOURS OF PRAYER.


martyrs in our annual commemorations." And Peter Chrysologus, in his Sermon on the martyrdom of Cyprian, addresses
his hearers thus: " When ye hear of a birth-day of Saints do
not imagine that that is spoken of, in which they are born on
earth of the flesh, but that in which they are born from earth
into heaven, from labor to rest, from temptation to repose,
from torments to delights, not fluctuating, but strong, stable
and eternal, from the derision of the world to a crown of glory.
Such are the birth-days of the martyrs that we celebrate."
STATED HOURS OF PRAYER.-The practice of observing
stated hours of prayer is probably as old as Christianity itself. Thus, " Peter and John went up to the temple at the
hour of prayer, being the ninth hour." (Acts iii. 1.) The
expression here made use of is a distinct recognition of an
existing custom observed by the Apostles. So also it is said
of Cornelius, that he fasted, and "at the ninth hour he prayed."  (Acts x. 30.) Hence it is evident that the ninth hour
was observed as a stated time of prayer. Again, it is said,
that " Peter went up upon the house-top to pray about the
sixth hour."  (Acts x. 9.) Whence it is probable that the
sixth hour was also a stated time of prayer. So on the day
of Pentecost, the disciples " were all with one accord in one
place," (Acts ii. 1,) and probably in the temple, "at the
third hour of the day," (Acts ii. 15.) From this we may
reasonably infer, that this also was a stated hour for prayer.
And again it is said, that " at midnight Paul and Silas prayed."  (Acts xvi. 25.)
Here then we have a distinct statement, that prayers were
offered at certain specified times, and in one case it is expressly said to be "the hour of prayer." Consequently, we
may infer from the nature of the evidence, by which these
questions are to be decided, that in all cases where the precise time of offering prayer is mentioned, it was a stated
time. This conclusion is sustained by the language of Cle



VESTMENTS.


271


ment, of Rome, for he tells us* that we ought to perform our
public worship of GOD, " at the appointed seasons, for this he
hath commanded to be done, not rashly and disorderly, but
at certain determinate times and hours." And we learn from
Clement, of Alexandria,t Tertullian,4 Origen,~ and Cyprian,l[
that these appointed seasons were at sunrise, the third, sixth,
and ninth hours of the day, and at sunset. And we know
that these hours were observed by all the Churches in the
centuries following. In the time of Tertullian, it was not
regarded as a "prescribed" rule, to observe these "stated
hours," though the practice of the ancients was supposed to
bind them to "three times a day."~T
VESTMENTS.-The whole controversy concerning vestments in the Primitive Church, with the reasons for their use,
may be classified under the following heads:1. White garments have always been esteemed as emblems of purity. We learn from tile inspired Apostle, that
the seven angels, commissioned from heaven to inflict the last
plagues upon man, were to appear " clothed in pure and
white linen," (Rev. xv. 6,) that all "the armies in heaven
are clothed in fine linen, white and clean." (Rev. xix. 14.)
The saints, too, " those who had not defiled their garments,"
(Rev. iii. 4,) " those who had been slain for the word of GOD,"
(vi. 9,) " with the four and twenty elders that surrounded the
throne of the Most High," (iv. 4,) and the " mighty multitude,
which no man can number, from all nations, kindred, people,
and tongues, who had in much tribulation washed their robes
in the blood of the Lamb," (vii. 9, 14,) were dressed in
" white raiment, having white robes upon them." So, too, the
bride and spouse of the Lamb, when decked in her bridal
* Ep. Cor. c. 40.                t Strom. vii.
t De Jejune, c. 10. De Orat. c. 25.  ~ De Orat. c. 12.
11 De Orat. Domin. c. 22.        ' Tert. Orat. cc. 24, 25.




272


WHITE GARMENTS EMBLEMS OF PURITY,


garments, was " to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white,
for the white linen is [emblematic of] the righteousness of the
Saints."  (Rev. xix. 8.)  The same may be proved by numerous passages in the Old Testament.* And the heathen
nations used garments of the same color, with the same design.t
2. White garments were prescribed for the Jewish priests,
and from them copied by the heathen nations. The linen
ephod was prescribed for the Jewish priests by Moses,t which
we know, from the meaning of the original term, was white;
so that the use of white garments has been practised ever
since the establishment of the Jewish Theocracy, about 1650
years before the Christian era. Now since the Pagans are
unable to prove their use of these within a thousand years as
early as we know they were used by the Jews, the presumption is, that they were copied.  But though the Pagan pries's
sometimes wore white garments, it was not the only, if their
usual color.~
3. That for a similar reason, white garments were used
by the Primitive Christians, in the rite of baptism. Among
many ancient nations, persons who died were first washed,
then anointed and clothed in white garments, as emblematic
of the purity required of those who were about to enter into
* Comp. Ps. li. 7; Isa. i. 18; Ezek. xvi. 9-13; xliv. 16, 17; Lev. xix.
19; Deut. xxii., xi.
t Archhe. Graec. Robinson, v. 3, p. 419. Potter's Gr. Antiq. iv. c. 3.
Univ. Hist. vol. XI. 239.
t Robinson's Calmet, in loco. Josephus' Antiq. Jud. iii. 7. Judges
viii. 27; xvii. 5; xviii. 14. 1 Sam. ii. 18; xxviii. 14, 15; xxiii. 6, &c.
~ Anarcharsis, the Younger, in his Grecian travels, says: "The
Priests officiated in rich vestments, having upon them the names of their
particular Deities to which the temple was consecrated, in letters of gold."
(Vol. II. p. 415.) These garments point to the magnificent ephod of the
Jewish High Priest, (Exod. xxviii. and xxix.,) as the original from whence
they were derived.




AND HENCE USED IN BAPTISM.


273


another world.* The renovation of Israel is described by
the Prophet under the similitude of a wretched infant, who
was taken in its distresses,' washed in water, anointed in
oil, and decked in fine white linen." (Ezek. xvi. 9-13.)
So in the Primitive Church, those who, being buried to the
world in baptism, died unto sin, and rose to life in CHRIST,
"were washed in the laver of regeneration," anointed with
oil, and clothed with white garments, in token that they had
renounced "the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and
glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same,
and the sinful desires of the flesh; that hereafter they should
not be ashamed to confess the faith of CHRIST crucified, and
manfully to fight under his banner against sin, the world,
and the devil; and to continue CHRIST's faithful soldier and
servant unto their life's end."t
4. White garments were used as priestly vestments in the
Christian Church, before the commencement of the third
century.  The Apostolic Constitutions make mention of the
"splendidam   vestem;" that is, the bright, clear, or pure
garments, so called from their white color, worn by the
Priests when ministering at the altar.    Eusebius notices
the "sacred gown and sacerdotal garments worn by the Bishops and Priests."~  So also he speaks of the petalon,ll which
Professor Cruse renders " sacerdotal plate," but which seems
rather to denote some kind of garment worn as a badge, and
probably made of linen. Jerome, also, speaks of the white
* Rob. Archel. Grmece. v. c. 3, p. 410. Jahn, Bib. Arch. p. I. c. 13,
sect. 204. Univ. An. Hist. vol. I. p. 490.
t Tertullian, in his treatise on baptism, speaks of the " unctione de
pristina disciplina," (c. 7, p. 226.) See also Apos. Cons. iii. 15, 16, 17,
22, p. 368; Recog. Clem. iii. 67; Cyril Hieros. Cat. Mystag. 2; Chrys.
Orat. 6, sub finem; Ep. ad Coloss. Dionys. 2; Aug. Serm. de illitu
Neophy.; and Serm. de Mys. Bap. Ambrose de Sacra, i. 2.
t B. viii. 12.        ~ Euseb. x. 4.         11 B. v. 24.




274


CELIBACY.


garment worn by the Bishop and Priest at the communion.*
And Gregory Nazianzen alludes to the use of similar garments.t  Pontius, in his account of the martyrdom of St.
Cyprian, prefixed to the works of that Bishop, calls " white
linen an ensign of Episcopal honor;" and Bede makes mention of Episcopal garments worn'in his time.
CELIBACY.-The early Church, relying on the language
of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. vii. 1-11,) very soon
came to place a high estimate upon the practice of virginity.
Thus Ignatius, A. D. 107, says: " If any one be able to remain in chastity, to the honor of the LORD of all flesh, let
him do so without boasting. If he boast he is undone. If
he desire to be esteemed above his Bishop, he is corrupt."~
So Justin Martyr, A. D. 150, writes: " Many, both men and
women, of the age of sixty or seventy years, who have been
disciples of CHRIST from their youth, continue in immaculate
virginity."l] Towards the close of the second century, the
ardent but unstable Tertullian, though himself a married
man, was loud in his praises of virginity, in which he was
followed, to a considerable extent, by Cyprian.
But virgins had not been formed into separate communities, even in the third century, as appears from Cyprian's
Treatises.~  And it was one ground of complaint with him,
that they sought to attract attention by their dress,** attended
marriage parties,tt public exhibitions,tt as other women,
thereby endangering themselves, and becoming snares to
others. Nor was the vow of virginity then considered per* Adv. Pelag. i. 9, tom. 2d, p. 565. The 4th Council of Carthage,
A. D. 398, Canon 41, directed the Priest to wear the surplice at the
communion.
t Orat. 31, tom. 1, p. 504.
t Op. Cyp. Pont. Diac. Vita. S. Cyp. p. 9, Ox. 1682.
~ Ep. Pol. c. 5.  11 Apol. i. c. 18.  IT De Habitu Virginum
** Cc. 5, 7.     *t C. 10.        $t C. 11




SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS.


275


petual, for even Cyprian says of the virgins, "If they can
not, or will not remain virgins, let them marry."*
Nor was celibacy at this period required even in the clergy. Eusebius, A. D. 325, collected and published what he
could find relative to the marriage of the Apostles, and he
tells us, on the authority of Clement of Alexandria, that
Peter and Paul were married, that Philip was married, had
children, and gave his daughters in marriage.t This is also
corroborated by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, A. D. 195,
who adds, that two of the daughters of Philip were never
married.:  So he tells us that Domnus, the 16th Bishop
of Antioch, was son of Demetrianus, the 14th Bishop of
that city.~ Indeed, the evidence is abundant, that for ages
after celibacy was recommended, it was not required. Even
so late as 530, Felix IV., the 54th Bishop of Rome, was the
son of a priest.11 So Silverius, the 58th Bishop of Rome,
536, was the son of Hormisdas, the 52d Bishop of Rome;
Theodore I., the 73d Bishop of Rome, 642, was the son of
the Patriarch of Jerusalem; and John XI., 126th Bishop
of Rome, 931, was son of Sergius III., 120th Bishop of
Rome.~
CHAPTER XXIII.
SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS.
HAVING seen that in every Church there was one Apostle,
or Apostolic Bishop, who alone possessed the power of ordi
* Ep. Pomp. 4, or 62.              t Hist. iii. 30.
J Ep. Pol. in Euseb. v. 24.
~ Circ. Ep. Coun. Antioch, in Euseb. vii. 30.
II Walsh, Hist. Popes, p. 73.      ~ Ib. 75, 93, 125




276


SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS.


nation, and having seen that this arrangement was designed
to be permanent, it follows necessarily, that there ought to
be an uninterrupted succession of such Bishops. It is important, therefore, for us to inquire whether there is sufficient
proof that such a succession has been kept up; and if so,
where it is to be found, and what is the evidence of its existence. This will require us to dwell a moment upon the
early practices of the Church in this particular.
The first Apostolical Canon, which is acknowledged by
all historians to describe the "customs of the Church in the
East, in the second and third centuries,"* directs that " a
Bishop should always be ordained by two or three Bishops."t
And it was ordained at the Council of Arles, 314, that at the
ordination of a Bishop, there should never be less than three
Bishops, and that seven should be present, if they could be
procured. And the Council of Nice, the first general council, all the Bishops of the Roman empire having been summoned, decreed, A. D. 325, that the ordination of Bishops
should be done by all the Bishops of the Province, if they
could be convened; but that no ordination should be performed by less than three Bishops. This canon has ever
since been regarded as the law of the Church, so that a consecration, or ordination of a Bishop by a less number than
three Bishops, though it might be valid, would be uncanonical and irregular, if not schismatical.
If, now, we turn over the pages of the historian, we shall
find the practice of the Church has been in accordance with
these principles. References to some of the earliest records
are given. It was not customary in the Primitive Church
to record the name of the consecrators of the Bishops, nor
the day of their consecration, but only the year thereof.


* Mosh. B. I. Cent. I. Par. ii. c. 2, and Dr. Murdock's note.
t SS. Patr. Apos. II. 437.




SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS.27


277


The Episcopate being regarded as one, of which each enjoyed a full possession,* it was considered immaterial from
what source it was derived, if so be it could be traced back
to one of the Apostles or Apostolic men.t Still, the consecrating Bishop in any particular region, was, in ordinary
cases, the metropolitan Bishop4f The names of the, consecrators, or the persons consecrating, were, however, sometimes incidentally mentioned; and, from these incidental
notices, we gather the following names of consecratoits..1. D.
35. JAMES the Just, ordained by St. Peter, St. James, and
St. John, first Bishop of Jerusalem.~
54. EVODIus, ordained by St. Peter, first Bishop of Antioch.j
56. TITUS, ordained by St. Paul, first Bishop of Crete.~1
59. TmoTrHv, ordained by St. Paul, first Bishop of Ephesus.**
61. ANNIANTJS, ordained by St. Mark, first Bishop of Alexandria, in Egypt.tt
63. LTNUS, ordained by St. Paul, first Bishop of Rome~ft
68. IGNATIUS, ordained by St. Peter, second Bishop of Antioch.~~
68. SIMEON, ordlained by Peter and the other Apostles, second Bishop of Jerusalem.II
*Cyp. Unit. Ecc. c. 4.       t Tert. De Pre. Hwar. c. 32.
tApos. Can. 27. Coun. Nice, Can. 6. Antioch, Can. 9. Laod.
Can. 12. 2 Arles, Can. 5, 6.
~ Clem. Alex. Inst. vi. in Euseb. ii. 1.
iI Euseb. iii. 22. Apos. Cons. vii. 36.
~T Euseb. iii. 4. Apos. Cons. vii. 46. Chrys. Horn. Tit. 1. Theod.
Arg. Tit.
** Euseb. iii. 4. Life of Tim. in Phot. Bib. n. 254. Apos. Cons. vii.
46. Chrys. Horn. 1 Tim. iii. 1, 5, 9. Theod. Corn. 1 Tim. iii. 1.
tt Euseb. ii. 24.
U Iren. Adv. Hwar. iii. 3. Euseb. iii. 2. Apos. Cons. vii. 46.
Apos. Cons. vii. 46             1111 Euseb. iii. li; iv. 22.
24




278               SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS.
A. D.
79. CLETUS, ordained by Linus, first Bishop of Rome, to be
his successor.*
85. POLYCARP, ordained by St. John, second Bishop of
Smyrna.t
91. CLEMENT, ordained by St. Peter, about A. D. 644f sue.
ceeded Anacletus as Bishop of Rome, about A. D.
90.~
97. JOHN, ordained by St. John, second Bishop of Ephesus.11
98. CERDON, fourth Bishop of Alexandria, ordained by the
Bishops of the neighiboring Churches.~
100. EVARISTUS, fourth Bishop of Rome, ordained by St.
Clement to be his successor.**
107. HERO S, third Bishop of Antioch, appears to have been
consecrated at a council called by Polycarp, at the
suggestion of Ignatius.tt
109. PRimus, fifth Bishop of Alexandria, elected from among
the laity, and consecrated by the Bishops of the
neighboring provinces.ff
121. JUSTUS, sixth Bishop of Alexandria, ordained by the
Bishops of the neighboring Churches.~~
132. EumENius, seventh Bishop of Alexandria, ordained by
the Bishops of the neighboring Churches.1111
*Euseb. iii. 13.
t Iren. Adv. Haer. iii. 3. Tert. De Praws. Hawr. 32. Euseb. iii. 36; iv.
14. Niceph. Eec. Hist. iii. 34.
Apos. Cons. vii. 46. Epiph. Hawr. xxvii. 13d. iii. 4. Tert. Praws.
Hawr. 32. Chrys. Horn. John xxi. Clem. Ep. Cor. c. 54; and Le Clerc's
note.
~ Euseb. iii. 15.         IIApos. Cons. vii. 46.
If Sev. Ash. Ann. 98.      **Euseb. iii. 34.
ft Ign. Ep. Pol. c. 7. Ads. Ep. Mar. 5, and Ush. n. Euseb. ii. 36.
It Sev. Ash. Ann. 109. Orient. Chron. 74.
~~ Sev. Ash. Ann. 121. Orient. Chron. 75.
Jill Sev. Ash. Ann. 132. Orient. Cbron. 75.




SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS.


279


A. D.
152. CELADION, ninth Bishop of Alexandria, ordained by the
neighboring Bishops.*
178. JULIANUS, eleventh Bishop of the same place, consecrated at a council called for that purpose.t
187. ELVANUS, second Archbishop of London, consecrated
by Eleutherus, twelfth Bishop of Rome.:
199. DIus, thirty-first Bishop of Jerusalem, consecrated by
the neighboring Bishops, upon the abdication of
Narcissus.~
236. FABIAN, nineteenth Bishop of Rome, ordained by a
large number of Bishops, assembled in council for
that purpose.|l
237. ALEXANDER, Bishop of Cappadocia, translated to Jerusalem, after the restoration and death of Narcissus,
and became the thirty-fourth Bishop of that city.'T
240. GREGORY Thaulmaturgus, ordained Bishop of Neo-Cesarea, by Phuedmius, Bishop of Anlasea.**
248. CYPRIAN, ordained Bishop of Carthage, " by a great
number of Bishops."tt
250. CORNELIUS, twentieth Bishop of Rome, ordained by sixteen Bishops, of whom two were fiom Africa.t
252. NOVATIAN, surreptitiously ordained Bishop at Rome
by three Italian Bishops, upon whom he had imposed.~~
256. FELIX and SABINUS, ordained at a council of Spanish
Bishops, over the Dioceses of Leon and Astorga.1111
* Sev. Ash. Ann. 152.                  t Ib. Ann. 178.
t Reg. Lland. in Mona. Ang. III. 186.  ~ Euseb. vi. 10.
11 Ib. vi. 29.                         I  Ib. iv. 1.
** Dup. Ecc. Writ. Cent. iii. p. 147.
It Cyp. Ep. Ad Corn. Dup. Ecc. Writ. Cent. iii. p. 117;t Cyp. 55. Dup. Ecc. Writ. Cent. iii. p. 118. Walsh, Lives of the
Popes, p. 35.
~t Ep. Corn. in Euseb. v. 43.          1111 Cyp. Ep. 67.




280        RECORD OF ORDINATIONS PRESERVED.
A. D.
267. ANATOLIUS, Bishop of Laodicea, ordained by Tlieotec.
nus, Bishop of Cesarea, and other Bishops.*
269. DOMNUS, son of Demetrianus, the fourteenth Bishop of
Antioch, was ordained the sixteenth Bishop of Antioch, at a large council of Bishops, at which Paul
of Samosata was deposed.t
To prevent schismatical ordinations, and mistakes in regard to the succession, consecrations were generally performed at a Synod of Bishops, of which two were held
annually in the Primitive Church.t The continuance of this
practice was enjoined by Cyprian, A. D. 252; by a council
of Eastern Bishops, held at Antioch, 341;~ and by the
Bishops of England, at the Council of Hereford, 673.11 At
these, the Bishop of the principal city, or the one oldest in
office, called Patriarch, Metropolitan, or Primate, presided;
and was generally the consecrating Bishop.~ The number
of such Sees in the third and fourth centuries, mentioned by
historians, were four: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, for
their size, and being civil Metropoles; and Jerusalem for its
antiquity and honor.
There is, however, still another important question. Allowing that there has been this care in regard to the succession, has the record of it been preserved? And is there
proof now existing, worthy of confidence, sufficient to establish it? On this point there can be no doubt. Thus Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of St.
John, as we have already seen, assures us, that in his day,
A. D. 175, "they could enumerate those appointed Bishops
by the Apostles and their successors, even to his day."~
* Euseb. vii. 32.   t Euseb. vii. 30.  t Apos. Can. 30.
~ Ep. 67. Can. 19, 20.                11 Can. 7.
1 Coun. Nice, Can. 6. Antioch, Can. 9. Laod. Can. 12. 2 Aries,
Can. 5, 6, etc.        ~ Adv. Haer. iii. c. 3.




BISHOPS OF THE FOUR PATRIARCHAL SEES.


81


And Tertullian, about 200, says, that all orthodox Churches
in his day, " could show the series of their Bishops, so running down from the beginning by successions from the first
Bishop, as to be able to show that he was one of the Apostles, or Apostolic men."* And both writers appeal to this
fact, as evidence that they were in possession of the truth.
The great ecclesiastical historian of the Primitive Church,
Eusebius Pamphilius, Bishop of Cesarea, gives the " successions of the Apostles," as he found them recorded in the
archives of the Churches.t    We give the successions of the
four Patriarchal Sees-of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and
Antioch-as given by Eusebius, who copied them from the
records of the Church and authors extant in his time.:    To
these Churches it was common to appeal in controversies
with the heretics.~ The list comes down to 305, when his
history closes.
ROME.         ALEXANDRIA.   JERUSALEM.    ANTIOCH.
1. Linus,        Annianus,     James,         Evodius,
2. Cletus,       Avilius,      Simeon,        Ignatius,
3. Clement,      Cerdon,       Justus,        Heros,
4. Evaristus,    Primus,       Zaccheus,     Cornelius,
5. Alexander,    Justus,       Tobias,        Eros,
6. Sixtus,       Eumenius,     Benjamin,      Theophilus,
* Pres. Adv. Her. c. 32.    t Hist. B. iii. c. 3, 37. Int. B. viii.
t Very many of these records, though now lost, were preserved in his
day, in the library at Jerusalem, founded by Alexander, Bishop of that
city, about A. D. 250, to which Eusebius had access, and from which
he drew many of the materials for his history. (B. v. 20. See also i. 1,
Intd. ii. iii. 3, 4, 37.) And he tells us expressly that he had drawn all
the names of those who held places "iin the first rank of the Apostolic
succession," from "accounts delivered in the various comments on
Apostolical doctrine." (H. iii. 37.) He had also the large library of
Pamphilius, in which were preserved all the ancient historians, from
which to draw materials. (Euseb. vi. 32.)
~ Iren. Adv. Hser..iii. 3. Tert. De Presc. cc. 30-36.
24*




282      BISHOPS OF THE FOUR PATRIARCHAL SEES.


7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.


ROME.
Telesphorus,
Hyginus,
Pius,
Anicetus,
Soter,
Eleutherus,
Victor,
Zephrynus,
Calixtus,
Urban,
Pontianus,
Anteros,
Fabian,
Cornelius,
Lucius,
Stephen,
Sixtus,
Dionysius,
Felix,
Eutychianus,
Caius,
Marcellinus,
A. D. 296.


ALEXANDRIA.
Marcus,
Celadion,
Agrippinus,
Julius,
Demetrius,
Heraclas,
Dionysius,
Maximus,
Theonus,
Peter,
A. D. 302.


JERUSALEM.   ANTIOCH.
John,        Maximus,
Matthew,     Serapion,
Philip,      Asclepiades,
Seneca,      Philetus,
Justus,      Zebinus,
Levi,        Babylus,
Ephrem,      Fabius,
Joseph,      Demetrianus,
Judas,       Paul,
Marcus,      Domnus,
Cassianus,   Timaeus,
Publius,     Cyrillus,
Maxirus,     Tyrannus,
Julian,      A. D. 302.
Caius,
Symmachus,
Caius,
Julian,
Maximus,
Antonius,
Capito,
Valens,
Dolchianus,
Narcissus,
Dius,
Germanio,
Gordius,
[Narcissus,]
Alexander,
Mazabanes,
Hymenaus,
Zambdas,
Hermon,-A. D. 300.




SUCCESSION OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND.


283


This brings us down within twenty years of the great
Council of Nice, and is sufficient to demonstrate, that both
the succession and the record of it were carefully preserved,
and that both were undoubted at the time of the Council of
Nice, A. D. 325. The lists of these Bishops are also given
by several other early writers, of different countries, so as to
render the facts indisputable.* We shall consider, in the
next chapter, the nature of the Apostolic Succession, and the
fact of its continuance to the present day.
CHAPTER XXIV.
SUCCESSION OF THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND.
WE propose in this chapter, to consider two points con.
nected with the succession of Bishops in the English Church,
which are often confounded. Bishops are said to succeed
each other, when they follow in the same See, or Diocese.
Consequently, the succession of Bishops in a particular Diocese, is the list of Bishops who have governed that Diocese,
and may be called a succession of Episcopal governors.
But this is a very different thing from the Apostolic succession, on which all Episcopal power depends. The difference
may be briefly explained thus: When one Bishop ordains
another Bishop, he commits to the person ordained, the same
Episcopal powers which he himself possesses. Every Bish* That of Rome is given by Irenmeus, to the middle of the second
century; by the Pontifical of Bucherius, to the third; by Jerome, to
the fourth, etc. That of Alexandria, by the ancient Oriental Chroni.
cle, preserved among the Byzantine historians; by Severus, Bishop of
Ashmonia; by Le Quien and Assemani, from Coptic MSS., etc. That
of Antio.!:, by Assemani, from Oriental writers and MSS., etc.




284    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT


op, therefore, receives his authority to minister as a Bishop
in the Church of CHRIST, at the time of his ordination, or
consecration; and he receives it through him who ordained,
or consecrated. Hence, if we wish to trace back the authority of the present Bishops, we must go, not in the line of
Bishops occupying a particular See, but in the line of their
consecrators.  The one we call the Succession of Episcopal
Governors; the other, the Apostolic Succession.  Our meaning may be explained by an example. All the colonies
were originally attached to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of
London, and hence each of the Dioceses in this country,
where there was an Episcopal Church before the Revolution,
would trace the succession of Episcopal Governors back to
the Bishops of London. But the Apostolic succession is
traced back through the Archbishops of Canterbury, the first
Bishops of this country having been consecrated by the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Or we may trace it through the
Archbishops of York, as the Archbishop of York assisted at
the consecration of our first Bishops.
But we may also trace our Apostolic succession back to
the Church of Scotland; for one lawful Bishop is sufficient
to confer the Apostolic succession;* and as there are at least
three Bishops ordinarily engaged in the consecration of a
* Doubts have been raised by some Theologians, whether ordinations
of Bishops, by one Bishop are valid; but, as seems to us, without suffi.
cient reason. They would be uncanonical, and therefore irregular, but
still valid. So held Beveridge, Mason, Hallier, Paludanus, Sylvester,
and others. (Pal. Church, P. vi. c. 5.) Others have held the contrary
opinion; but this has been practised by the Romish Bishops in Ireland,
Scotland, and America. Even Archbishop Carroll, the fountain of Romish Orders in this country, was ordained by one Bishop only, and that
one a mere titular Bishop. (Pal. Church, P. vi. c. 11.) And Bishop Cheverus was ordained by Archbishop Carroll alone. That these things oc
curred in the Primitive Church, and were held valid, see Bing. ii. 11, 5




AND THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.


285


Bishop, we may trace the Apostolic succession through any
of the ordaining Bishops. Now Bishop Seabury was consecrated by Robert Kilgour, Arthur Petrie, and John Skinner,
Scottish Bishops, November 14, 1784. From him we have
received the Apostolic succession, thus:
Samuel Seabury assisted in the consecration of Thomas
John Claggett, September 17, 1792.
Thomas John Claggett assisted in the consecration of Edward Bass, May 7, 1797.
Edward Bass assisted in the consecration of Abraham
Jarvis, October 18, 1797.
Abraham Jarvis assisted in the consecration of John Henry
Hobart and Alexander Viets Griswold, May 29, 1811.
John Henry Hobart and Alexander Viets Griswold assisted
in the consecration of Thomas Church Brownell, October 27,
1819.
The Succession of Episcopal Governors in Connecticut, is,
therefore,Bishops of London, till           1784.
Samuel Seabury,             1784-1796.
Vacancy a year and a half.
Abraham Jarvis,             1797-1813.
Vacancy six and a half years.
Thomas Church Brownell,     1819-   -
During a part of the six and a half years' vacancy, this
Diocese was under the provisional supervision of Bishop Hobart, of New York.
The Apostolic Succession is,1. Samuel Seabury.        4. Abraham Jarvis.
2. Thomas John Claggett.  5. John Henry Hobart.
3. Edward Bass.           6. Thomas Church Brownell.
There are now (1842) in the United States, twenty Bishops
of the Episcopal Church. They trace their succession to the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as follows:



286              APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
To BISHOP WHITE,
Who was consecrated by the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York, Feb. 4, 1787 -Rt. Rev. Alexander Viets Griswold, of Massachusetts,
May 29, 1811.
Rt. Rev. Philander Chase, Illinois, Feb. 11, 1819.
Rt. Rev. Thomas Church Brownell, Connecticut, Oct. 29,
1819.
Rt. Rev. Henry Ustick Onderdonk, Pennsylvania, Oct. 25,
1827.
Rt. Rev. William Meade, Virginia, Aug. 19, 1829.
Rt. Rev. Benjamin Tredwell Onderdonk, New York, Nov.
26, 1830.
Rt. Rev. Levi Silliman Ives, North Carolina, Sept. 22,
1831.
Rt. Rev. John Henry Hopkins, Vermont, Oct. 31, 1832.
Rt. Rev. Benjamin Bosworth Smith, Kentucky, Oct. 31,
1832.
Rt. Rev. Charles Petit McIlvaine, Ohio, Oct. 31, 1832.
Rt. Rev. George Washington Doane, New Jersey, Oct.
31, 1832.
Rt. Rev. James Hervey Otey, Tennessee, Jan. 14, 1834.
Rt. Rev. Jackson Kemper, Missouri, Sept. 25, 1835.
To BISHOP GRISWOLD,
Who stands in the preceding listRt. Rev. William Heathcote Delancey, Western New York,
May 9, 1839.
Rt. Rev. Christopher Edwards Gadsden, South Carolina,
June 21, 1840.
Rt. Rev. William Rollinson Whittingham, Maryland, Sept.
17, 1840.
Rt. Rev. Alfred Lee, Delaware, Oct. 12, 1841.




OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.


287


To BISHOP H. U. ONDERDONK,
Who also stands in the same listRt. Rev. Samuel Allen McCoskry, Michigan, July 7, 1836.
To BISHOP MEADE,
Who also stands in the same listRt. Rev. Leonidas Polk, Arkansas, Dec. 9, 1838.
Rt. Rev. Stephen Elliott, Georgia, Feb. 28, 1841.
Now as we have shown before, how Bishop Griswold traces
nis succession to Scotland, it follows, that all those whom he
has consecrated, or has assisted in consecrating, can trace
their succession to Scotland also. Those who trace it in this
way, areBp. Brownell,       Bp. Meade,       Bp. Hopkins,
"  Mcllvaine,       "  Delancey,     "  Gadsden.
"  Whittingham,     "  Lee,
We have also seen how Bishbp Hobart traced his succession to Scotland. Those who trace it through him, are,Bishop Chase, Bishop H. U. Onderdonk.
Those who trace it through Bishop Hobart and Bishop H.
U. Onderdonk, are,Bp. B. T. Onderdonk, Bp. Smith,     Bp. Kemper,
"  Ives,              "  Otey,      "  McCoskry.
The other Bishops trace their succession to Scotland, thus:
Bishop Doane, through Bishops B. T. Onderdonk, H. U.
Onderdonk, Hobart, and then as before.
Bishop Polk and Elliott, through Bishops Smith, H. U.
Onderdonk, and then as before.
Again; the Archbishops of Canterbury and York were
assisted in the consecration of Bishops White and Provoost,
by the Bishops of Peterborough, and of Bath and Wells.
Consequently, if either of these four Bishops had received a
valid consecration, the consecration of Bishops White and




288


IMPROBABILITY OF ANY BREAK


Provoost must also be valid.  And as every Bishop now
living, or that ever has lived in this country, can trace his
succession to all these Bishops, all may trace their succession through which line they please.
Again; the Archbishop of Canterbury was assisted in the
consecration of Bishop Madison, by the Bishops of London
and Rochester.  And since all the Bishops now living, or
that ever have lived in this country, can trace their succession, through Bishop Madison, to either of these Bishops, it
follows, that if either of these had received a valid consecration, our Bishops have been validly consecrated. We see,
therefore, that if either the Archbishops of Canterbury or
York, or the Bishops of London, or of Bath and Wells, or of
Peterborough, or of Rochester, or of Ross and Murray, or of
Aberdeen, had had a valid consecration, our Bishops have all
been validly consecrated, and the succession has been preserved unbroken.
We have detailed these facts more at large than we should
have done, had we not designed to have used them to illustrate an important point in this inquiry, which seems not to
be well understood. We know, that from the second century
to the present time, at least three Bishops have been required
in the consecration of another Bishop, when they could be
procured. Now, if it should ever happen, that either one,
or even two, of the three ordaining Bishops, should prove not
to be lawful Bishops, the one remaining lawful Bishop would
be sufficient to transmit the Episcopal authority. We see,
therefore, if Bishops White, Provoost, and Madison, who were
consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, had never been
consecrated at all, but had assumed to themselves the Episcopal office, without any authority, still all the Bishops in our
Church would now be lawful Bishops, as all can trace their
succession to Bishop Seabury.  And yet Bishop Seabury
never assisted in the consecration of but a single Bishop!




IN THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.


289


And what may seem more singular still, is, that there never
has been a Bishop consecrated in the Episcopal Church in
this country, that could not trace his succession to Bishop
Seabury.  This will enable the reader to see that the evidence in favor of the Apostolic succession, is of that high degree of probability, not to say certainty, that the supposition
of a break in it is one of the most improbable ideas that could
ever enter one's head, and that it is next to impossible that it
should ever occur. It will be seen from this, also, that there
may have been ever so many vacancies in the line of Episcopal Governors, without affecting in the least the Apostolic
succession. A particular See may often have been vacant,
and remained vacant for a great number of years. During
this interval, all acts peculiarly pertaining to the Apostolic
office, must be performed by the Bishop of some other See.
This is so obvious to one at all acquainted with the subject,
that it would seem unnecessary to mention it, if such vacancies had not been spoken of by the opponents of Episcopacy,
as breaking the line of succession. But men, wise in other
matters, are not aware of the fallacy, because they confound
Episcopal government with Apostolic succession. We shall
give the English succession in several different ways.
I. SUCCESSION FROM       EPHESUS.
The Archbishops of Canterbury, through whom the succession of the English Bishops is usually traced, received
their succession, not, as is often said, from Rome, but from
Aries, Augustine, the first Saxon Bishop, as well as the first
Archbishop of Canterbury, having been consecrated at Arles,
by Virgilius, the twenty-fourth Archbishop of Aries, JEtherius, the thirty-first Bishop of Lyons, and probably other
Bishops of that province.* The reason why Augustine was
* Bede, Hist. i. 27. Gallia Christiana, vol. I., pp. 519-540. VoL
IV. pp. 4-i(. Dupiii, Hist. Fcc. Writr. vol. V. p. 90.
25




290


ENGLISH EPISCOPATE DERIVED


consecrated at Aries, was, that from the time of the Emperor
Honorius, Arles, which received its Episcopate from Lyons
and Vienne, had been the metropolitan city of Gaul.* At a
still earlier period, as appears from the ancient Notitia, it belonged to the Arch-Diocese of Vienne,t while at a still earlier
period the whole province was reckoned as the Arch-Diocese
of Lyons,: a name it still retains.  Aries and Lyons, therefore, derived its Episcopate from the same source, and the
succession of Bishops has continued in the same line, as the
Bishop of one city was the consecrating Bishop, at the ordination of a Bishop for the other.  Hence it is proper to give
both lines, and, providentially, the Bishops of both cities assisted in the consecration of Augustine.
The source from whence the Gallic Churches derived their
Episcopate and ecclesiastical rites, has been somewhat disputed, but without sufficient reason.  The ancients themselves traced it back to St. John.~    Pothinus, the first
Bishop of Lyons, was a Greek,ll and died at the advanced
age of ninety, A. 1). 176.T  Pothinus, therefore, was fourteen years old when St. John died, and eighty years when
Polycarp died.** Ireneus, the successor of Pothinus, was
also a Greek, and was the disciple of Polycarrp,tt Polycarp
himself having been ordained Bishop of Smyrna, by St. John.::
And the associates with Irenueus, in the ministerial office, were
also Greeks.~~ So, too, when the Churches of Gaul were suffering violent persecution, they wrote a circular epistle to the
Asiatic Churches, which was addressed: " The servants of
* Gall. Chris. I. 2. Bede, i. 27.    t Gall. Chris. I. 1.
t Euseb. v. cc. 1, 23.
~ Gallia Christ. I. 5-12. Spel. Coun. i. 176. Bd. v. 25.
11 Greg. Tour. i. 28, 29.            ~ Euseb. v. 1
** Ep. Church, Smyr. Mart. Pol.
ft Iren. Adv. Hfer. iii. 3. Ep. Flor. Euseb. v. 23, 24.
tt Iren. Adv. Heer. iii. 3.     ~~ Ruin. Acta. Martyr. 80.




FROM EPHESUS AND ST. JOHN.


291


CHRIST dwelling at Lyons and Vienne, in Gaul, to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia."* Now Ephesus was the residence
of St. John, after his return from  Patmos until his death,t
though he went from city to city constituting Churches, and
ordaining Bishops.: After his death Polycarp exercised a
kind of supervision over the vacant Churches, as we read
was the case in Philippi,~ Antioch,11 and probably elsewhere.~  So also, the Churches of Gaul, as we have already
seen, received their ecclesiastical rites, and even the technical phraseology of their ecclesiastical customs, from Asia.
An ancient Irish historian of the sixth or seventh century,
says, that "the Gallican course (i. e. Liturgy) was first
chanted by St. John, the Evangelist, then by the blessed
Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, then by Irenieus, Bishop
of Lyons, in Gaul."** In the famous controversy between
Wilfrid, Archbishop of York, and Coleman, Bishop of Durham, on the subject of keeping Easter, the latter appealed to
the universally received opinion, that they derived their ecclesiastical usages from St. John,tt in which the Church of
Gaul differed from Rome, even in the second century,t: but
corresponded with that of the Asiatic Churches.~~  That the
Gallican Liturgy was derived from the Ephesian, or that of
St. John, has been satisfactorily shown.llll  So also much of
their ecclesiastical language was copied from the Greek, as
we have already seen was the case in regard to the word
Church,~~ which was never used at Rome, the Latins having
* Euseb. v. 1.   t Ep. Polycr. Bp. Ephesus, Euseb. iii. 23, v. 24.
t Clem. Alex. Quis. Dios. Salv.? Euseb. iii. 23.
~ Ep. Pol. Phil. cc. 3, 13.   1I Ign. Ep. Pol. cc. 7, 8.
T Ante, p. 226.               ** Spel. Coun. i. 176.
ft Bd. iii. 25                It Euseb. v. 23.
~~ Euseb. v. 23, 24.
J|II Pal. Orig. Liturgy, i. pp. 143-189, and Ante, pp. 118, 119.
~IT Ante, p. 118.




292


BISHOPS OF LYONS AND ARLES.


adopted the word Ecclesia. All those Churches, therefore,
which adopted the word Church, from the Greek Curiacon,
could not have derived the rites of their Church from a people that never used the word. We also know that the old
Gothic version of the Bible, was made by a Gothic Bishop,
Ulfilas, from the Greek,* and fiom a manuscript of Eastern
origin.t These facts leave no doubt that the Gallic Churches
received their Episcopate, along with their ecclesiastical customs and usuages, fiom Asia, in accordance with the testimony of ancient historians.
Here we are not able to consult the original records, as
they have been kept in a different country, and are at pr&sent imperfect, many of the early ones having been destroyed
when the South of Europe was overrun by the Northern barbarians. Since the fourth century, however, we are able to
give the dates of the several successions, and enough has
been preserved to give us the order of the succession up to
the most primitive times. We copy from the great work of
the Benedictines, entitled Gallia Christiana, in eleven folio
volumes, and which was above forty-five years going through
the press. The year standing against the names, is either
the time of accession, or the period that individual is known
from history to have flourished.
ST. JOHN.
1, POLYCARP, Bp. of Srhyrna.
Bishops of Lyons.:
2, (1,) Pothinus, 177,
3. (2,) Ireneus, 177-202,
4, (3,) Zacharias,               Bishops of Arles.5
5, (4,) Elias,              (1,) Trophimus,
6, (5,) Faustinus,          (2,) Regulus,


* Hug. Intd. N. T. Par. i. ~ 139.
t Gall. Chris. vol. I. pp. 519-540.


t Ib. ~ 140.
~ Gall. Chris. vol. IV. pp. 5-40.




ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.


293


7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
32,


Bishops of Lyons.
(6,) Verus,
(7,) Julius,
(8,) Ptolomy,
(9,) Vocius,
(10,) Maximus,
(11,) Tetradus,
(12,) Verissimus,
(13,) Justus, 374,
(14,) Albinus,
(15,) Martin,
(16,) Antiochus,
(17,) Elpidius,
(18,) Sicarius,
(19,) Eucherius I., 427,
(20,) Patiens, 451,
(21,) Lupicinus,
(22,) Rusticus, 494,
(23,) Stephanus, 499,
(24,) Viventiolus, 515,
(25,) Eucherius II., 524,
(26,) Lupus, 538,
(27,) Licontius, 542,
(28,) Sacerdos, 549,
(29,) Nicetus, 552,
(30,) Priscus, 573,
(31,) IETHERIUS, 589.


(3,)
(4,)
(5,)
(6,)
(7,)
(8,)
(9,)
(10,)
(1 1,)
(12,)
(13,)
(14,)
(15,)
(16,)
(17,)
(18,)
(19,)
(20,)
(21,)
(22,)
(23,)
(24,)


Bishops of Arles.
Martin I., 254,
Victor, 266,
Marinus, 313,
Martin II.
Valentine, 346,
Saturnius, 353,
Artemius,
Concerdius, 374,
Heros,
Patroclus, 412,
Honoratus, 426,
Hilary, 433,
Ravenus, 449,
Augustalis, 455,
Leontius, 462,
iEonius, 492,
Cmserius, 506,
Ananius, 543,
Aurelian, 546,
Sapandus, 557,
Licerius, 586,
VIRGILIUS, 588.


ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.
The principal authorities for the succession of the Arch.
bishops of Canterbury, to the time of the Reformation, are
the following:

25*




294
A. D.


AUTHORITIES FOR THE SUCCESSION




596-737. BEDE'S Eccles. History of the English Nation, to
the year 737. The authorities on which this
author relied, were the Records of the Church
of Canterbury, and the histories of earlier writers, especially, as it regards the Province of
Canterbury, of Albinus, a pupil of Abp. Theodore, who wrote about A. D. 670.*
596-1152. THE SAXON CHRONICLE, which is a collection of
Annals, written by various authors, viz.:596-891. By Phlegmund, Archbishop of Canterbury,
in the time of Alfred the Great, who wrote
up, or caused to be written, the Annals to
his own times, and are quoted under the
title of Archbishop Phlegmund's Annals.t
891-959. By Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury,
who continued the Annals to his time,
quoted by the name of Archbishop Dunstan's Annals.t
959-1038. By Elfric, Archbishop of Canterbury, who
continued the Annals to his time, quoted
by the name of Archbishop Elfric's Annals.~
1038-1052. By Archbishop Stigand, who continued the
Annals to his time, quoted by the name of
Archbishop Stigand's Annals. l
1052-1087. By Wulstan, a monk of Peterborough,
who wrote a continuation of the Annals,


* Ess. Dedic. to King Ceowulph.
t Pref. Ingraham's Sax. Chron.                 t Ib.
~ Dis. Sax. Chron. pp. 50-136, 271-291. The account given of Elfric by the Romish historians, cannot be relied upon. His writings were
strongly opposed to transubstantiation, and there seems to have been a
design to destroy his authority.
II Dis. Sax. Chr. pp. 419-436.




OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.


295


A. D.
quoted by the name of Wulstan's Annals.*
1087-1121. By Nicholas, a prior of Worcester, who
wrote a continuation of the Annals to his
time, quoted by the name of Nicholas' Annals.t
1121-1132. By Remaldus, a monk of Peterborough,
who wrote a continuation of the Annals,
which are quoted by the name of Remaldus' Continuation of the Saxon Chronicle.:
664-1051. INGULPH'S History of the Monastery of Croyland.
596-1114. WILLIAM, a monk of Malmsbury, in two works,
entitled; The Acts of the Kings of England, and
The Acts of English Pontiffs.
596-1138. HENRY, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, History of
England, in eight books.
596-1203. ROGER, of Hoveden, Annals, in two parts.
1067-1259. MATTHEW PARIS, a monk of St. Albans, History
of England.
1260-1272. WILLIAM  RISHANGER, a monk of St. Albans,
continuation of the same.
1278-1361. Various authors, who wrote at or near the time.
1361-1503. The original Registers of the Archbishops in
part, and cotemporary authors in part.
1503-1790. Registers of the Archbishops. These have been
continued down, but as the American succession begins at that date, it was not deemed expedient to enlarge the list.
From this account, it will be seen that we rely entirely
upon what may be considered cotemporaneous authorities,
and that these have been preserved to us in so many
* Dis. Sax. Chron. pp. 295-359.  t Ib. pp. 79-135, 363-397.
t Ib. pp. 399-409.




296


SUCCESSION OF THE


ways, and by such widely different means, that there is, humanly speaking, no possibility of mistake. It will also be
seen, that it is an easy matter to trace the consecrations of
the consecrators, through nearly the whole line of Archbishops.
The Canons of the Church of England, from the earliest
ages to the present time, have required three Bishops to be
present at the consecration of another Bishop; and the consecrator was to be the Metropolitan of the Province, or some
Bishop designated by him, or, in case of a vacancy, designated by the King. Consequently, when consecrations have
been made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it has not been
generally customary to name him; whereas, when others
have been the consecrators, they have generally been mentioned. A single instance, out of many, will serve as an
example. Thus Hovedon, speaking of the consecrations of
Wakelin of Winchester, and Stigand of Sussex, says: " The
Archbishop of Canterbury having been deposed, and the
Archbishop of York being dead, they were consecrated by
Armenfrid, Bishop of Seduni," &c.
33, (1,) AUGUSTINE, consecrated by Virgilius, twenty-fourth
596.    Bishop of Arles, assisted by AEtherius, thirty-first
Bishop of Lyons, A. D. 596; died May 26;
605.*
34, (2,) LAWRENCE, consecrated by Augustine to be his suc605.    cessor, Mellitus and Justus being the assisting Bishops; died Feb. 2, 619.t
35, (3,) MELLITUS, consecrated Bishop of London by Augus

* Bd. i. 27, 28. Hen. Hunt. iii. 184. Wend. i. 45. Gall. Chris. i
540; iv. 35. Maims. i. 111.
t Bd. ii. 4. Ann. Phleg. 26. Hen. Hunt. iii. 187. Wend. i. 109.
Malms. i. 111.




ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.29


297


619.     tine, 604; translated to Canterbury, Feb. 619; died
April 25, 624.*
36, (4,) JUSTUS, consecrated Bishop of Rochester by Augus624.     tine, 604; translated to Canterbury, April, 624;
died Nov. 10, 633.t
37, (5,) -HoNoRius, consecrated by Paulinus, Archbishop of
634.     York, 634, (Paulinus having been consecrated by
Justus, July 21, 625 4f) died Sept..30, 653.~
Vacancy eighteen months.Il
38, (6,) ADEODATUS, or Deusdedit, consecrated by Ithamar,
654.     Bishop of Rochester, March 26, 654, (Ithamar having been consecrated by Honorius, 644;~I) died
July 14, 664.**
Vacancy three years, eight months, and fifteen days,
-during which time Wilfrid of York exercised a
provisional oversight.tt
39, (7,) THEODORE, of Tarsus, in Cilicia, consecrated by
668.     Vitalian, seventy-sixth Bishop of Rome, March 26,
668; died Sept. 16, 6904t
40, (8,) BIRTHWALD, elected July 1, 692; consecrated June
693.     29, 693, by Godwin, forty-second Bishop of Lyons,
then Metropolitan of Gaul; died January 8, 731.~~
*Bd. ii. 3, 7. Ann. Phieg. 24, 26. Hen. Hunt. iii. 187 Wend. i.
120. Maims. i. 111.
t Bd. iii. 8. Ann. Phieg. 24. Hen. Hunt. iii. 187. Wend. i. 104.
Maims. i. 111.
tBd. ii. 3, 8. Paulinus died Oct. 10, 644. Bd. iii. 14.
~ Bd. ii. 9. Ann. Phieg. 27, 28. Hen. Hunt. iii. 189. Wend. i. 149.
Maims. i. 111.     11 God. Prmes. Ang. 40.    IT Bd. iii. 14.
** Bd. iii. 20. Ann. Phieg. 33. Maims. i. 111, 132. Wend. i. 149.
tt Bd. iii. 28; iv. 2; v. 19.
tt Bd. iv. 1; v. 8. Ann. Phieg. 40. Maims. i. 111. Wend. i. 160.
~~ Bd. v. 8. Ann. Phleg. 47. Maims. i. 112. Wend. i. 185-188
Somne MSS. read Walliarurn, (Wales,) instead of Galliarern, (Gaul,)
but the latter, we think, is the true reading. See Gnll. Chris. iv. 50.




298


SUCCESSION OF THE


41, (9,) TATWINE, consecrated June 10, 731, by Daniel,
731.      Bishop of Winchester; Ingauld, Bishop of London; Aldwin, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry;
and Aldwulf, Bishop of Rochester-all of whom
had been consecrated by Birthwald and his suffragans; died January 31, 734.*
42, (10,) NOTHELM, consecrated, 735, by the Bishops of the
735.     Province of Canterbury-then being Aldwulf of
Rochester, Ingauld of London, Aldwin of Lichfield, and Daniel of Winchester, who had been
consecrated by Birthwald and his suffragans; and
Sigifrid of Seolsy, (Chichester,) and Alwich of
Sidnacester, (Lincoln,) who had been consecrated
by Tatwin and his suffragans.t
43, (11,) CUTHBERT, consecrated by Nothelm and his suffra742.      gans, Bishop of Hereford, 736; translated to Canterbury, 742; died 760.4
44, (12,) BREGWIN, consecrated on the feast of St. Michael's,
760.      Sept. 29, 760, by the Bishops of the Province of
Canterbury-then being Aldwulf of Sidnacester,
(Lincoln,) Hemel of Lichfield, Tidfrid of Dunwich, (Norwich,) Totta of Dorchester, (Lincoln,)
and Werebert of Leicester; he died 762.~
45, (13,) LAMBERT, or, as other manuscripts read, Jambert,
763.      or Anbriht, consecrated by Paul, ninety-fourth
Bishop of Rome, 763; died 790.11
* Bd. v. 18, 23. Ann. Phleg. 50-53. Malms. i. 112, 132; ii. 136.
'Hen. Hunt. iv. 194. Wend. i. 219. Hov. i. 230. Ingulph. 485.
t Bd. v. 23. Ann. Phleg. 54. Hen. Hunt. iv. 198. Malms. i. 112.
iov. i. 230. Wend. i. 225.
$ Ann. Phleg. 55. Malms. i. 112. Hen. Hunt. iv. 196. Hov. i. 236.
Wend. i. 227.
~ Ann. Phleg. 59. Malms. i. 113. Hov. i. 231. Wend. i. 236.
{1 Ann. Phleg. 60. Malms. i. 113. Hov. i. 231. Wend. i. 236.




ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.         9


299


46, (14,) IETHELRED I., consecrated by Lambert and his
793.     sufl'ragans, Bishop of Winchester, 780; translated
to Canterbury, July 21, 793; died 803.*
47, (15,) WULFRED, consecrated by Leo III., ninety-seventh
803.     Bishop of Romne, 803; died 830.t
48, (16,) THEOGILD, or Feogild, elected May 7; consecrated
830.     Juno 9, 830, by the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury-then being Osmund of London, Herewin,
of Lichfield, Cedd of Hereford, Adelstan of Schire-.
bourne, (Salisbury,) Humbert of Elmham, (Norwich,) Godwvin of Rochester; all of whom had
been consecrated by Wulfred and his suifragans.
He died Aug. 30. 8304T
49, (17,) CEOLNOTH, consecrated by the same Bishops, Sept.
830.     830; died 870.~
50, (18,) zETHELRED II., consecrated by Ceolnoth and his
871.     suifragans, Bishop of Winchester, 862; translated
to Canterbury, 871; died June 30, 889.11
51, (19,) PHLEGMUND, "1chosen of GOD, and by all his holy
891.     people, Archbishop of Canterbury," consecrated
by Formosus, Bishop of Oporto, one hundred and
twelfth Bishop of Rome, 891; died 923.~f
52, (20,) ATHELM, or Adelm, consecrated by Phlegmund
* Ann. Phleg. 65. Maims. i. 113. Hen. Hunt. iv. 197. Ingulph.
486. Wend. i. 236.
t Ann. Phieg. 69. Maims. i. 113. Hov. i. 236. Ingulph. 486
Wend. i. 251.
t Ann. Phleg. 72.
~ Ann. Phleg. 73. Maims. i. 113. Hen. Hunt. iv. 198. Hov. i. 19S
Inguiph. 488-492. Wend. i. 277.
ll Ann. Phleg. 80. Maims. i. 113; ii. 137. Wend. i. 312.- Hov. i.
239. Erroneously printed, 233, in Ed. 1594.
~ Ann. Phieg. 90. Maims. i. 113. Hen Hunt. v. 01. Hov. i. 241.
Wend. i. 354.




300


SUCCESSION OF THE


915.      and his suffragans, Bishop of Wells, 905; six
other Bishops being consecrated at the same time,
-Frithstan,- to Winchester; Adelstan, to Wilton,
(Salisbury;) Werstan, to Sherbourne, (Salisbury;)
Edulf, to Devon, (Exeter;) Bernegus, to Seolsy,
(Chichester;) Kenulf, to Dorchester, (Lincoln.)
He died 924.*
53, (21,) WULFELM, consecrated by Athelm and his suffra924.      gans, Bishop of Wells, 915; translated to Canterbury, 924; died 934.t
54, (22,) ODO SEVERUS, consecrated by Athelm and his suf941.      fragans, Bishop of Wilton, 920; translated to Canterbury, 934; died July 4, 958.4
55, (23,) DUNSTAN, consecrated by Odo and his suffragans,
959.      Bishop of Worcester, 957; translated to London,
958, and thence to Canterbury, 959; died May
19, 988.~
56, (24,) AETHALGAR, consecrated by Dunstan and his suffra988.     gans, Bishop of Seolsy, (Chichester,) May 6, 980;
translated to Canterbury, 988; died 989.11
57, (25,) SIRICUS, consecrated by Dunstan and his suffra989.      gans, Bishop of Wiltshire, 986; translated to Canterbury, 989; died Oct. 28, 995.1
* Malms. i. 113; ii. 144. De Gest. Reg. ii. 26. Hov. i. 242. Ingulph. 494. Wend. i. 372.
t Ann. Dunst. 114. Maims. i. 113; ii. 144. Wend. i. 380.
Malms. i. 114; ii. 141. Hov. i. 142. Ingulph. 499. Wend. i. 383,
391.
~ Ann. Dunst. 114. Malms. i. 114; ii. 141. Hov. i. 244. Ingulph.
501, 502. Wend. i. 408, 425.
1 Dis. Sax. Chr. 271. Malms. i. 115; ii. 146. Hen. Hunt. v. 205.
Hov. i. 245. Wend. i. 426.
I Ann. Elf. 271. Malms. i. 115; ii. 142. Hen. Hunt. v. 205  Hov.
i. 245. Wend. i. 426




ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.


301


58, (26,) ALURICUS, or Alfric, consecrated by Siricus and
996.      his suffragans, Bishop of Wiltshire, 990; translated to Canterbury, 996; died 1005.*
59, (27,) ELPHEGE, consecrated by Dunstan, Bishop of Win1005.     chester, Nov. 14, 983; translated to Canterbury,
1005; murdered April 19, 1012.t
60, (28,) LIVING, or Leoning Elskan, consecrated by Alfric
1013.     and his suffragans, Bishop of Wells, about 1001;
translated to Canterbury, 1013; died 1020.4
61, (29,) AGELNOTH, or zEthelnot, consecrated   Nov. 13,
1020.     1020, by Wulstan, Archbishop of York, assisted
by the Bishops of the Province of Canterburythen being Ethelric of Chichester, Alfsius of Winchester, Birthwold of Salisbury, Etheric of Lichfield, all consecrated by the Archbishops of Canterbury; and several others, the precise date of
whose consecration is not known. He died Oct.
30, 1038.~
62, (30,) ELFRIC, or, as it is usually written, Edsin, Edsius,
1038.     and Elsin, consecrated by Living and his suffragans, Bishop of WVinchester, 1015; translated to
Canterbury, 1038; died Oct. 28, 1050.11
63, (31,) ROBERT Gemeticensis, or Robert Norman, conse
1050.     crated by Elfric and his suffragans, Bishop of Lon.
* Ann. Elf. 273. Malms. i. 115; ii. 142. Hen. Hunt. v. 205. Hov
i. 246. Wend. i. 426.
t Ann. Elf. 277. Malms. i. 115. Hen. Hunt. vi. 207. Hov. i. 246,
247. Wend. i. 437, 440.
t Ann. Elf. 284. Malms. i. 116; ii. 144. Hen. Hunt. vi 207. Hov.
i. 248. Wend. i. 463.
~ Ann. Elf. 421. Ann. Stig. 450. Maims. i. 116. Hen. Hunt. vi.
208. Hov. i. 205. Ingulph. 508. Wend. i. 463.
11 Ann. Stig. 423. Malms. i. 116; ii. 140. Hen. Hunt. vi. 209. Hov.
i. 251. Wend. i. 476.
26




302


SUCCESSION OF THE


don, 1044; translated to Canterbury, 1050; expelled from his See, 1052.*
64, (32,) STIGAND, consecrated by Elfric and his suffragans,
1052.    Bishop of Helmsham, 1040; translated to Winchester, 1045, and to Canterbury, 1052, Robert
being  still living; suspended, 1062; deposed
1070.t
65, (33,) LANFRANC, consecrated August 29, 1070, by Wil1070.    liam of London, Siward of Rochester, Wakelin of
Winchester, Herfast of Norwich, Walter of Hereford, Giso of Bath and Wells, Herman of Salisbury, and Stigand of Chichester; those absent consecrating by their legates. Of these, William had
been consecrated by Robert and his suffragans;
Wakelin and Stigand, by Armenfrid, Bishop of Seduni, in Gaul, assisted by the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury; Walter and Giso, by Nicholas II., Bishop of Florence, and 153d Bishop of
Rome; Herman, by Siward, assistant to Elfric and
consecrated by him; Siward, by Stigand, and Herfast, by some of the Bishops of the Province of
Canterbury, after the suspension of Stigand. He
died May 28, 1089.:
66, (34,) ANSELM, consecrated December 4, 1093, by Tho1093.    mas of York, assisted by the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury-Wakelin of Winchester, Wulstan of Worcester, Maurice of London, Robert of
Chester, Gundulph of Rochester, Robert of Lich*Ann. Wuls. 306. Malms. i. 116; ii. 135. Hen. Hunt. vi. 209.
Hov. i. 252. Wend. i. 486.
tAnn. Wuls. 319. Ann. Stig. 430. Maims. i. 116; ii. 136, 140.
Hen. Hunt. vi. 209. Hov. i. 255. Wend. i. 483.
tAnn. Wuls. 324. Ann. Osb. 446. Malms. i. 117; ii. 136, 140
Hen. Hunt. vi. 209. Hov. i. 255. Wend. ii. 8, 36. Mat. Par. 7.




ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.


303


field, Osmund of Salisbury, Godfrey of Chichester,
and John of Bath and Wells;-Wakelin having
been consecrated as above stated; Wulstan, by
Aldred of York, who was consecrated by Robert
of Canterbury, and the others by Lanfranc. He
died March 22, 1109.*
67, (35,) RODULPH, or Ralph, consecrated Bishop of Roches1114.    ter, August 11, 1108, elected Archbishop April
26, 1114, installed July 27, 1115; died Oct. 20,
1122. HIe was consecrated by Anselm, assisted
by William of Winchester, Radulph of Chichester,
and Richard of London; all of whom had been
consecrated by Anselm and his suffragans.t
68, (36,) WILLIAM Corbell, nominated by the King Feb. 2,
1123.    1123, consecrated March 19, 1123; died November, 1136; the consecration being by William of
Winchester, Ernulf of Rochester, Bernard of Wales,
(St. David's.) and Roger of Salisbury:-William
and Roger having been consecrated by Anselm,
assisted by Gerard of York, Robert of Lincoln,
John of Bath, Herbert of Norwich, Robert of Chester, Ralph of Chichester, and Ranulf of Durham;Gerard, both Roberts, John and Herbert, having
been consecrated by Anselm and his suffragans;
and Ranulf, by Thomas of York, who was consecrated by Lanfianc and his suffragans,-Ernulf
and Bernard, by Rodulph and his suffiagans.:
69, (37,) THEOBALD, elected by the Bishops of England, as* Ann. Nich. 371, 390. Malms. i. 124. Hen. Hunt. 213. Hov. i. 266.
Wend. i. 44, 185. Mat. Par. 18.
t Ann. Nich. 392. Malns. i. 131, 133, 146. Hen. Hunt. vii. 217.
Hov. 270. Wend. ii. 184, 192. Mat. Par. 63, 65.
t Ann. Remald. 414. Hen. Hunt. vii. 219. Hov.i. 271 273. Wend.
ii. 193, 194. Mat. Par. 63, 66, 69.




304


SUCCESSION OF THE


1138.    sembled in Council, in the city of London, at Christmas, 1138, consecrated at the same time by Albert,
Bishop of Ostia, assisted by the Bishops present at
the Council; died April 18, 1161;-the Bishops
then being, Turstan of York, consecrated by Calixtus II., Bishop of Vienne, and 160th Bishop of
Rome; Roger of Salisbury, Henry of Winchester,
Nigel of Ely, Roger of Coventry, Simon of Worcester, Robert of Hereford, Sifrid of Chichester,
and Gunfrid of Durham, who were consecrated by
William Corbell and his suffragans, and Alexander of Lincoln, who had been consecrated by Anselm and his suffragans.*
70, (38,) THOMAS a Becket, elected by the clergy and people
1162.    of the Province of Canterbury, consecrated Trinity
Sunday, 1162, by Henry of Winchester, who had
been consecrated by William and his suffragans,
assisted by the other Bishops of the Province of
Canterbury,-then being, Walter of Rochester,
Gilbert of Hereford, Geoffry of St. Asaph's, Jocelin of Salisbury, William of Norwich, who had
been consecrated by Theobold and his suffragans;
Hugo of Durham, consecrated by Anastasius IV.,
Bishop of Sabina, and 166th Bishop of Rome; Bar.
tholomew of Exeter, consecrated by Walter of
Rochester, assisted by other Bishops; and Hilary
of Chichester, the date of whose consecration is
unknown.t
71, (39,) RICHARD, elected by the Bishops of the Province
I* Ann. Remald. 414. Hen. Hunt. 223. Hov. i. 271-277. Wend.
ii. 203-225. Mat. Par. 60-77;
t Hov. 281,.282. Wend. ii. 225-292. Mat. Par. 76-98. Chron
Lich. Whar. i. 110.




ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.


305


1174.    of Canterbury, July 6, 1174; consecrated by Alexander III., 168th Bishop of Rome, 1174; died
Feb. 16, 1184.*
72, (40,) BALDWIN Fordensis, consecrated by Richard and
1184.    his suffragans, Bishop of Worcester, August 10,
1180; translated to Canterbury, December 2, 1184;
died 1190.t
73, (41,) REGINALD Fitz-Joceline, consecrated by Richard at
1191.    Rome, June 23, 1174, Bishop of Bath and Wells,
the Archbishop of Tarentasia being present and
assisting; elected to Canterbury, December 5,
1191, but died in a few days after his election.:
74, (42,) HUBERT Walter, consecrated by Baldwin and his
1193.    suffragans, Bishop of Salisbury, November 1,
1189; translated to Canterbury, May 30, 1193;
died 1205.~
75, (43,) STEPHEN Langton, consecrated by Innocent III.,
1207.    174th Bishop of Rome, June 27, 1207; died July
9, 1228.11
76, (44,) RICHARD Wethersfield, consecrated June 5, 1229,
1229.     by Henry of Rochester, assisted by the other
Bishops of the Province of Canterbury-then being Hiugh of Lincoln, Hugh of Hereford, Geoffry
of Ely, Thomas of Norwich, William of Exeter,
and Ralph of Chichester, who had been consecrated by Stephen and his suffragans; Peter of
Winchester, who had been consecrated by the
* Hov. ii. 307, 308. Wend. ii. 370-411. Mat. Par. 127, 129. Chron.
Lich. Whar. i. 1ll.
t Hov. ii. 355. Wend. ii. 409; iii. 34. Mat. Par. 140-142.
t Hov. 307, 308, 405. Wend. ii. 370; iii. 54. Mat. Par. 127, 167.
God. 369.
~ Hov. ii. 377, 415. Wend. iii. 13, 183. Mat. Par. 154, 160.
1I Wend. iii. 212; iv. 170. Mat. Par. 222. Can. Lich. Whar. i. 115.
26*




306


SUCCESSION OF THE


Bishop at Rome; Alexander of Lichfield and Coventry, consecrated by Honorius III., 175th Bishop
of Rome; Joceline of Bath and Wells, consecrated
by William of London, (who had been consecrated
by Hubert;) Robert of Salisbury, consecrated by
Alexander of Lichfield and Coventry; and William of Worcester, (the date of whose consecration is unknown.)*
77, (45,) EDMUND, consecrated April 2, 1234, by Roger
1234.    Niger of London, assisted by Henry of Norwich,
Hugh of Lincoln, Hugh of Hereford, Thomas of
Norwich, William of Exeter, Ralph of Chichester,
Peter of Winchester, Alexander of Lichficld and
Coventry, Joceline of Bath and Wells, Robert
of Salisbury, and William  of Worcester, above
named; and Hugh of Ely, who, with Roger of
London, were consecrated at the same time, and by
the same persons, as Richard of Canterbury. He
died 1240.t
78, (46,) BONIFACE, elected 1242; consecrated by Innocent
1245.    IV., 178th Bishop of Rome, at a council held at
Lyons, 1245. He died August 10, 1275.4
79, (47,) ROBERT Kirlwarby, consecrated Fobruary 26, 1272,
1272.    by William Britton, or Button, Bishop of Bath and
Wells, assisted by the Bishops of the Province
of Canterbury-William having been consecrated
by Celestine V., Bishop of Sabina, and 178th
Bishop of Rome — the other Bishops then being
Lawrence of Rochester, Roger of Lichfield and
* Wend. iv. 185-226. Mat. Par. 197-363. Chron. Lich. Whar. i.
115. Ann. Ecc. Rof. Whar. i. 347.
t Wend. iv. 267. Mat. Par. 363-545. Chron. Lich. Whar. i. 115.
t Mat. Par. 850-960. Chron. Lich. Whar. i. 115. Guth. i. 816, 852




ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.


307


Coventry, Walter of Exeter, Richard Benedict of
Lincoln, Nicholas of Ely, Robert of Salisbury,
who had been consecrated by Boniface and his
suffragans; John of Hereford, and Roger of Norwich, the date of whose consecration is not certainly known;-Hugh of Ely, Richard of St.
David's, and Henry of London, who were canonically incompetent to join in the consecration,
having been suspended by Boniface, and not yet
restored-being also present. He was made Cardinal of Oporto, and resigned his Archbishopric,
1277.*
80, (48,) JOHN Peckham, consecrated by Nicholas III., 186th
1278.    Bishop of Rome, 1278; died 1294.t
81, (49,) ROBERT Winchelsey, consecrated by Suabino, a
1294.    Cardinal Bishop, September 12, 1294;     died
1313.:
82, (50,) WALTER Reynold, consecrated by Robert and his
1313.    suffragans, Bishop of Worcester, October 13,
1308; translated to Canterbury, October 24,
1313; died 1328.~
83, (51,) SIMON Mepham, consecrated by John XXII. Bishop
1328.    of Oporto, 194th Bishop of Rome, September 26,
1328; died October 14, 1332.11
84, (52,) JOHN Stratford, consecrated Bishop of Winchester,
1333.    by Cardinal Vitali, Archbishop of Albanense, June
* Mat. Par. 1008. Guth. i. 259, 291. Rapin, i. 354.
t Ann. Wav. 232, in Guth. ii. 261, 264. Stowe, Chron. 200. God.
100.
$ Chron. Lich. Whar. i. 117. Guth. ii. 264, 268. Ush. MSS.
~ God. 103, 105, 462. Stowe, 229. Guth. ii. 269, 273. Rym. iii.
439, 454.
1 Can. Lich. Whar. i. 118. God. 105. Stowe, 231. Guth. ii. 273,4.
Hard. vii. 1857.




308


SUCCESSION OF THE


26, 1323; translated to Canterbury, December 6,
1333; died 1348.*
85, (53,) THOMAS Bradwardine, consecrated by Bertrand,
1349.    a Cardinal Bishop, July 19, 1349; died same
year.t
86, (54,) SIMON Islip, consecrated January 13, 1349, by
1349.    Rodolph Stratford, Bishop of London; William
Edendon, Bishop of Winchester; and John Thorsby, Bishop of St. David's;-Rodolph having been
consecrated March 12, 1339, William, May 14,
1346, and John, September 23, 1347, by John
Stratford and his suffragans. He died 1366.4
87, (55,) SIMON Langham, consecrated by Islip and his suf1366.    fragans, Bishop of Ely, March 19, 1362; translated to Canterbury, November 4, 1366; made
Bishop of Prmneste, and died, 1367.~
88, (56,) WILLIAM Wittlesey, consecrated by Islip and his
1368.    suffiragans, Bishop of Rochester, Feb. 6, 1361;
translated to Worcester, 1362, and to Canterbury,
Oct. 5, 1368; died 1375.11
89, (57,) SIMON Sudbury, consecrated by Islip and his suf1375.    fragans, Bishop of London, March 30, 1362;
translated to Canterbury, May 4, 1375; murdered 1381.1
90, (58,) WILLIAM Courtnay, consecrated by Wittlesey and
1381.    his suffragans, Bishop of Hereford, 1369; trans* Rym. iv. 583. God. 110.   t God. 111. Stowe, 247.
t Chron. Lich. Whar. i. 119. God. 58, 113, 185, 265, 581. Stowe,
266. Guth. ii. 281, 284.
~ God. 115, 265. Guth. ii. 284, 5.
II Reg. Wit. 1. God. 532. Rym. vi. 596. Stowe, 270. Guth.
ii. 286.
IT Reg. Sud. 1. Hard. vii. 1887. Stowe, 287. Guth. 286, 311.




ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY.30


309


lated to London, 1370, and thence to Canterbury,
1381; died August 1, 1396.'*
91, (59,) THOMAS Arundel, consecrated by Wittlesey, Bish1396.     op of Ely, April 6, 1375; translated to York,
April 3, 1388, and thence to Canterbury, Oct. 13,
1396; died Feb. 20, 1414.t
92, (60,) HENRY Chichely, consecrated June 12, 1409, Bishop
1414.     of St. David's, by Gregory XII., Bishop of Venice,Patriarch of Jerusalem, and 203d Bishop of Rome;
translated to Canterbury, May 5, 1414; died 1443.t
93, (61,) JOHN Stafford, consecrated May 17, 1425, by Chi1443.     chely arid his suifragans, Bishop of Bath and Wells;
translated to Canterbury, May 3, 1443; died 1452.~
94, (62,) JOHN Kemp, consecrated July 6, 1419, by Chichely
1452.     and his suffi-agans, Bishop of Rochester; translated
to Chiehester, March 2, 1420, thence to York, April
8, 1421, and thence to Canterbury, Aug. 12, 1452;
died 1454.11
95, (63,) THOMAS Bourcher, consecrated May 15, 1435, by
1454.     Chichely and his suifragans, Bishop of Worcester;
translated to Ely, Dec. 20, 1443, and thence to
Canterbury, April 22, 1454; died 1486.~
96, (64,) JOHN ]ll'orton, consecrated Jan. 31, 1478, by Bour1486.     cher and his suffragans, Bishop of Ely; translated
to Canterhury, Oct. 6, 1486; died Oct., 1501.**
*Reg. Court. 324. Stowe, 294, 313. Guth. 648. Hard. vii. 1889.
t Can. Lich. Whar. i. 122. Rym. vii. 537. God. 266. Hard. vii.
1923. Stowe, 344. Guth. ii. 454.
tReg. Chich. i. 2. Stowe, 344, 383.
Reg. Cliich. i. 38. God. 127. Stowe, 383, 396.
IIReg. Chich. ii. 23, 32. Reg. Kemp. 210. God. 692. Stowe, 396, 398.
IT Reg. Chich. ii. 52. Reg. Staff. 13. God. 129. Stowe, 398, 471.
Hard. ix. 1376.
** Hist. Ely in God. 131. Stowe, 471, 482. Hard. ix. 1517.




310


CONSECRATIONS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS,


97, (65,) HENRY Dean, consecrated by Morton and his suf1501.     fragans, Bishop of Bangor, 1496; translated to
Salisbury, 1500, and thence to Canterbury, 1501;
died Feb. 16, 1503.*
98, (66,) WILLIAM Warham, consecrated by Dean and his
1503.     suffragans, Bishop of London, Sept. 30, or Oct. 1,
1502; translated to Canterbury, July 2, 1503; died
August 23, 1532.t
This brings us down to the predecessor of Archbishop
Cranmer. From that time to the present, we shall give the
names of the consecrators of each consecrator, in order to
give our readers the means of judging for themselves, how
idle are the objections made to the succession, and how unfounded are all pretences of a break in it. We give immediately under the name of the Bishop, reference to the original Register where the consecration is recorded; and immediately under that, the various dioceses to which the several
Bishops mentioned, have been translated. It will be seen
from this list, that we do not trace our succession through
Cranmer's successor, Cardinal Pole.:  We give, therefore, his
* God. 132, 625. Stowe, 482, 484.
t Whar. i. 124. God. 132, 190. Hard. ix. 1918. Burn. i. 168.
t SUCCESSION OF ARCIBISIIOP POLE.
No record.    M. Griffith,
No record.    John White,
No record.    Richard Pate,  ~
No record.    Tho. Goldwell,  c
No record.   Step. Gardiner, Ed. Bonner,
No record.   John Stokesly,  Nich. Heath,
No record.   John Hilsey,  )
No record.    Step. Gardiner, Ed. Bonner,
No record.    John Stokesly, Nich. Heath,
No record.    John Hilsey,               I             I
No record.    John Stokesly,
No record.    John Hilsey,                Tho. Thirlby,
Tho. Cranmer,               John Hodgskin,
Wm. Rugg,     Rob. Parfew,
John Capon,




SINCE THE REFORMATION.


311


succession, so far as it can be traced, from which it appears,
that the only one of his consecrators whose succession can
be traced historically, traces it through Hodgskins, one of the
consecrators of his successor, Matthew Parker. But inasmuch as only three Bishops are necessary to the regular
consecration of a Bislop, and inasmuch as there have often
been more than this number engaged in the consecration
of the Bishops of England, we shall give the names of only
three.
Among the persons mentioned as consecrators of English
Bishops, consecrated previous to Standish, are Robert Sherbourne, consecrated Bishop of St. Davids, 1505; translated
to Chichester, 1508;* John Fisher, (Cardinal,) consecrated
Bishop of Rochester, 1504;t Cuthbert Tunstall, consecrated
Bishop of Durham, 1530; Nicholas West, consecrated Bishop of Ely, by Archbishop Warham, 1515.~


JName of Bishop.
1, Henry Standish,
War. Reg. 21.
2, John Voysey,
War. Reg. 22.
3, John Longland,
War. Reg. 23.


Diocese.     Consecrators.
St. Asaph, July 6, 1V15.
WARHAM, Canterbury.
Sherborn, Chichester.
John Young, Tit. Bp.
Exeter,     Nov. 6, 1i15.
WARHAM.
John Rochester.
Thomas Leighlin.
Lincoln,    May 5, 121.
WARHAM.
Fisher, (Cardinal.)
John Exeter, 2.


J


* Reg. War. 12.
t Rich. God. Dunelm. Ann. 1530.


t~ Rich. God. Roffen. Ann. 1504.
~ Reg War. 19.




312


CONSECRATIONS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS,


~Name of Bishop.  Dzocese.       Consecrators.
4, THOMAS CRANMER, 99 from St. John, (67) Archbishop of


Canterbury,
Cran. Reg. 4.


5, John Capon,
or Salcott,
Cran. Reg. 162.
6, Hugh Latimer,
Lam. Reg. 173.
7, William Rugg,
or Repps.
Lam. Reg. 200, 212.
8, Robert Parfew,
or Wharton,
Cran. Reg. 197.
Hereford, 1554.
9, John Hilsey,


Canterbury,  March 30, 1533.
John Lincoln, 3.
John Exeter, 2.
Henry St. Asaph, 1.
Bangor,     April 19, 1534.
Thomas Canterbury, 4.
John Lincoln, 3.
Christopher Sidon.
Worcester, 1535.
Names of Consecrators not
given.
Norwich,    1536.
Ib.
St. Asaph, July 2, 1536.
Thomas Canterbury, 4.
John Bangor, 5.
William Norwich, 7.
Rochester,  1536.


10, John Hodgskin,  Bedford,
Cran. Reg. 203, 204.


Names consec. not given.
Dec. 9, 1537.
John (Stokely) London.
John Rochester, 9.
Robert St. Asaph, 8.
March 24, 1537.
John Rochester, 9.
Hugh Worcester, 6.
Robert St. Asaph, 8.


11, Henry Holbeach,
Cran. Reg. 215.
Rochester, 1544.
Lincoln, 1547.
12, Nicholas Ridley,
Cran. Reg. 321.
London, 1550.


Bristol,


Rochester,  Sept. 5, 1547.
Henry Lincoln, 11.
John Bedford, 10.
Thomas Sidon.




SINCE THE REFORMATION.


313


JVTame of Bishop.     Diocese.         Consecrators.
13, Miles Coverdale,    Exeter,       Aug. 30, 1551.
Cran. Reg. 334.                  Thomas Canterbury, 4.
Nicholas London, 12.
John Bedford, 10.
14, John Scory,         Rochester,    Aug. 30, 1551.
Cran. Reg. 333.                  Thomas Canterbury, 4.
Chiche.,ter, 1551.             Nicholas London, 12.
Hereford, 1559.                John Bedford, 10.
REGINALD POLE, 100 from      St. John, (68) Archbishop of
Canterbury.
15, MATTHEW PARKER, 101 from St. John, (69) Archbishop of
Canterbury,         Canterbury,    Dec. 17, 1559.
Park. Reg. 10.                   John Hereford, 14.
John Bedford, 10.
Miles Exeter, 13.
William Barlow.*
* As the Jesuits endeavor to invalidate the consecration of Parker,
because we are unable to trace historically the succession of Barlow, one
of the consecrators, it will be well to state the facts in detail, in regard
to him.
William Barlow, Doctor and Professor of Divinity, and Prior of the
Canons regular of Bisham, was elected Bishop of St. Asaph, by royal
license, dated January 7, 1525, 27th Henry VIII. The royal assent
being given, February 22d, he was consecrated and confirmed in his See
by the Archbishop, February 23d. Richard Rawlins, the eightieth Bishop
of St. David's, having died on the eighteenth of February, 1535, Barlow
was translated to that See in the month of April following, which, as the
year began at the Vernal Equinox, was early in 1536. The Archbishop's act of consecration is dated April 21, 1536, 28th Henry VIII.
William Knight, the forty-fifth Bishop of Bath and Wells, died Sept.
29, 1547, and Barlow was again translated by virtue of letters patent
of Edward VI., dated Feb. 3, 1548. He continued Bishop of Bath and
Wells till the accession of Mary, when he fled to Germany, and continued to live there in poverty and exile till he was recalled by Elizabeth. During the eighteen years.of his Episcopate in the Sees of St.
27




314


CONSECRATORS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS,


J.ame of Bishop.
16, EDMUND GRINDAL,
of Canterbury,
Par. Reg. 18.
York, 1570.
Canterbury, 1573.
17, Edwin Sandes,
Par. Reg. 32.
London, 1570.
York, 1576.


Diocese.       Consecrators.
102 from St. John, (70) Archbishop
London,     Dec. 21, 1559.
Matthew Canterbury, 15.
John Hereford, 14.
John Bedford, 10.
Worcester, Dec. 21, 1559.
Matthew Canterbury, 15.
John Hereford, 14.
John Bedford, 10.


David and Bath and Wells, he was present and assisting at the consecration of Arthur Bulkly, Bishop of Bangor, Feb. 19, 1541. John Christopherson, the forty-first Bishop of Chichester, died January 1st or 2d,
1557-8, and Barlow was elected his successor; but as Cardinal Pole
died Nov. 17, 1558, the same day on which Queen Mary died, the See
of Canterbury was vacant, and consequently there could be no confirmation of Barlow's election by the Metropolitan, as the law required. For
this reason, in Elizabeth's commission to consecrate Parker, dated Dec.
6, 2d Eliz., (1559,) he is styled " William Barlow, sometime lord Bishop
of Bath and Wells, now elect of Chichester." The consecration of Parker took place Dec. 17, 1559. The royal assent was given to the election of Barlow, Dec. 18, 1559, and on the 20th of December, 1he received
the confirmation of the Archbishop. The temporalities were restored to
him on the 23d of March, following, or the beginning of the new ye;r.
He held the See of Chichester till his death, which took place August
13th, 1568. It may also be added, on the question of the canonicalness
of Abp. Parker's consecration, that all the consecrations in the tiune of
Mary were uncanonical, having been made by authority of the Bishop
of Rome, whose authority had been renounced by the Synods of the Anglican Church. Consequently, these had no canonical right to consecrate
any Bishop in England. The Bishops, therefore, who alone could canonically consecrate Parker, were Salisbury of Tletford, Barlow, late of
Chichester, Hodgskins of Bedford, Bonner of London, Tlirlby of Ely,
Kitchen of Llandaff, Coverdale, late of Exeter, Scory, late of Bath and
Wells. Of these, Bonner and Thirlby were incapacitated, having been
concerned in the murder of their metropolitan, Cranmer. The remainder assented to the consecration, and four of them performed it.




SINCE THE REFORMATION.


315


JName of Bishop.
18, Thomas Young,
Par. Reg. 54.
Iork, 1560.
19, Robert Horne,
Par. Reg. 88.
20, John Piers,
Grind. Reg. 17.
Salisbury, 1575.
York, 1588.
21, John Aylmer,
Grind. Reg. 27.
22, JOHN WHITGIFT,
Canterbury,
Grind. Reg. 34.
Canterbury, 158:
23, John Young,
Grind. Reg. 43.


Diocese.      Consecrators
St. David's, Jan. 21, 1560.
Matthew Canterbury, 15.
Edmund London, 16.
John Bedford, 10.
Winchester, Feb. 16, 1560.
Matthew Canterbury, 15.
Thomas St. David's, 18.
Edmund London, 16.
Rochester,  April 15, 1575.
Edmund Canterbury, 16.
Edwin London, 17.
Robert Winchester, 19.
London,    March 24, 1576.
Edmund Canterbury, 16.
Edwin York, 17.
John Rochester, 20.
103 from St. John, (71) Archbishop of
Worcester, April 21, 1577.
Edmund Canterbury, 16.
3.         John London, 21.
Robert Winchester, 19.
Rochester,  March 16, 1577.




24, Richard Fletcher, Bristol,
Whit. Reg. 62.
Worcester, 1593.
London, 1594.
25, Richard Vaughan, Bangor,
Whit. Reg. 71.
Chester, 1597.
London, 1604.


Edmund Canterbury, 16.
John London, 21.
John Salisbury, 20.
Dec. 14, 1589.
John Canterbury, 22.
John London, 21.
John Rochester, 23.
June 25, 1595.
John Canterbury, 22.
Richard London, 24.
John Rochester, 23.




316


CONSECRATORS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS,


Vame of Bishop.   Diocese.      Consecrators.
26, Anthony Watson, Chichester, Aug. 15, 1596.
Whit. Reg. 90.             John Canterbury, 22.
John Rochester, 23.
Richard Bangor, 25.
27, RICHARD BANCROFT, 104 from St. John, (72) Archbishop
of Canterbury,  London,     May 8, 1597.
Whit. Reg. 82.             John Canterbury, 22.
Canterbury, 1604.         John Rochester, 23.
Richard Bangor, 25.
28, William Barlow, Rochester,  June 30, 1605.
Bane. Reg. 35.             Richard Canterbury, 27.
Lincoln, 1608.            Richard London, 25.
Anthony Chichester, 26.
29, Launcelot Andrews, Chichester, Nov. 3, 1605.
Bane. Reg. 42.             Richard Canterbury, 27.
Ely, 1609.                Richard London, 25.
Winchester, 1618.         William Rochester, 28.
30, James Montague, Bath and Wells, April 17, 1608.
Bane. Reg. 68.             Richard Canterbury, 27.
William Rochester, 28.
Launcelot Chichester, 29.
31, Richard Neyle,  Rochester,  Oct. 9, 1609.
Bane. Reg. 83.             Richard Canterbury, 27.
Coventry, 1610.           Launcelot Chichester, 29.
Lincoln, 1613.            James Bath and Wells, 30.
Durham, 1617.
Winchester, 1627.
32, GEORGE ABBOTT, 105 from St. John, (73) Archbishop of
Canterbury,      Lichfield,  Dec. 3, 1609.
Bane. Reg. 96.             Richard Canterbury, 27.
London, 1609.             Launcelot Ely, 29.
Canterbury, 1611.         Richard Rochester, 31.




SINCE THE REFORMATION.


31.


Name of Bishop.
33, Samuel Harsnet,
Banc. Reg. 102.
Norwich, 1619.
York, 1628.
34, John Buckeridge,
Abb. Reg. i. 26.
Ely, 1628.
34*, John King,
Abb. Reg. i. 28.
35, Nicholas Felton,
Abb. Reg. i. 93.
Ely, 1619.


Diocese        Consecrators.
Chichester, Dec. 3, 1609.
Richard Canterbury, 27.
Launcelot Ely, 29.
Richard Rochester, 31.
Rochester, June 9, 1611.
George Canterbury, 32.
Launcelot Ely, 29.
Richard Coventry, 31.
London,    Sept. 8, 1611.
George Canterbury, 32.
Richard Coventry, 31.
John Rochester, 34.


Bristol,


Dec. 14, 1617.
George Canterbury, 32.
John Rochester, 34.
Launcelot Ely, 29.
Mark, Archbishop Spalatro.
Dec. 14, 1617.
George Canterbury, 32.
John Rochester, 34.
John London, 34*.
Mark, Archbishop Spalatro.


36, George Monteigne, Lincoln,
Abb. Reg. i. 105.
London, 1621.


37, John Howson,
Durham, 1621.
38, John Williams,
Abb. Reg. ii. 62.
York, 1641.


Oxford,    May 9, 1619.
George Canterbury, 32.
John Rochester, 34.
Nicholas Ely, 35.
Lincoln,   Nov. 11, 1621.
George London, 36.
Nicholas Ely, 35.
John Oxford, 37.
27*




318-       CONS;
NJVame of Bishop.
39, WILLIAM LAI
Canterbury,
Abb. Reg. ii. 6
Bath and We
London, 1628
Canterbury, 1
40, Robert Wrig[
Abb. Reg. ii. 8
Coventry, 163
41, Joseph Hall,
Abb. Reg. ii. 1
42, Walter Curl,
Abb. Reg. ii. 11
Bath and We]
I         Winchester, 1
43, John Bowle, l
Abb. Reg. iii. 1
44, WILLIAM JUX<
Canterbury,
Laud. Reg. i. 1
Canterbury, 1
45, Matthew Wre
Laud. Reg. i. 4
Norwich, 163
Ely, 1638.


ECRATORS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS,


JD,


Diocese.           Consecrators.
106 from St. John, (74) Archbishop of
St. David's, Nov. 18, 1621.


9.
11s, 1627.


George London, 36.
Nicholas Ely, 35.
John Oxford, 37..633.
it,
5.
32.
14.


Bristol,


March 23, 1622.
George Cahterbury, 32.
John Lincoln, 38.
Launcelot Winchester, 29.


56.
Ils, 1(.632.
Roche.7.


Exeter,    Dec. 23, 1627.
George London, 36.
John Rochester, 34.
Richard Durham, 31.
Rochester,  Sept. 7, 1628.
George Canterbury, 32.
329.      Richard Winchester, 31.
John Ely, 34.
ister,      Feb. 7, 1629.
George Canterbury, 36.
Samuel York, 33.
Walter Bath and Wells, 42.


ON, 107 from St. John, (75) Archbishop of
London,    Oct. 7, 1633.
8.            William Canterbury, 39.
660.          Richard York, 31.
John Rochester, 43.


mn,     Hereford,:4.
5.


March 8, 1634.
William Canterbury, 39.
Walter Winchester, 42.
Joseph Exeter, 41.




SINCE THE REFORMATION.


319.JVame of Bishop.
46, Robert Skinner,
Laud. Reg. i. 66.
Oxford, 1640.
Worcester, 1663.
47, Brian Duppa,
Laud. Reg. ii. 46.
Salisbury, 1641.
Winchester, 1660.


Diocese.      Consecrators.
Bristol,   Jan. 15, 1636.
William Canterbury, 39.
William London, 44.
Matthew Norwich, 45.
Chichester, June 17, 1638.
William Canterbury, 39.
Robert Coventry, 40.
Matthew Ely, 45.


48, Accepted Freewen, Lichfield and Coventry, April, 1643.
Wood Ath. Oxon. ii. 1147.   John York, 38.
York, 1660.               Robert Oxford, 46.
Brian Salisbury, 47.
From the death of Charles I., in January, 1648-9, to the
restoration of Charles II., in 1660, Sir Edward Hyde, afterwards Earl of Clarendon, was, under Providence, the prop
and stay of the fallen Episcopacy. The last consecration in
England, before the subversion of the monarchy, took place
in 1643; and at the time of the King's execution there were
but twenty Bishops living. Of these, eleven died before the
restoration. With good reason, therefore, did Sir Edward
express himself in the following manner, in his correspondence with Dr. John Barwick: "I will not mention the age
of the consecrators, though it hath put me into many a
fright. If I were a Presbyterian, I should hope to spin out
the time till all the Bishops were dead. I do wish, in all
events, that the succession were provided for. The conspiracies to destroy it are very evident, and if there can be
no combination to preserve it, it must expire. I do assure
you, the names of all the Bishops who are alive, and their
several ages, are as well known at Rome as in England;
and both the Papist and Presbyterian value themselves very
much, upon computing in how few years the Church of Eng1 nd must expire. God knows it will be almcst a miracles




320


CONSECRATORS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS,


if the winter doth not take away half the Bishops that are
left alive," &c. &c. In consequence of these earnest expressions of alarm, authority was obtained in 1659, from
Charles II., then at Brussels, nominating for consecration
Dr. Hammond, Dr. Sheldon, Dr. Lany or Lancy, Dr. Ferne,
and Dr. Walton. But the restoration of the King and the
re-establishment of the Church rendered this measure unnecessary. Of the nine Bishops then restored, one died in
1662, one in 1663, one in 1664, one in 1665, one in 1666,
one in 1667, one in 1669, and two in 1670.*
JName of Bishop.  Diocese.       Consecrators.
49, GILBERT SHELDON, 108 from St. John, (76) Archbishop
of Canterbury,   London,    Oct. 18, 1660.
Jux. Reg. 208.              Brian Winchester, 47.
Canterbury, 1663.         Accepted York, 48.
Matthew Ely, 45.
50, Humphrey Hinchman, Salisbury, Oct. 18, 1660.


Jux. Reg. 208.
London, 1663.


51, George Morley,
Jux. Reg. 208.
Winchester, 1662.
52, Seth Ward,
Jux. Reg. 302.
Salisbury, 1667.
53, John Dolben,
Shel. Reg. 6.
York, 1683.


Brian Winchester, 47.
Accepted York, 48.
Matthew Ely, 45.
Worcester, Oct. 18, 1660.
Brian Winchester, 47.
Accepted York, 48.
Matthew Ely, 45.
Exeter,    July 20, 1662.
Gilbert London, 49.
George Winchester, 51.
Humphrey Salisbury, 50.
Rochester,  Nov. 25, 1666.
Gilbert Canterbury, 49.
Humphrey London, 50.
George Winchester, 51.


* Mason's Vinc. Trans. Pref. ~ 31. p. lxxi.




SINCE THE REFORMATION.


321


JName of Bishop.  Diocese.      Consecrators.
54, Peter Mewes,    Bath and Wells, Feb. 9, 1672.
Shel. Reg. 108.            Gilbert Canterbury, 49.
Winchester, 1684.        Humphrey London, 50.
John Rochester, 53.
55, Henry Compton,  Oxford,    Dec. 6, 1746.
Shel. Reg. 123.            Gilbert Canterbury, 49.
London, 1675.             Seth Salisbury, 52.
John Rochester, 53.
56, WILLIAM SANCROFT, 109 from St. John, (77) Archbishop
of Canterbury,  Canterbury, Jan. 27, 1677.
Sane. Reg. 7.              Henry London, 55.
Seth Salisbury, 52.
John Rochester, 53.
57, William Lloyd,  St. Asaph,  Oct. 3, 1680.
Sanc. Reg. 43.             William Canterbury, 56.
Coventry, 1692.           Henry London, 55.
Worcester, 1699.         John Rochester, 53.
58, Thomas Spratt,  Rochester,  Nov. 2, 1684.
Sanc. Reg. 102.            William Canterbury, 56.
Henry London, 55.
Seth Salisbury, 52.
59, Jonathan Trelawney, Bristol,  Nov. 8, 1685.
Sanc. Reg. 142.            William Canterbury, 56.
Exeter, 1689;             Henry London, 55.
Winchester, 1707.         Peter Winchester, 54.
60, Gilbert Burnett,  Salisbury,  March 31, 1689.
Sane. Reg. 190.            Henry London, 55.
William St. Asaph, 57.
Peter Winchester, 54.
61, John Hough,     Oxford,     May 11, 1690.
Reg. Dean and Chap. Cant. 25. Henry London, 55.
Coventry, 1669.           William St. Asaph, 57.
Worcester, 1717.          Peter Winchester, 54.




.22


CONSECRATORS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS,


JName of Bishop.  Diocese.       Consecrators.
-62, JOHN TILLOTSON, 110 from St. John, (78) Archbishop of
Canterbury,      Canterbury, May 21, 1691.
Till. Reg. 9.               Peter Winchester, 54.
William St. Asaph, 57.
Gilbert Salisbury, 60.
63, THOMAS TENISON, 111 from St. John, (79) Archbishop


of Canterbury,
Till. Reg. 95.
Canterbury, 1694


i64, John Evans,
Ten. Reg. i. 58.
Meath, 1715.
65, WILLIAM WAKE,
Canterbury,
Ten. Reg. i. 100.
Canterbury, 1715
*66, Richard Willis,
Ten. Reg. i. 146.
Salisbury, 1721.
Winchester, 1723


Lincoln,   Jan. 10, 1691.
John Canterbury, 62..  Henry London, 55.
Gilbert Salisbury, 60.
Bangor,    Jan. 4, 1701.
Thomas Canterbury, 63.
Henry London, 55.
Gilbert Salisbury, 60.
112 from St. John, (80) Archbishop of
Lincoln,   Oct. 21, 1705.
Thomas Canterbury, 63.
i.      Henry London, 55.
Gilbert Salisbury, 60.
Gloucester, Jan. 16, 1714.


i.


67, JOHN POTTER, 113 from St.
Canterbury,     Oxford,
Ten. Reg. i. 176.
Canterbury, 1737.
$68, Edmund Gibson, Lincoln,
Wake Reg. i. 21.
London, 1723.


Gilbert Salisbury, 60.
John Coventry, 61.
John Bangor, 64.
John, (81) Archbishop of
May 15, 1715.
Jonathan Winchester, 59.
William Lincoln, 65.
Richard Gloucester, 66.
Feb. 12, 1715.
William Canterbury, 65.
Jonathan Winchester, 59.
Richard Gloucester, 66.




SINCE THE REFORMATION.


323.Name of Bishop.
69, Joseph Wilcocks,
Wake Reg. i. 113.
Rochester, 1731.


Diocese        Consecrators.
Gloucester, Dec. 3, 1721.
William Canterbury, 65.
Richard Salisbury, 66.
Edmund Lincoln, 68.


70, Richard Reynolds, Bangor,
Wake Reg. i. 104.
Lincoln, 1723.


Dec. 3, 1721.
William Canterbury, 65.
Richard Salisbury, 66.
Edmund Lincoln, 68.


71, Thomas Tanner,
Wake Reg. ii. 92.
72, Nicholas Clagett,
Wake Reg. ii. 100.
Exeter, 1743.
73, Martin Benson,
Wake Reg. ii. 153.


St. Asaph, Jan. 23, 1731.
William Canterbury, 65.
Edmund London, 68.
Joseph Rochester, 69.
St. David's, Jan. 23, 1731.
William Canterbury, 65.
Edmund London, 68.
Joseph Rochester, 69.
Gloucester, Jan. 19, 1734.
Edmund London, 68.
John Oxford, 67.
Joseph Rochester, 69.


74, THOMAS SECKER, 116 from St. John, (84) Archbishop of
Canterbury,     Bristol,    Jan. 19, 1734.
Wake Reg. ii. 163.         Edmund London, 68.
Oxford, 1737.             John Oxford, 67.
Canterbury, 1758.         Joseph Rochester, 69.


75, THOMAS HERRING, 114 from
of Canterbury,  Bangor,
Pot. Reg. 41.
York, 1743.
Canterbury, 1747.


St. John, (82) Archbishop
Jan. 15, 1737.
John Canterbury, 67.
Nicholas St. David's, 72.
Joseph Rochester, 69.




324


CONSECRATORS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS,.Name of Bishop.  D
76, Joseph Butler,  Bri
Pot. Reg. 68.
Durham, 1750.
77, Edward Willes,  St.
Pot. Reg. 114.
Bath and Wells, 1743.


iocese.       Consecrators.
stol,    Dec. 3, 1738.
John Canterbury, 67.
Joseph Rochester, 69.
Nicholas St. David's, 72.
David's, Jan. 2, 1742.
John Canterbury, 67.
Joseph Rochester, 69.
Richard Lincoln, 70.


78, MATTHEW HUTTON, 115 from St. John, (83) Archbishop
of Canterbury,   Bangor,    Nov. 13, 1743.
Pot. Reg. 146.             Joseph Rochester, 69.
York, 1747.               Nicholas Exeter, 72.
Canterbury, 1757.         Joseph Bristol, 76.


79, John Thomas,
Pot. Reg. 169.
Salisbury, 1757.
Winchester, 1757.
80, Richard Trevor,
Pot. Reg. 190.
Durham, 1752.
81, Zachary Pearce,
Herr. Reg. 38.
Rochester, 1756.


Lincoln,    April 1, 1744.
John Canterbury, 67.
Joseph Rochester, 69.
Martin Gloucester, 73.
St. David's, April 1, 1744.
John Canterbury, 67.
Joseph Rochester, 69.
Martin Gloucester, 73.


Bangor,


Feb. 2, 1747.
Thomas Canterbury, 75.
Joseph-Rochester, 69.
Martin Gloucester, 73.


82, Robert Hay Drummond, St. Asaph, April 24, 1748.
Her. Reg. 65.              Thomas Canterbury, 75.
Salisbury, 1761.         Joseph Rochester, 69.
York, 1761.              Martin Gloucester, 73.




SINCE THE REFORMATION.


325


JN^ame of Bishop.        Diocese.            Consecrators.
83, FREDERICK CORNWALLIS, 117 from St. John, (85) Archbish

op of Canterbury,
Her. Reg. 121.
Canterbury, 1768.
84, James Johnson,
Her. Reg. 171.
Worcester, 1759.
85, Edmund Keene,
Her. Reg. 154.
Ely, 1771.
86, John Hume,
Her. Reg. 244.
Oxford, 1758.
Salisbury, 1766.
87, John Egerton,
Her. Reg. 255.
Coventry, 1768.
Durham, 1771.
88, Richard Terrick,
Hutt. Reg. 42.
London. 1764.
89, Philip Younge,
Seek. Reg. 30.
Norwich, 1761.
90, Robert Lowth,
Seek. Reg. 235.
Oxford, 1766.


Lichfield and Coventry, Feb. 18,1749.
Thomas Canterbury, 75.
Joseph Rochester, 69.
Martin Gloucester, 73.
Gloucester, Dec. 10, 1752.
Thomas Canterbury, 75.
Joseph Rochester, 69.
Zachary Bangor, 81.
Chester,   March 22, 1752.
Thomas Canterbury, 75.
Joseph Durham, 76.
Frederick Lichfield, 83.
Bristol,   July 4, 1756.
Thomas Oxford, 74.
Zachary Rochester, 81.
Edmund Chester, 85.
Bangor,    July 4, 1756.
Thomas Oxford, 74.
Zachary Rochester, 81.
Edmund Chester, 85.
Peterborough, June 3, 1757.
Matthew Canterbury, 78.
Edmund Chester, 85.
John Bristol, 86.
Bristol,   June 29, 1758.
Thomas Canterbury, 74.
Zachary Rochester, 81.
John Oxford, 86.
St. David's, June 15, 1766.
Thomas Canterbury, 74.
Richard London, 88.
Edw. Bath and Wells, 77.
28




I


326     CONSECRATORS OF THE ARCHBISHOPS, ETC.


NJame of Bishop   D
91, Charles Moss,   St.
Seek. Reg. 261.
Bath and Wells, 1774.
92, Shute Barrington, Llai
Corn. Reg. 82.
Durham, 1791.
93, John Hinchcliffe, Pet(
Corn. Reg. 93.


iocese.   Consecratort.
David's, Nov. 30, 1766.
Richard London, 88.
John Winchester, 79.
Edw. Bath and Wells, 77.
ndaff,  Oct. 1, 1769.
Frederick Canterbury, 83.
Richard London, 88.
Zachary Rochester, 81.
erborough, Dec. 17, 1769.
Frederick Canterbury, 83.
Richard London, 88.
John Winchester, 79.


94, WILLIAM MARKHAM, Chester,
Corn. Reg. 113.
York, 1777.


Feb. 17, 1771.
Robert York, 82.
Richard Durham, 80.
James Worcester, 84.


95, John Thomas,
Corn. Reg. 171.


Rochester,  Nov. 13, 1774.
Richard London, 88.
Philip Norwich, 89.
Shute Llandaff, 92.


96, JOHN MOORE, 118
Canterbury,
Corn. Reg. 204.
Canterbury, 1783.


from E
Bangor


3t. John, (86) Archbishop of,  Feb. 12, 1775.
Frederick Canterbury, 83.
Edmund Ely, 85.
Robert Oxford, 90.


97, Beilby Porteus,
Corn. Reg. 25.
London, 1787.


Chester,   Feb. 9, 1777.
William York, 94.
John Durham, 87.
Shute Llandaff, 92.




DIFFERENT MODES OF TRACING THE SUCCESSION.  327


XJVame of Bishop.  Diocese.      Consecrators.
WILLIAM WHITE, Pennsylvania, Feb. 4, 1787.
Moore Reg. 33.            John Canterbury, 96.
William York, 94.
Chas. Bath and Wells, 91.
John Peterborough, 93.
SAMUEL PROVOOST, New York, Feb. 4, 1787.
Moore Reg. 33.            John Canterbury, 96.
William York, 94.
Chas. Bath and Wells, 91.
John Peterborough, 93.
JAMES MADISON, Virginia,        Sept. 19, 1790.
Moore Reg. 192.           John Canterbury, 96.
Beilby London, 97.
John Rochester, 95.
We see from the facts already detailed, that Augustine
traced his succession back through Irenaeus to St. John, and
consequently our succession properly comes from that source.
But the succession of the later Bishops may be traced through
the line of the Bishops of Rome, if desired. Thus Theodore,
the seventh Archbishop of Canterbury, was consecrated by
the Bishop of Rome, and filled the Arch-Episcopal chair, from
668 to 693, twenty-five years. Those Bishops, therefore,
who were consecrated by him in England, could trace their
succession, through him, back to St. Peter, and through those
who assisted him in consecrating, back to St. John. Now in
this time, three Bishops were consecrated in the Diocese of
Lichfield and Coventry; two in the Diocese of London; two
in the Diocese of Helham, now Norwich; four in the Diocese of Rochester; two in the Diocese of Winchester; three
in the Diocese of Worcester; and perhaps others in other
places. Consequently, all the ancient Dioceses of Canterbury must have been filled with Bishops who could trace




828    DIFFERENT MODES OF TRACING THE SUCCESSION.


their succession in both of these ways, and hence, all subsequent Bishops must be able to do the same.
The successor of Theodore,-Birthwald, was consecrated
by Godwin, according to some manuscripts, Metropolitan
Bishop of Walliarum, (Wales,)* but according to others of
Galliarum, (Gaul.) The latter is generally supposed to be
the most probable, as Godwin was at that time Archbishop
of Lyons, to which the Archiepiscopate had been removed
from Arles, which was the source from whence the AngloSaxon Bishops had originally derived their orders-Aries
having received its Episcopate from Ephesus and St. John.
But if Wales be the true reading, it will be seen that the
Bishops of that country traced their succession to Jerusalem
and St. John.   Birthwald filled the Arch-Episcopal See
thirty-nine years, from 693 to 732, in which time there were
consecrated for the Diocese of Lincoln, two Bishops, one in
Lichfield and Coventry; one in London; one in Rochester;
two in Salisbury; one in Winchester; one in Worcester, and
probably others. All the Bishops in the Province of Canterbury, subsequent to the time of Birthwald, must, therefore,
have been able to trace their succession through him to Jerusalem and St. James, and through those who assisted him in
consecrating, to St. John and to St. Peter.
Again, Theobald, the thirty-seventh Archbishop of Canterbury, was consecrated by Albert, Bishop of Ostia; and during
his Episcopate there were consecrated one Bishop each, in
the Dioceses of St. David's, Hereford, Lincoln, Norwich, Salisbury; two Bishops each in the Dioceses of Ely, Llandaff,
London, Rochester, and Worcester. There have also been
* Odoceus, third Bishop of Llandaff, was consecrated by Theodore
of Canterbury, the predecessor of Birthwald, and the successor of Odoceus was Ubilwin, which might have been mistaken for Godwin, by the
copyists.




BISHOPS OF THE FOUR PATRIARCHAL SEES.


329


several other consecrations by foreign Bishops, as, Robert
Winchelsy, forty-ninth Archbishop, by Suabino, John Stratford, fifty-second Archbishop, by Vitali, and Thomas Bradwardine, fifty-third Archbishop, by Bertrand, all Cardinal
Bishops, so that the succession may be traced in a great
variety of ways.
There is one other foreign Bishop that deserves notice.
In 1617, MARK A. DE DOMINIS, the Archbishop of Spalatro, a
Church in communion with the See of Rome, assisted in the
consecration of Nicholas Felton and George Monteigne, and
these assisted in the consecration of so many other Bishops,
that since 1633, there has not been a Bishop consecrated in
England that could not trace his succession to the Archbishops of Spalatro, and thence back to the Apostles. Consequently, if there had been any break in the succession before
that time, we should now have a valid succession.
There was also a commingling of the Saxon and British
lines, whether Birthwald was consecrated in France or Wales.
Cead, the second Archbishop of York, and subsequently Bishop
of the Mercians, was consecrated by Wine, Bishop of the
West-Saxons, assisted by two British Bishops,-Wine himself
having been consecrated in France. And Cead must have
aided Theodore in the consecration of other Bishops, as the
canonical number could not be made without him.
II. SUCCESSION FROM JERUSALEM.
At whatever age Christianity was first introduced into
Britain, whether in the first century, as we shall see in the
course of the work is probable, or, as others suppose, at a still
later period, it was preached by Greek missionaries. This
is evident from the fact, that the old Greek and British
historians relate the same occurrences, in regard to that
primitive period, so similarly. that both must have derived
their knowledge from the same source, or from the records
28*




330


BRITISH ARCHBISHOPS OF LONDON.


of contemporaneous historians.  The British Liturgy was
also of Eastern origin, and unlike that of Rome. Their ecclesiastical rites were also those of the East, and not of the
West, notwithstanding there was frequent intercourse between the Churches of Rome and Britain. The conquest of
the Britains by the Saxons, and their entire subjugation, has
rendered it necessary for us to depend mostly upon foreign
and Saxon writers for the history of the British Church.
From these materials, Archbishop Usher,* and Bishop Stillingfleet,t have drawn the following facts.
In the year 624 or 626, February 20, Honorius, the seventieth Bishop of Rome, issued a Bull, in which it is stated as
a well-known fact in history, that Lucius, a British King, in
the second century, granted certain privileges to the University of Cambridge; and in the antiquities of Cambridge, in
the somewhat doubtful Annals of Burton, A. D. 141, this is
said to have been done for the reason that Christianity had
been faithfully preached there.  It is also said in the old
Register of Llandaff, that Lucius sent an embassy to Rome,
and that Elvanus was consecrated Bishop by Eleutherus,
the twelfth Bishop of Rome.": The names of the earliest
British Bishops have not generally been preserved, but the
following Archbishops of London have come down to us, but
whether they form the full line, is uncertain.
1. Theanus, who founded St. Peter's Church, Cornhill,
died about 187.~
2. Elvanus, consecrated by Eleutherus, twelfth Bishop of
Rome. II
3. Cadoc, or Cadar.
* Britann. Eccles. Antiq., quarto, Dublin, 1629.  t Orig. Britann.
t Mon. Angl. vol. III. p. 188.
~ Joe. Furn. Lib. Epis. Brit. in Ush. Primor. p. 67.
II Reg. Lland. in. Mon. Ang. vol. III. p. 186.




ENGLISH SUCCESSION FROM JERUSALEM.


331


4. Obinus.
5. Conanus.
6. Palladius.
7. Stephanus, suffered martyrdom, Sept. 17, A. D. 303.
8. Iltutus, or Restitutus, one of the three British Bishops
present at the Council of Aries, A. D. 312, or 314.
9. Theodwin, or Dedwin.
10. Theodred.
11. Hilary.
12. Guidelinus.
13. Vodin, slain by Hengist, the Dane.
14. Theonus, consecrated Bishop of Gloucester, translated
to London, fled from the Saxons, A. D. 587, and with the
great body of his clergy, accompanied by Thadioc, Archbishop of York, went and settled il Wales.*
Previous to this time, there had been three Archbishoprics
in Britain-London, York, and Caerleon; the two first of
which were destroyed by the Saxons, and the latter transferred to Meneva, now St. David's. Our knowledge of the
Bishops of this See commences some time before this. As
early as A. D. 448, Germanus and Severus, two Bishops of
Gaul, visited Britain, at the request of the British clergy, and
while there consecrated several Bishops, among whom was
Dubritius, the first Archbishop of Llandaff, and Sampson,
Archbishop of York. The Bishops of Llandaff, therefore, are
properly the successors of Theonus and Thadioc.t Consequently, Dubritius could trace his succession through Germanus and the Gallican Bishops, to Ephesus, in the same manner as we have seen the Bishops of Lyons and Arles could
trace their succession to the same source.
About the same time, David and Eliud, also called Teliaus,
and Paternus, three Britons, visited Jerusalem, and David
* Ma. Wst.A. D 58.  tPost c.xxvii.  nn.448


* Mat. West. A. D. 587.


t- Post, e. xxviii. A~nn. 448.




332                BRITISH BISHOPRICS.
was there consecrated Bishop of Meneva by the Patriarch of
Jerusalem,* and A. D. 519 was made Archbishop of Wales,
by vote of a Synod, at which all the British Bishops were
present.t He died A. D. 544,$ and was so famous as to be
canonized even among the Saxon saints. David was succeeded by Eliud,~ and Eliud by Kenoc, or Kenev.ll
Dubritius, Bishop of Llandaff, died December 18th, 522,11
and was succeeded by Teliaus, who accompanied David to
Jerusalem.**  His successor was Odoceus, consecrated by
Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury.tt  The Patriarchate,
or Arch-diocese of Meneva, (St. David's,) contained seven
Dioceses.:t  Six of these seven Dioceses, as they now stand,
were formed between 450 and 600; (1,) St. David's, by David; (2,) Llandaff, by Dubritius; (3,) Bangor, by Daniel,
the origin of whose succession will hereafter be shown; (4,)
St. Asaph's, about A. D. 583, by Kentigern, before that time
Bishop of Glasgow, from which he had been driven by war.~~
(5,) Hereford, by Putta, also Bishop of Rochester, 659, and
translated to Hereford, 680.1111  The names of the two others
are uncertain.  The succession of the Bishops in this Archbishopric came through St. David fiom Jerusalem; through
Dubritius from  Gaul and Ephesus; and through Odoceus
from Aries and Rome.    And from them, these successions
have been spread through the whole body of English Bishops.
* Vita k Giraldo Cambrensi, in Ussh. Prim. 474, 528.
t Vita David, John Tinm. in Ussh. Prim. 81. Still. Orig. 216. Girald.
Camb. L. i. c. 5; L. ii. c. 1.
t Prim. Ecc. Brit. pp. 76, 82, 526.
~ Reg. Llandaff.                 II Giraldo Cambr. ii. 1.
I Ussh. Prim. 526, 527.           ** Ib. 83, 84, 528.
tt Reg. Lland. and Rich. God. in loco.
tt Bd. ii. 2. Hov. Ann. ii. 454, 5, and Walter Convent. A. D. 1199
Galf. Mon. i. 12. Prim. Brit. 88-92.
-~ John Tinm. Vita, Kentig. in Usshur.  1III Bd. iv. 2.




PATRIARCHS OF JERUSALEM.33


3 3 3


We give the succession of Bishops of Jerusalem, through whom,the consecrators of the several Bishops received their succession, from Graveson, Historica Ecciesiastica, Tome 9.
PATRIARCHS OF JERUSALEM.


Name of Bishops.  A. D.
1,JAMES ALPHEUS, one
of the Apostles,  35.
2, Simeon,           65.
3, Justus I.,       107.
4, Zacheus,         111.
5, Tobias,          112.
6, Benjamin,        117.
7, John,.   119.
8, Matthew,         121.
9, Philip,          122.
10, Seneca,          126.
11, Justus II.,      127.
12, Levi,            128.
13, Ephraimn,        129.
14, Joseph,          131.
15, Judas, (last Jewish
Bishop,)         132.
16, Marcus, (first Gentile Bishop,)    134.
17, Cassianus,       146.
18, Publius,         154.
19, Maximus I.,      159.
20, Julian,          163.
21, Caius I.,        165.
22, Symmachus,       168.
23, Caius II.,        170.
24, Julian,           173.
25, Maximus II.,      178.


NTame of Bishops.  A. D.
26, Antonius,         182.
27, Capito,          186.
28, Valens,          191'.
29, Dolchianus,      194.
30, Narcissus, (resigned,)             196.
31, Dius,            200.
32, Germanio,        207.
33, Gordius and Narcissus again,    211.
34, Alexander,       237.
35, Mazabanes,       251.
36, Hymenaeus,       265.
37, Zambdas,         298.
38, Herman,          300.
39, Macarius I.,     310.
40, Maximus Ill.,    315.
41, Cyril, (expelled by
Arians,)         330.
42, Llcrenius,       350.
Cyril, (restored, deposcd again by Anians,)            361.
43, Hilary, (an Arian,) 364.
Cyril, (restored, and
died,)            379.
44, John II.,        386.
45, Praglius,        416.




334


BISHOPS OF ST. DAVID'S AND LLANDAFF.


JName of Bishops.  A. D.
46, Juvenal,          424.
47, Anastasius,       458.
48, Martyrius,        478.
49, Salutis,          486.
50, Elias,            494.
51, John III., who consecrated DAVID,   513.
52, Peter Eleutheropolite,             524.
53, Marcarius II.,    544.
Bishops of St. David's.  A. D.
52, (1,) David, consecrated by 51st Patr.
Jerusalem,        519.
53, (2,) Eliud,       544.
54, (3,) Keneva.
55, (4,) Morvael.
56, (5,) Haernurier.
57, (6,) Elvaeth.
58, (7,) Gurnel.
59, (8,) Lendywyth,   712.
60, (9,) Gornwist.
61, (10,) Gorwan.
62, (11,) Cledanke.
63, (12,) Enyaen.
64, (13,) Eludgaeth.
65, (14,) Eldunen.
66, (15,) Elvaoth.
67, (16,) Maelscwyth.
68, (17,) Madenew.
69, (18,) Catulus,    841.
70, (19,) Silvay,     850.


JName of Bishops.  JA. D
54, Eustachius,       552.
55, John IV.,         572.
56, Amos,         574-601.
57, Isichius, or Isaacius, 601.
58, Zacharius,        609.
59, Modestus,         631.
60, Sophronius,   633-637.
When Jerusalem was taken
by the Saracens, and the
Patriarchate broken up.
Bishops of Llandaff.  A. D.
(1,) pubritius, consecrated by Germanus,
of Auxerre, Lupus,
of Tricasse, etc.  448.
(2,) Teliaus.
40, (3,) Odoceus, consecrated by Theodore,
of Canterbury.
41, (4,) Ubilwin.
42, (5,) Aidan,       720.
43, (6,) Elgistil.
44, (7,) Lunapejus.
45, (8,) Cormergen.
46, (9,) Argwistil.
47, (10,) Gurvan.
48, (11,) Guodlin.
49, (12,) Edilbin.
50, (13,) Grecielus.
51, (14,) Berthygwyn.
52, (15,) Trychean.
53, (16,) Elvogus.




BISHOPS OF ST. DAVID'S AND LLANDAFF.  3t


335


Bishops of St. David's.  Aq. D.  Bishops of Llandaff..q. D.
71, (20,) Navnis,     873. 54, (17,) Catgwaret.
72, (21,) Sathveni.         55, (18,) Careuhir.
73, (22,) Diothwall.        56, (I19,). Nobis.
174, (23,) Asscr,     906. 57, (20,) Gujifrid.
75, (24,) Athvael.          58, (21,) Nudd.
76, (25,) Sampson, (last    59, (22,) Cimeliano.
Archbishop,)      910. 60, (23,) Libian,      929
77, (26,) Ruelin.           61, (24,) Marchluith.
78, (27,) Rodherch.         62, (25,) Paternus.
79, (28,) Elguni.           63, (26,) Roderick.
80, (29,) Llywarch.         64, (27,) Gogwan,     982.
81, (30,) Nergu.            65, (28,) Bledri,     993.
82, (31,) Silhidw,    924. 66, (29,) Joseph,     1022.
83, (32,) Everu,      942. 67, (30,) Jlerewald,  1059.
84, (33,) Morgenai,   944.     Vacancy four years.
85, (34,) Nathan.           68, (31,) Urban,     1108.
86, (35,) Roderick.         69, (32,) Uchtryd,   1139.
87, (36,) Jevan.            70, (33,) Gaifrid,   1148.
88, (37,) Argustel.         71, (34,) Nich. ab Gwrgant.
89, (38,) Morgenneth, 1023.    Vacancy ten years.
90, (39.,) Ervyn,    1039. 72, (35,) W. de Salt91, (40,) Tramerin,  1028.      marsh.
92, (41,) Joseph,    1055. 73, (.36,) Henry,     1199.
93, (42,) Bleitherd,  1061. 74, (37,) William,   1219.
94, (43,) Sulghein, re-     75, (38,) E. de Radnor, 1230.
signed,          1070.     Vacancy four years.
95, (44,) Abraham,   1076. 76, (39,) W. de Burgh, 1244.
Sulghein again, re-     77, (40,) J. de la Ware, 1253.
signed,          1076. 78, (41,) W.de Radnor, 1256.
96, (45,) Rythmarch.        79, (42,) W. de Braos, 1266.
97, (46,) Wilfrid.   1115. 80, (43,) J. Monmouth, 1296.
98, (47,) Bernard, con-     81, 9(44,) J. Eaglescliff, 1323.
secrated by Arch —      82, (45,) J. Paschall, 1347.




336


36   BISHOPS OF ST. DAVID'S AND LLANDAFF.


Bishops of St. David's.  A1. D.
bishop of Canterbury.
99, (48,) David FitzGerald.
100, (49,) Pet. de Leia.
101, (50,) Gaifrid,  1198.
102, (51,) GiraldCamb.1199.
103, (52,) Geofrey,  1203.
104, (53,) Jorweth,  1214.
105, (.54,) Anseim,  1230.
106, (55,) T.Wallensis,1248.
107, (56,) R. deCarreu,1256.
108, (57,) T. Becke,  1280.
109, (58,) D. Martin, 1293.
110, (59,) LI. Gower, 1328.
111, (60,) J. Thoresby, 1347.
112, (61,) R. Brian,  1349.
113, (62,) T. Falstaff, 1353.
114, (63,) A. Houghton,1361.
115, (64,) J. Gilbert,  1389.
Vacancy four years.
116, (65,) GuydeMona,1401.
117, (66,) H. Chichely, 1408.
118, (67,) J. Ketterich, 1414.
119, (68,) S.Patrington,1415.
120, (69,) B. Nichols, 1418.
121, (70,) T. Radhone, 1433.
122, (71,) W. Linwood, 1442.
123, (72,) J. Langton, 1447.
124, (73,) J. Delabere, 1447.
125, (74,) R. Tully,  1460.
126, (75,) R. Martin, 1482.
127, (76,) T. Langton, 1483.


Bishops of Liandaff.  A. D.
83, (46,) R.Craddock, 1361.
84, (47,) T. Rushook, 1383.
85, (48,) W. Bottlesham,           1386.
86, (49,) E. Broom.
field,         1389.
87, (50,) T. Winchcomb,          1393.
88, (51,) A. Barrett, 1395.
89, (52,) J. Burghill, 1396.
90, (53,) T. Peverell, 1398.
91, (54,) J. la Zouch, 1408.
92, (55,) John Wells, 1425.
93, (56,) N. Ashley, 1441.
94, (57,) J. Hunden, 14-58.
95, (58,) John Smith, 1476.
96, (59,) J. Marshall, 1478.
97, (60,) J. Ingleby, 1496.
98, (61,) M. Salley, 1500.
99, (62,) G. de Athequa,           1516.
100, (63,) R. Holgate, 1.537.
101, (64,) A. Kitchen, 1 545.




BISHOPS OF ST. DAVID'S AND LLANDAFF.


337


Bishops of St. David's.  A. D.  Bishops of Llandaff.  A. D.
128, (77,) Hugh Parry, 1485.
129, (78,) J. Morgan,  1496.
130, (79,) R.Sherbourne,1505.
131, (80,) E. Vaughan, 1509.
132, (81,) R. Rawlins, 1523.
133, (82,) W. Barlow, 1536.
134, (83,) R. Farrar,  1548.
135, (84,) H. Morgan,  1553.
This brings us down to the REFORMATION, since which
time, the English succession comes through Matthew Parker
and his associates.
We see, from the foregoing, how the Bishops in these several Dioceses traced their succession, and that they could
trace it to Jerusalem, to Rome, and to Ephesus. Now the
early Bishops of these Dioceses were instrumental to a
very great extent in preaching Christianity to the Saxons,
in the West and North of England. Thus the counties of
Chester, Nottingham, Derby, Stafford, Salop, Northampton,.Leicester, Lincoln, Huntingdon, Rutland, Warwick, Worcester, Oxford, Gloucester, Buckingham, Bedford, Hereford,
and part of Hertford, were converted by Finnan, Diuma,
Ceollach, and Trumhere, Irish and British Bishops.* York,
Lancaster, and most of the northern parts of England, by
Aidan, a Bishop from the Monastery of Columbkill, in the
island of Hii, or Iona, originally, we believe, a part of the
Diocese of Sodor and Mann;t and Essex and Middlesex,
by Cedd, another Irish or British Bishop.:  These Bishops
founded several Dioceses, which of course trace their original succession to British Bishops, and in most cases, to the
Archbishops of St. David's and Armagh.
The Arch-Diocese of York originally included the Dio* Bd. Hist. ii. 19-21.  t Bd. Hist. iii. 3-6, 17.  t Bd. iii. 22.
29




338


ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK.


ceses of York, Lindisfarne, now Durham, Sodor and Mann,
Hexham, now extinct, and all the Bishoprics of Scotland,
until 1466.* The first Archbishop of the Saxons was Paulinus, consecrated by Augustine of Canterbury.t The second
was Cedd, a British Bishop, for three years,: who resigned
and was appointed Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. He
was succeeded by Wilfrid, who was consecrated by the
Archbishop of Paris, eleven other Bishops assisting him.~
The Bishops who assisted in the consecration of Bishops in
the Province of York, traced their succession to the British
Bishops, as Aidan, Finnan, and Coleman, who were ordained
by the Bishops in the island of Hii, or Scottish Bishops who
received their succession from Palladius.ll There is every
reason to suppose, however, that those Bishops who were
ordained by Palladius, could also trace their succession to
the British Bishops, as they must have assisted in the consecration of the Scottish Bishops..rchbishops of York.  A. D.
1, Paulinus,       625-644.
Vacancy twenty years.


2, Cead,
3, Wilfrid I.,
4, Bosa,
5, St. John, of Beverly,
6, Wilfrid II.,
7, Egbert,
8, Albert,
9, Ethelred,
10, Eanbald,
11, Wulsius,
* Patr. Brit. p. 82.


664.
669.
677.
692.
718.
730.
767.
780.
797.
812.


Archbishops of York.  2A. D.
12, Wimundus,         830.
13, Wilferus,         854.
14, Ethelbald,        865.
15, Redwardus,        921.
16, Wulstan I.,       941.
17, Oskitel,          955.
18, Athelwold, resigned, 971.
19, Oswald,           971.
20, Ethelred II.,     993.
21, Wulstan II.,     1002.
22, Alfric Puttock,  1023.
23, Kinsius,         1050.
t Bd. ii. 9.


Bd. ii. 28. Dup. Hist. Ecc. Script. Cent. viii. p. 128.
~ Bd. iii. 28. Dup. Ecc. Script. Cent. viii. p. 128.
11 Ussh. Primordia. c. 1




ARCHBISHOPS OF YORK.


339


24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,


archbishops of York.  A. D.
Aldred,           1061.
Thomas I.,       1070.
Gerard,          1100.
Thomas II.,       1109.
Thurstan,         1114.
William(deprived,) 1144.
Henry Murdac,    1147.


St. William, restored, 1153.
31, Roger,          1154.
Vacancy ten years.
32, Geoffry Plantagenet, 1191.
Vacancy four years.
33, Walter de Grey, 1216.
34, Sewall,         1255.
35, Geoffryde Ludham,1258.
36, Walter Giffard,  1265.
37, Wm. Wickwane, 1279.
38, John Le Romaine, 1285.
39, Hen. de Newark, 1296.
40, Thos. Corbridge, 1299.
41, Wm. de Greenfield, 1303.
42, Wm. de Melton,  1316.
43, Wm. de Lazouch, 1340.
44, John Thoresby,  1354.
45, Alex. Neville,  1374.
46, Thos. Arundel,  1388.
47, Robert Waldby,  1397.
48, Rich. Scrope,   1398.
49, Henry Bowet,    1407.
50, John Kemp,      1426.
51, Wm. Boothe,     1452.
52, Geo. Neville,   1465.
53, Laurence Boothe, 1476.


Archbishops of York.  A. D.
54, Thos. de Rotheram,
or Scott,       1480.
55, Thos. Savage,   1508.
56, Chris. Bainbridge, 1508.
57, Thomas Wolsey, 1514.
58, Edward Lee,     1531.
59, Robert Holgate,  1544.
60, Nicholas Heath,  1555.
61, Thomas Young,   1560.
62, Edmund Grindal, 1570.
63, Edwin Sandes,   1576.
64, John Piers,     1588.
65, Mat. Hutton,    1594.
66, Tobias Matthew, 1606.
67, Geo. Monteigne,  1618.
68, Sam. Harsnet,   1628.
69, Richard Neyle,  1632.
70, John Williams,  1641.
Cromwell, vacancy 10 years.
71, Accepted Freewen, 1660.
72, Richard Sterne,  1664.
73, John Dolben,    1683.
74, Thos. LampJugh, 1688.
75, John Sharp,     1691.
76, Sir Wm. Dawes,
Bart.,          1714.
77, Laun. Blackburne, 1724.
78, Thomas Herring, 1745.
79, Mat. Hutton,    1747.
80, John Gilbert,   1757.
81, Rob. Drummond, 1761.
82, Wm. Markham,    1777.
83, Edward Harcourt, 1808.




340


BISHOPS OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.


CHAPTER XXV.
SUCCESSION OF THE SCOTTISH, AMERICAN, AND IRISH CHURCHES.
IT has been remarked, that one line of the succession of the
American Church came through that of Scotland. This was
also derived from the English succession, December 15, 1661,
when Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London, assisted by George
Morley, Bishop of Worcester, Richard Sterne, Bishop of Carlisle, and Hugh Lloyd, Bishop of Llandaff, consecrated Andrew Fairfull, to the Diocese of Glasgow; John Sharpe, to
the Diocese of St. Andrews; Robert Leighton, to the Diocese
of Dumblane, (translated to Glasgow, 1671;) and James
Hamilton, to the Diocese of Galloway.*    These consecrated
other Bishops, but the original records are either lost or destroyed, until 1705. Again, February 24, 1693, the deprived
Bishops of Peterborough, Norwich, and Ely, consecrated
George Hickes, a Bishop of Scotland.t      The Scottish succession is as follows:
* Jux. Reg. 237.
t It has been objected by some that the consecration of Hickes
was uncanonical, if not schismatical, and consequently, of doubtful validity. The facts are simply these. The consecrators of Hickes had
been duly consecrated to Sees in England, but on the accession of William and Mary, were deprived of their Sees for refusing to take the oath
of allegiance to William and Mary, deeming themselves bound by their
oath of fealty to James. But, though expelled from their Sees, no act
was done depriving them of their Episcopal character. Subsequent to
their expulsion from their Sees, they consecrated Hickes, a Bishop for
Scotland. That the consecrators of Hickes had authority to confer
orders, is not doubted; that there was an irregularity in their proceeding
is also conceded. That the irregularity amounted to schism, can hardly
be claimed. But even were it conceded, mere schism, unaccompanied
by any errors of doctrine, or any ecclesiastical censure, would not
vitiate his orders.-Bing. iv. 7. 7.




i


BISHOPS OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.


341


JVame of Bishops.    Diocese.
1, James Sharpe,     St. Andrews,
2, Andrew Fairfull,  Glasgow,
3, Robert Leighton,  Dumblane,
("      'Glasgow, 1671.
4, James Hamilton,   Galloway,
5, George Haliburton, Dunkeld,
6, Murdoch McKenzie, Moray,
7, David Strachan,   Brechin,
8, John Patterson,   Ross,
9, David Fletcher,   Argyle,
10, Robert Wallace,   The Isles,
11, George Wishart,   Edinburgh,
12, David Mitchel,    Aberdeen,
13, Patrick Forbes,   Caithness,
14, Alexander Burnet,  Aberdeen,
(         " (    Glasgow, 1664.
"            St. Andrews, 1679.
15, Patrick Scougal,  Aberdeen,
16, Andrew Honyman,   Orkney,
17, Henry Guthrie,    Dunkeld,
18, William Scrogie,  Argyle,
19, Alexander Young,  Edinburgh,
"         " '    Ross, 1679.
20, James Ramsey,     Dumblane,
"       "        Ross, 1684.
21, John Patterson,   Galloway,
"       "        Edinburgh, 1679.
(       cc       Glasgow, 1687.
22, Arthur Ross,      Argyle,          1
"     "          Galloway, 1679.
"     "          Glasgow, 1679.
"     "          St. Andrews, 1684.
23, Robert Laurie,    Brechin,
29*


Date.
Dec. 15, 1661.
c       cc


Cc
May 7,
a'


1662.
'c


C(                        C(
cc c(


June
C<
CC


1, 1662.
(C
1663.


Easter, 1664.
1664.
1665.
1666.
1671.
1673.
1674.


kpr. 28, 1675.
1676




342


BISHOPS OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.


Vame of Bishops.
24, William Lindsay,
25, James Aitkins,
cc      cc
26, Andrew Wood,
cc     cc
27, George Haliburton,
28, Andrew Bruce,
cc     cc


Diocese.
Dunkeld,
Moray,
Galloway, 1680.
The Isles,
Caithness, 1680.
Brechin,
Aberdeen, 1682.
Dunkeld,
Orkney, 1688.


29, Colin Falconer,   Argyle,
(      "44       Moray, 1680.
30, Hector McLean,    Argyle,
31, Archibald Graham, The Isles,
32, Robert Douglas,   Brechin, 1682.
c"     "         Dumblane, 1684.
33, Alexander Cairncross, Brechin,
"       "      Glasgow, 1684.
34, James Drummond,   Brechin,
35, Alexander Rose,   Moray,
"       "      Edinburgh, 1687.
36, John Hamilton,    Dunkeld,
37, William Hay,      Moray,
38, John Gordon,      Galloway,


Date.
May 1, 1677.
1677.
1678.
1678.
1679.
Sept. 5, 1679.
1680.
1680.
* 1684.
Dec. 25, 1684.
1686.
Oct. 19, 1688.
1687.
Sept. 4, 1688.


39, John Fullarton,
40, John Sage,
41, John Falconer,


Consecrators.
Jan. 25, 1705.
John Glasgow, 21.
Alex. Edinburgh, 35.
Robert Dumblane, 32.
April 28, 1709.
Alex. Edinburgh, 35.
Robert Dumblane, 32.
John Sage, 40.




BISHOPS OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.


343


JName of Bishops.
42, Archibald Campbell,


Diocese.


43, James Gadderar,*
'44, Arthur Millar,
45, William Irvine,
46, David Freebairn,
47, Andrew Cant,
48, Alexander Duncan,
49, Thomas Rattray,t Dunkeld,
50, William Dunbar,4 Moray,


Consecrators.
Aug. 24, 1711.
Alex. Edinburgh, 35.
Robert Dumblane, 32.
John Falconer, 41.
Feb. 24, 1712.
George Hickes, p. 340.
John Falconer, 41.
Archibald Campbell, 42..
Oct. 22, 1718.
Alex. Edinburgh, 35.
John Fullarton, 39.
John Falconer, 41.
Oct. 17, 1722.
John Falconer, 41.
Arthur Millar, 44.
William Irvine, 45.
1724.
John Falconer, 41.
William Irvine, 45.
Arthur Millar, 44.
June 4, 1727.
James Gadderar, 43.
Alexander Duncan, 48.
Andrew Cant, 47.
June 18, 1727. (and)


* Exceptions have also been taken to the consecration of Gadderar,
because Hickes was the chief consecrator. But if IHickes' orders were
valid, no objection can be made to those of Gadderar, as the other two
consecrators belonged to the College of Scotch Bishops, against whom
no objection lies.
t Similar objections have been made to the consecration of Rattray,
and the same answer applies.
t The same objection has been made to the consecration of Dunbar




344


BISHOPS OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.


J'ame of Bishops.    Diocese.       Consecrators.
51, Robert Keith,       Caithness, James Gadderar, 43.
Arthur Millar, 44.
Thomas Rattray, 49.
52, Robert White,       Dumblane,    June 24, 1735.
Thomas Rattray, 49.
Robert Keith, 51.
William Dunbar, 50.
53, William Falconer, Caithness,     Sept. 10, 1741.
Thomas Rattray, 49.
Robert Keith, 51.
Robert White, 52.
54, James Rait,         Brechin,     Oct. 4, 1742.
Thomas Rattray, 49.
Robert Keith, 51.
Robert White, 52.
55, John Alexander,     Dunkeld,     Aug. 9, 1743.
Robert Keith, 51.
Robert White, 52.
William Falconer, 53.
James Rait, 54.
56, Andrew Gerard,      Aberdeen,    July 17, 1747.
Robert White, 52.
William Falconer, 53.
James Rait, 54.
John Alexander, 55.
and Keith, to which it is also added, that Millar, who belonged to the old
College of Scotch Bishops, and who assisted in their consecration, was
suspended by the College of Scotch Bishops for this very act. But the
suspension was subsequent to the consecration, and could not, therefore,
affect that. Besides, if we allow, as was unquestionably done in the
Primitive Church, that one Bishop could confer orders, though such ordinations were uncanonical, all these objections are set aside, as there was
always one or more of the old Scotch Bishops concerned in the ordination.-See Bing. ii. 11. 5.




BISHOPS OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.


345


JName of Bishops.
57, Robert Forbes,
58, Robert Kilgour,
59, Charles Rose,
60, Arthur Petrie,
61, John Skinner,
SAMUEL SEABURY,


Diocese.      Consecrators.
Ross and Caithness, June 24, 1762.
William Falconer, 53.
J. Alexander, 55.
A. Gerard, 56.
Aberdeen,  Sept. 21, 1768.
Wm. Falconer, 53.
J. Rait, 54.
R. Forbes, 57.
Dumblane, Aug. 24, 1774.
Wm. Falconer, 53.
J. Rait, 54.
R. Forbes, 57.
Moray,     June 27, 1777.
Wm. Falconer, 53.
J. Rait, 54.
R. Kilgour, 58.
C. Rose, 59.
Aberdeen,  Sept. 25, 1782.
R. Kilgour, 58.
C. Rose, 59.
A. Petrie, 60.
Connecticut, Nov. 14, 1784.
Robert Kilgour, 58.
Arthur Petrie, 60.
John Skinner, 61.


SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS IN THE AMERICAN CHURCH.
1, Samuel Seabury,  Conn. and R. I., Nov. 14, 1784.
Scottish Bishops.
Robert Kilgour, 58.
Arthur Petrie, 60.
John Skinner, 61.




346


BISHOPS OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH..JVame of Bishop.   Diocese.        Consecrators.
2, William White, 119 from St. John, (86) from Augustin.
Pennsylvania, Feb. 4, 1787.
English Bishops.
John Moore, 96.
William Markham, 94.
Charles Moss, 91.
John Hinchliffe, 93.


3, Samuel Provoost,
4, James Madison,


New York, Feb. 4, 1787.
John Moore, 96.
William Markham, 94.
Charles Moss, 91.
John Hinchliffe, 93.
Virginia,  Sept. 19, 1790.
John Moore, 96.
Beilby Porteus, 97.
John Thomas, 95.


5, Thomas J. Claggett, Maryland, Sept. 17, 1792.
American Bishops.
Samuel Provoost, 3.
Samuel Seabury, 1.
William White, 2.
James Madison, 4.


6, Robert Smith,
7, Edward Bass,


South Carolina, Sept. 13, 1795.
William White, 2.
Samuel Provoost, 3.
James Madison, 4.
Thomas J. Claggett, 5.
Massachusetts, May 7, 1797.
William White, 2.
Samuel Provoost, 3.
Thomas J. Claggett, 5.




BISHOPS OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.


347


Ntame of Bishop.
8, Abraham Jarvis,
9, Benjamin Moore,
10, Samuel Parker,


Diocese.      Consecrators
Connecticut, Oct. 18, 1797.
William White, 2.
Samuel Provoost, 3.
Edward Bass, 7.
New York, Sept. 11, 1801.
William White, 2.
Thomas J. Claggett, 5.
Abraham Jarvis, 8.
Massachusetts, Sept. 14, 1804.
William White, 2.
Thomas J. Claggett, 5.
Abraham Jarvis, 8.
Benjamin Moore, 9.


11, John H. Hobart, New York,    May 29, 1811.
12, Alex. V. Griswold, Eastern Diocese, May 29, 1811.
William White, 2.
Samuel Provoost, 3.
Abraham Jarvis, 8.


13, Theodore Dehon,


South Carolina, Oct. 15, 1812.
William White, 2.
Abraham Jarvis, 8.
John EH. Hobart, 11.


14, Richard C. Moore, Virginia,


May 18, 1814.
William White, 2.
John H. Hobart, 11.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
Theodore Dehon, 13.


15, James Kemp, -   Maryland, Sept. 1, 1814.
William White, 2.
John H. Hobart, 11.
Richard C. Moore, 14.




848


BISHOPS OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.


J.ame of Bishop.  Diocese.      Consecrators
16, John Croes,     New Jersey, Nov. 19, 1815.
William White, 2.
John H. Hobart, 11.
James Kemp, 15.
17, Nathaniel Bowen, South Carolina, Oct. 8, 1818.
William White, 2.
John H. Hobart, 11.
James Kemp, 15.
John Croes, 16.
18, Philander Chase, Ohio,      Feb. 11, 1819.
Illinois, 1831.      William White, 2.
John H. Hobart, 11.
James Kemp, 15.
John Croes, 16.
19, Thomas C. Brownell, Connecticut, Oct. 27, 1819.
William White, 2.
John H. Hobart, 11.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
20, John S. Ravenscroft, North Carolina, May 22, 1823.
William White, 2.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
James Kemp, 15.
John Croes, 16.
Nathaniel Bowen, 17.
Thomas C. Brownell, 19.
21, Henry U. Onderdonk, Pennsylvania, Oct. 25, 1827.
(Assistant.)           William White, 2.
John H. Hobart, 11.
James Kemp, 15.
John Croes, 16.
Nathaniel Bowen, 17.




BISHOPS OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.


349


JName of Bishop.  Diocese.      Consecrators.
22, William Meade,  Virginia,   August 19, 1829.
William White, 2.
John H. Hobart, 11.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
Richard C. Moore, 14.
John Croes, 16.
Thomas C. Brownell, 19.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
23. William M. Stone, Maryland,  Oct. 21, 1830.
William White, 2.
Richard C. Moore, 14.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
William Meade, 22.
24, Benj. T. Onderdonk, New York, Nov. 26, 1830.
William White, 2.
Thomas C. Brownell, 19.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
25, Levi S. Ives,   North Carolina, Sept. 22, 1831.
William White, 2.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
Benj. T. Onderdonk, 24.
26, John H. Hopkins, Vermont,   Oct. 31, 1832.
William White, 2.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
Nathaniel Bowen, 17.
27, Benjamin B. Smith, Kentucky, Oct. 31, 1832.
William White, 2.
Thomas C. Brownell, 19.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
28, Charles P. M'Ilvaine, Ohio,  Oct. 31, 1832.
William White, 2.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12..William Meade, 22.
30




350


BISHOPS OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.


JV'ame of Bishop.   Diocese.       Consecrators.
29, George W. Doane, New Jersey, Oct. 31, 1832.
William White, 2.
Benj. T. Onderdonk, 24.
Levi S. Ives, 25.


0O, James H. Otey,


Tennessee, Jan. 14, 1834.
William White, 2.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
Benj. T. Onderdonk, 24.
George W. Doane, 29.


31, Jackson Kemper, Missouri and Ind. Sept. 25, 1835.
William White, 2.
Richard C. Moore, 14.
Philander Chase, 18.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
Benj. T. Onderdonk, 24.
Benjamin B. Smith, 27..George W. Doane, 29.


32, Samuel A. M'Coskry,
33, Leonidas Polk,  Ar'
Louisiana, 1841.


Michigan, July 7, 1836.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
George W. Doane, 29.
Jackson Kemper, 31.
kansas, Dec. 9, 1838.
William Meade, 22.
Benjamin B. Smith, 27.
Charles P. M'Ilvaine, 28.
James H. Otey, 30.


34, Wm. H. De Lancey, Western New York, May 9, 1839.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
Benj. T. Onderdonk, 24.
George W. Doane, 29.




BISHOPS OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.


351


VName of Bishop.  Diocese.      Consecrators.
35, Chris. E. Gadsden, South Carolina, June 21, 1840.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
George W. Doane, 29.
Samuel A. M'Coskry, 32.
36, Wm. R. Whittingham, Maryland, Sept. 17, 1840.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
Richard C. Moore, 14.
Benj. T. Onderdonk, 24.
George W. Doane, 29.


37, Stephen Elliott,
38, Alfred Lee,
39, John Johns,
(Assistant.)


Georgia,   Feb. 28, 1841.
William Meade, 22.
Levi S. Ives, 25.
Chris. E. Gadsden, 35.
Delaware,   Oct. 12, 1841.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
Richard C. Moore, 14.
Philander Chase, 18.
Thomas C. Brownell, 19.
Henry U. Onderdonk, 21.
Virginia,  Oct. 13, 1842.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
L. S. Ives, 25.
Wm. Meade, 22.
W. R. Whittingham, 36.


40, Manton Eastburn, Massachusetts, Dec. 29, 1842.
Alex. V. Griswold, 12.
T. C. Brownell, 19.
B. T. Onderdonk, 24.
Wm. H. De Lancey, 34.




352


352     BISHOPS OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.


Name of Bishop.   Diocese.      Consecrators.
41 John P. K. Henshaw, Rhode Island, Aug. 11, 1843.
T. C. Brownell, 19.
G. W. Doane, 29.
J. H. Hopkins, 26.
W. R. Whittingham, 36.
J. Johns, 39.
42, Carlton Chase,  New Hampshire, Oct. 12, 1844.
P. Chase, 18.
T. C. Brownell, 19.
B. T. Onderdonk, 24.
L. S. Ives, 25.
B. B. Smith, 27.
43, Nicholas Cobbs,  Alabama,  Oct. 12, 1844.
P. Chase, 18.
W. Meade, 22.
C. P. M'Ilvaine, 28.
G. W. Doane, 29.


44, Cicero S. Hawks, Missouri,
45, William J. Boone, China,
46, Horatio Southgate, Turkey,


Oct. 12, 1844.
P. Chase, 18.
J. Keniper, 31.
S. A. M'Coskry, 32.
L. Polk, 33.
W. H. De Lancey, 34.
Oct. 26, 1844.
P. Chase, 18.
G. W. Doane, 29.
J. H. Otey, 30.
Oct. 26, 1844.
P. Chase, 18.
S. Elliott, 37.
J. P. K. Ilenshaw, 41.




/


FOUNDATION OF THE IRISH EPISCOPATE.     353
J'ame of Bishop.   Diocese.      Consecrators.
47, G. W. Freeman, Arkansas and Texas, Oct. 26, 1844.
P. Chase, 18.
Jackson Kemper, 31.
L. Polk, 33.
A. Lee, 38.
We have explained in the preceding chapters, the nature
of the Apostolic succession, as held by the Episcopal Church
in England and America, and shown from what sources it
has been derived; and having carefully traced it back to the
Apostles, through all those times of peril when it was in
danger, we might leave the subject. But, as mention has
been made of Irish and Romish Bishops, we shall show from
whence the Irish derived their succession, and how both can
trace it. In the earliest ages of Christianity, Ireland had its
Bishops from England or Scotland; but about 433, Patrick
was consecrated Archbishop of Armagh, by the Bishop of
Rome.*   He established several Sees, and with the assistance of others consecrated Bishops for them; as, Erc, Bishop
of Slane;t Senach, Bishop of Uamali;  Bron, Bishop of
Sligo, 441;~ Mochthe, Bishop of Louth, 443, if he was not
a Bishop before, which seems probable.ll  He also founded
the See of Clogher, the same year, and governed it awhile
himself, but subsequently conferred it upon M'Martin.~T In
the year 445, he founded the Archiepiscopal See of Armagh,
and governed it till 455, when he promoted Benignus to the
Episcopate, who resigned it, and was succeeded by Jarlath,
465.** A. D. 447 he consecrated Germanus, Bishop of So* Life of Pat. p. 67. Usher, Prim. Brit. c. 18. Opusc. Patri. by
James Ware, Lond. 1656.
t Life, p. 73.        $ P. 78.           ~ P. 79.
I P. 81.                P.81.            **P.82.
30*




354


354        ARCHBISHOPS OF ARMAGH.


dor and Mann,* and in 454 he consecrated Maci, Bishop of
Ardagh.t From these, the subsequent Bishops of Ireland
traced their succession through the Archbishops of Armagh.
We give the list from Usher's Printordia; Glover's Patriarchate of Britain, London, 1839; and the Chronological
Table of the Archbishops of Armagh, appended to the Life of
St. Patrick.
-        ~ARCHBISIHOPS OF ARMAGH.


Xame of Bishops.
1, Patrick, consecrated
by Celestine, Bishop
of Rome,
2, Benignus,
3, Jarlath,
4, Cormac,
5, Dubtach I.,
6, Ailild I.,
7, Ailild II.,
8, Dubtach II.,
9, David M'Guire,
10, Feidlimid,
11, Cairlan,
12, Bochaid M'Dermod,
13, Senachus,
14, Mac Laisir,
15, Thomian M'Ronan,
16, Segene,
17, Flan-febla,
18, Suibhny,
19, Cognusa,
20, Cele-Peter,


A1. D..Nante of Bishops.
21, FcrdJachry,
22, Foendelach,
433. 23, Dubdalethy I.,
455. 24, Affiat,
465. 25, Cudiniseus,
482. 26, Conmach,
497. 27, Torlach,
513. 28, Nuadd,
526. 29, Flangus M'Loingle,
536. 30, Artrigyius,
548. 31, Eugenius,
551. 32, Faranan,
578. 33, Diermuid,
588. 34, Faethua,
598. 35, Ainmire,
610. 36, Catasach I.,
623. 37, Maeicob,
661. 38, Mael-Brigid,
688. 39, Joseph,
715. 40, Mael-Patrick,
730. 41, Catasach II.,
750. 42, Muredlach,.q1. D.
758.
774.
778.
793.
794.
798.
807.
808.
812.
823.
833.
834.
848.
852.
874.
875.
883.
885.
927.
936.
937.
957.




* Life of Pat. p. 83.         tP   8


t P. 88.




ARCHBISHOPS OF ARMAGH.


355


Jamne of Bishops..A. D.
43, Dubdalethy II.,  966.
44, Murcchan,        998.
45, Maelmury,       1001.
46, Amalgaid,       1021.
47, Dubdalethy III.,  1050.
4I, Cumasach,       1065.
49, Melisa,         1065.
50, DonaldM'Amalgaid, 1092.
5!, Celsus M'Aid,   1106.
52, Mauric,         1129.
53, Malachy O'Morgair,1134.
54, G:-lasius,      1137.
55, Cornelius,      1174.
56, Gilbert O'Caran,  1175.
57, Melissa O'Carrol, 1184.
58, Amlave O'Murid, 1184.
59, Tomas O'Coonor, 1186.
60, Eug. M'Gillivider, 1206.
6i, Luke Netterville, 1220.
62, Donat O'Fidabara, 1227.
63, Albert Dc Cologne, 1239.
64, Reiner,         1247.
65, Abin. O'Connelan, 1254.
66, Pat. O'Scanlain,  1262.
67, Nich. M'Melissa,  1272.
68, John Taaf,      1301.
69, Walter De Jorse, 1306.
70, Roland Jorse,   1311.
71, Stephen Segrave,  1332.
72, David O'Hiriaghty, 1334.
73, Richard Fitzralph, 1347.
74, Milo Sweetman,  1361.


JVame of Bishops.  J. D.
75, John Colton,   1382.
76, Nich. Fleming,  1404.
77, John Swayne,   1417.
78, John Prene,    1439.
79, John Mey,      1444.
80, John Bole,     1457.
81, John Foxalls,  1475.
82, Edw. Connesburg,147.7.
83, Octav. De Palatio, 1480.
84, Jchn Kite,      1513.
85, George Cromer,  1522.
86, George Dowdall, 1543.
87, Hugh Goodacre, 1552.
88, Adam Loftus,   1562.
89, ThomasLancaster, 1568.
90, John Long,     1584.
91, John Garvey,   1585.
92, Henry Ussher,  1595.
93, Chris. Hampton, 1613.
94, James Ussher,  1624.
95, John Brarhall,  1660.
96, James Margetson, 1663.
97, Michael Boyle,  1678.
98, Hugh Boulter,  1702.
99, Nar. Marsh,    1702.
100, Thomas Lindsay, 1713.
101, John Hoadley,  1742.
102, George Stone,  1747.
103, Rich. Robinson,  1765.
104, Wm. Newcome, 1795.
105, William Stuart,  1800.
106, John G. Beresford, 1822.




356


SUCCESSION OF THE ROMISH CHURCH.


CHAPTER XXVI.
SUCCESSION OF THE CHURCH OF ROME.
OWING to the fact that Rome has been the Capital of an
Empire, since the first preaching of Christianity, and also
the seat of a vast body of learned men, the materials for
tracing the succession of that Church are more full and
ample than those of any other. Consequently, we can generally determine the exact length of the reign of each Bishop, and give some history of the individual filling the Chair.
In the early periods of this Church, translations from one
See to another were not allowed. The first case of a translation to the Episcopate of Rome, was that of Formosus, who
had been Bishop of Porto, translated to Rome, May 4, 891.
Previous to that time, all the Bishops, at the time of their
election, were Priests, Deacons, or Laymen.  Among them,
Fabian, the 19th Bishop, and John XIX., are known to have
been Laymen.   Eleven were Deacons at the time of their
election, and are marked with a star (*) in the following catalogue.  Fifty-one others had been Bishops elsewhere, before
their election to the Pontificate. These are marked with a
dagger (t) in the following catalogue. These Bishops having been translated from nearly every part of Christendom,
it may safely be assumed, that nearly all the successions in
the world enter into, and assist in authenticating that of the
Bishops of Rome. Consequently, if in one or two instances,
as some historians pretend to believe, the succession of a
Bishop can not be traced historically, it would not invalidate
at all their succession.*
In the earliest ages of the Church, the names of the Con.


* From about A. D. 750, the Bishops of Rome were consecrated by




BISHOPS OF ROME.35


357


secrators were not generally recorded, nor the day of the
consecration, the year only being, given.* The dates of the
first seventeen Bishops are given on the authority of Eusebius: the subsequent ones have been compiled from GRAVESONS, Historica Ecciesiastica, vols. L.-IX., third edition, folio;
BARoNlus, Annales Ecciesiastica, twelve volumes, folio, Antwerp, 1610-165219; MURATORi, Annali d'Italia, twelve volumes, folio, Genoa, 1773-1778; Lives of the Popes, by
C. W. F. Walch, D. D., Divinity Professor, Gottingen, 8vo.
London, 1759; Bower's Lives of the Popes, four volumes,
quarto, London..Name.
1, Linus,
2, A nacletus,
3, Clement,
4, Evaristus,
5, Alexander,
6, Sixtus,
7, Telesphorus,
8, Hyginus,
9, Pius,
10, Anicetus,
11, Soter,
12, Eleutherius,*
13, Victor,
14, Zephrynus,
15, Calixtus,
16, Urban,
17, Pontianus,
18, Antertus,


Consecrated.
A. D. 67,
79,
91,
100,
108,
118,
128,
138,
141,2
155,
166,
174,
187,
198,
216,
221,
229,
Nov. 21, 235,


Died.
A. D. 79.
91.
100.
108.
118.
128.
138.
141.
155.
166.
174.
187.
198.
216.
221.
229.
Sept. 28, 235.
Jan..3, 2 36.


the Bishops of Ostia, Oporto, and Alba, and the Bishops of these placers
were consecrated by the Bishop of Rome. Waich, 111.
* Euseb. iv. 5.




358


BISHOPS OF ROME.


JName.
19, Fabian,
20, Cornelius,
21, Lucius I.,
22, Stephen I.,
23, Sixtus II.,
24, Dionysius,
25, Felix I.,
26, Eutychianus,
27, Caius,
28, Marcellinus,
29, Marcellus I.,
30, Eusebius,
31, Miltiades,
32, Sylvester I.,
33, Mark,
34, Julius I.,
35, Liberius,
36, Felix II., (Liberius
exile.)
37, Damasus I.,
38, Siricius,
39, Anastasius I.,
40, Innocent I.,
41, Zosimus,
42, Boniface I.,
43, Celestine I.,
44, Sixtus III.,*
45, Leo I.,
46, Hilary,
47, Simplicius,
48, Felix III.,
49, Gelasius I.,
50, Anastasius II.,


Consecrated.
Jan. 11, 236,
May 24, 251,
Sept. 25, 252,
May 10, 255,
Aug. 24, 257,
July 22, 259,
Dec. 28, 269,
Jan.  5, 275,
Dec. 15, 283,
June 30, 296,
May 19, 308,
Feb.  5, 310,
July  2, 311,
Jan. 31, 314,
Jan. 18, 336,
Feb.  6, 337,
July 22, 352,
living, but having
Oct.  1, 366,
385,
Dec.  5, 398,
Dec. 21, 402,
Mar. 18, 417,
Dec. 29, 418,
Sept. 10, 422,
July 24, 432,
Sept. 22, 440,
Nov. 12, 461,
Feb. 25, 468,
March 6, 483,
March 1, 492,
Nov. 24, 496,


Died.
Jan. 20, 250.
Sept. 4, 252.
March 4, 253.
Aug. 1, 257.
July 30, 258.
Dec. 26, 269.
Dec. 22, 274.
Dec.  7, 283.
April 22, 296.
Oct. 24, 304.
Jan. 16, 310.
June 21, 310.
Jan. 10, 314.
Dec. 31, 335.
Oct.  8, 336.
April 12, 352.
Sept. 23, 366.
been driven into
Dec. 10, 384.
398.
Dec. 14, 401.
Mar. 12, 417.
Dec. 26, 418.
Sept. 4, 422.
July 18, 432.
Aug. 11, 440.
Nov. 4, 461.
Feb. 21, 468.
March 1, 483.
Feb. 24, 492.
Nov. 19, 496.
Nov. 17, 498.




Jame.
51, Symmachus,
52, Hormisdas,
53, John I.,
54, Felix IV.,
55, Boniface II.,
56, John II.,
57, Agapetus I.,
58, Silverius,
59, Vigilius,
60, Pelagius I.,
61, John III.,
62, Benedict I.,
63, Pelagius II.,
64, Gregory I.,*
65, Sabinus,*
66, Boniface III.,*
67, Boniface IV.,
68, Deusdedit,
69, Boniface V.,
70, Honorius I.,
71, Severinus,
72, John IV.,
73, Theodore I.,
74, Martin I.,
75, Eugenius I.,
76, Vitalian,
77, Adeodatus,
78, Domnus,
79, Agatho,
80, Leo II.,
81, Benedict II.,
82, John V.,
83, Conon,


BISHOPS OF ROME.
Consecrated.
Nov. 22, 498,
July 27, 514,
Aug. 13, 523,
July 12, 526,
Sept. 21, 530,
Dec. 31, 532,
June  3, 535,
June  8, 536,
540,
April 11, 555,
July 17, 560,
June  3, 574,
Nov. 30, 578,
Sept. 3, 590,
Sept. 13, 604,
Feb.  8, 606,
Aug. 21, 608,
Oct. 19, 615,
Dec. 23, 619,
Oct. 27, 625,
May 28, 640,
Dec. 24, 640,
Nov. 24, 642,
July  5, 649,
Sept. 8, 654,
July 30, 657,
April 22, 672,
Nov. 1, 676,
June 27, 678,
Aug. 17, 682,
June 26, 684,
July 23, 685,
Oct. 21, 686,


Died.
July 19, 514.
Aug. 6, 523.
May 18, 526.
Sept. 18, 530.
Oct. 17, 532.
May 26, 535.
April 22, 536.
June 20, 540.
554.
March 1, 560.
July 13, 573.
July 30, 578.
Feb.  8, 590.
Mar. 12, 604.
Feb. 12, 606.
Nov. 10, 607.
May   7, 615.
Nov. 8, 618.
Oct. 22, 625.
Oct. 12, 638.
Aug. 1, 640.
Oct. 10, 642.
May 13, 649.
Sept. 16, 654.
June  1, 657.
Jan. 27, 672.
June 25, 676.
April 11, 678.
Jan. 10, 682.
July  3, 683.
May   7, 685.
Aug. 2, 686.
Sept. 21, 687.


359




360


BISHOPS OF ROME.


JVame.               Consecrated.       Died.
84, Sergius I.,       Dec. 15, 687,   Sept. 7, 701.
85, John VI.,         Oct. 28, 701,   Jan.  9, 705.
86, John VII..        March 1, 705,   Oct. 17, 707.
87, Sissinnus,        Jan. 18, 708,   Feb.  6, 708.
88, Constantine,      Mar. 24, 708,   April 8, 715.
89, Gregory II.,      May 20, 715,    Feb. 11, 731.
90, Gregory III.,     Mar. 18, 731,   Nov. 28, 741.
91, Zachary,          Nov. 30, 741,   March 4, 752.
92, Stephen II., died before consecrated.
93, Stephen III.,     Mar. 26, 752,   April 24, 757.
94, Paul I.,*         May 30, 757,    June 28, 767.
95, Stephen IV.,      Aug. 7, 768,    Feb.  2, 772.
96, Adrian I.,        Feb.  9, 772,   Dec. 25, 795.
97, Leo III.,         Dec. 27, 795,   June 12, 816.
98, Stephen V.,       June 22, 816,   Jan. 24, 817.
99, Paschal I.,      Jan. 25, 817,    Feb. 10, 824.
100, Eugenius II.,     Feb. 14, 824,   Aug.     827.
101, Valentine,* died before consecrated.
102, Gregory IV.,              827,    Jan. 25, 844.
103, Sergius II.,      Feb. 10, 844,   Jan. 27, 847.
104, Leo IV.,          April 11, 847,  July 17, 855.
105, Benedict III.,    Sept. 29, 855,  April 8, 858.
106, Nicholas I.,      April 24, 858,  Nov. 12, 867.
107, Adrian II.,       Dec. 14, 867,            872.
108, John VIII.,       Dec. 14, 872,   Dec. 15, 882.
109, Martin II.,               882,    May,     884.
110, Adrian III.,      May,    884,             885.
111, Stephen VI.,              885,    May,     891.
112, Formosus,t        May   4, 891,   April 4, 896.
Boniface VI., 15 days, not numbered in the list.
113, Stephen VII.,t            896,             897.
114, Romanus, about 4 months,                   898.
115, Theodore II., 20 days,                     898.




BISHOPS OF ROME.


361.JName.
116, John IX.,
117, Benedict IV.,
118, Leo V.,
119, Christopher,
120, Sergius III.,
121, Anastasius III.,
122, Landon,
123, John X.,t
124, Leo VI.,
125, Stephen VIII.,
126, John XI.,
127, Leo VII.,
128, Stephen IX.,
129, Martin III.,
130, Agapetus II.,
131, John XII.,
132, Benedict V.
133, John XIII.,t
134, Benedict VI.,
135, Domnus II.,
136, Benedict VII.,t
137, John XIV.,t
138, John XV.,
139, Gregory V.,t
140, Sylvester II.,t
141, John XVII.,
142, John XVIII.,
143, Sergius IV.,t
144, Benedict VIII.,t
145, John XIX.,
146, Benedict IX.,
147, Gregory VI.,
148, Clement II.,t


Consecrated.
July 15, 898,
Aug. 2, 900,
903,
903,
903,
910,
Oct. 16, 913,
Apr. 27, 914,
June 28, 928,
Feb. 3, 929,
Mar. 5, 931,
Jan. 8, 936,
July,   939,
Jan.    943,
946,
956,
964,
Oct. 3, 965,
Dec.    972,
974,
Mar.25, 975,
984,
Dec.    985,
996,
April 2, 999,
May 13, 1003,
Dec. 26, 1003,
1009,
1012,
1024,
1034,
1044,
1046,
31


Died.
Aug. 1, 900.
Oct. 3, 903.
903.
903.
910.
913.
Apr. 26, 914.
929.
Feb. 3, 929.
Mar. 5, 931.
Jan. 5, 936.
July 18, 939.
Dec.    942.
July,   946.
956.
964.
965.
Sept. 8, 972.
March,  974.
975.
July 10, 984.
985.
996.
Feb. 18, 999.
May 11, 1003.
Dec. 7, 1003.
1009.
1012.
1024.
1033.
1044.
1046.
Nov. 7, 1047.




362


BISHOPS OF ROME.


NJame.
149, Damasus II.,t
150, Leo IX.,t
151, Victor II.,t
152, Stephen X.,
153, Nicholas II.,t
154, Alexander II.,t
155, Gregory VII.,*
156, Victor III.,
157, Urban II.,t
158, Paschal II.,
159, Gelasius II.,
160, Calixtus II.,t
161, Honorius II.,t
162, Innocent II.,
163, Celestine II.,
164, Lucius II.,
165, Eugenius III.,
166, Anastasius IV.,t
167, Adrian IV.,t
168, Alexander III.,
169, Lucius II.,t
170, Urban III.,t
171, Gregory VIII.,
172, Clement III.,t
173, Celestine III.,*
174, Innocent III.,
175, Honorius III.,
176, Gregory IX.,t


Consecrated.
July 17, 1048,
Feb. 2, 1049,
Apr. 12, 1054,
Aug. 2, 1057,
Dec. 28, 1058,
Sept. 21, 1062,
Apr. 27, 1073,
May 25, 1086,
1087,
1099,
Jan. 25, 1118,
Feb. 1, 1119,
Dec. 21, 1124,
Feb. 15, 1130,
Sept. 26, 1143,
1144,
Feb. 27, 1145,
Aug.26, 1153,
Feb.   1154,
Sept. 20, 1159,
Sept. 6, 1181,
Nov.25, 1185,
Oct. 21, 1187,
Dec. 19, 1188,
Mar.30, 1191,
Jan. 8, 1199,
July 17, 1216,
1227,


Died
Aug.10, 1048.
April 9, 1054.
1057.
Mar. 29, 1058.
June 3, 1061.
Apr. 12, 1073.
May 25, 1085.
Sept. 16, 1087.
1099.
Jan. 21, 1118.
Jan. 29, 1119.
Dec. 13, 1124.
Feb. 14, 1130.
Sept. 24, 1143.
Mar. 9, 1144.
Feb. 25, 1145.
July 7, 1153.
Dec. 2, 1154.
Sept.  1159.
Aug.30, 1181.
Nov.24, 1185.
Oct. 19, 1187.
Dec. 17, 1187.
Mar.28, 1191.
Jan. 8, 1198.
July 16, 1216.
Mar. 18, 1227.
1241.
vacancy twenDec. 7, 1254.
June 7, 1261.
Nov.   1264.


177, Celestine IV.,t died before consecration;
ty months and fifteen days.
178, Innocent IV.,     June,   1244,
179, Alexander IV.,t   Dec.    1254,
180, Urban IV.,t       Sept. 4, 1261,




BISHOPS OF ROME.


363.Name.                 Consecrated.
181, Clement IV.,t     Feb.     1265,
182, Gregory X.,*      Dec. 30, 1271,
183, Innocent V.,t              1276,
184, Adrian V., died before consecrated.


185, John XXI.,t
186, Nicholas III,*
187, Martin IV.,
188, Honorius IV.,*
189, Nicholas IV.,t
190, Celestine V.,
191, Boniface VIII.,
192, Benedict XI.,t
193, Clement V.,t
194, John XXII.,t
195, Benedict XII.,
196, Clement VI.,
197, Innocent, VI.,t
198, Urban V.,
199, Gregory XI.,
200, Urban VI.,t
201, Boniface IX.,
202, Innocent VII.,t
203, Gregory XII.,t
204, Alexander V.,t
205, John XXIII.,
206, Martin V.,
207, Eugenius IV.,
208, Nicholas V.,t
209, Calixtus III.,t
210, Pius II.,t
211, Paul II.,
212, Sixtus IV.,
213, Innocent VIII.,


1276,
Nov.    1277,
Feb. 22, 1281,
April 2, 1285,
Feb. 22, 1288,
July,   1294,
Dec. 24, 1294,
Nov.    1303,
June 5, 1305,
Dec.    1316,
Dec. 20, 1334,
May 7, 1342,
Dec. 18, 1352,
Sept. 25, 1362,
Jan. 5, 1371,
April 8, 1378,
Nov. 2, 1389,
Oct. 17, 1404,
1406,
1409,
1410,
Nov. 11, 1417,
Mar. 3, 1431,
1447,
April 8, 1450,
Aug. 19, 1458,
1464,
1471,
Aug. 28, 1484,


Died.
Nov.25, 1268.
Jan. 10, 1276.
June 22, 1276.
May,   1277.
Aug.22, 1280.
Mar. 29, 1285.
April 3, 1287.
April 4, 1292.
Dec. 3, 1294.
Oct.   1303.
July 4, 1304.
Apr. 20, 1314.
Dec. 4, 1334.
Apr. 25, 1342.
Dec. 4, 1352.
Sept. 12, 1362.
Dec. 9, 1370.
Mar. 17, 1378.
Oct. 15, 1389.
Sept.  1404.
Nov. 4, 1406.
June 15, 1409.
May 4, 1410.
May 29, 1415.
Feb. 22, 1431.
Feb. 17, 1447.
Mar. 24, 1450.
Aug. 8, 1458.
Aug. 14,1464.
July 16, 1471.
1484.
July 25, 1492.




364


BISHOPS OF ROME.


J}ame.
214, Alexander VI.,t
215, Pius III.,
216, Julius II.,
217, Leo X.,
218, Adrian VI.,
219, Clement VII.,
220, Paul III.,t
221, Julius III.,
222, Marcellus II.,
223, Paul IV.,
224, Pius IV.,
225, Pius V.,
226, Gregory XIII.,
227, Sixtus V.,
228, Urban VII.,
229, Gregory XIV.,t
230, Innocent IX.,
231, Clement VIII.,
232, Leo XI.,
233, Paul V.,
234, Gregory XV.,t
235, Urban VIII.,
236, Innocent X.,
237, Alexander VII.,
238, Clement IX.,
239, Clement X.,
240, Innocent XI.,
241, Alexander VIII.,
242, Innocent XII.,t
243, Clement XI.,
244, Innocent XIII.,
245, Benedict XIII.,t
246, Clement XII.,t


Consecrated.
Aug. 18, 1492,
Sept. 22, 1503,
1503,
Mar. 15, 1513,
Jan. 9, 1522,
1523,
Oct. 3, 1534.
Feb. 8, 1550,
April 9, 1555,
May 22, 1555,
Dec. 23, 1559,
Jan. 7, 1566,
May 13, 1572,
April 24, 1585,
Sept. 15, 1590,
Dec. 5, 1590,
Oct. 30, 1591,
Jan. 30, 1592,
April 1, 1605,
May 17, 1605,
Feb. 9, 1621,
Aug. 6, 1623,
Sept. 15, 1644,
April 7, 1655,
June 20, 1667,
April 29, 1670,
Sept. 21, 1676,
Oct. 7, 1689,
July 12, 1691,
Nov. 23, 1700,
May   7, 1721,
May 29, 1724,
July 11, 1730,


Did.
Aug. 18,1503.
Oct. 18, 1503.
Feb. 21, 1513.
Dec. 1, 1521.
Sept. 14, 1523.
Sept. 25, 1534.
Nov. 10, 1549.
Mar. 23, 1555.
Apr. 30, 1555.
Aug. 18, 1559.
Dec. 9, 1565.
May 9, 1572.
Apr. 10, 1585.
Aug. 27,1590.
Sept. 27, 1590.
Oct. 15, 1591.
Dec. 30, 1591.
Mar. 3, 1605.
Apr. 28, 1605.
Jan. 28, 1621.
July 8, 1623.
July 29, 1644.
Jan. 7, 1655.
May 22, 1667.
Dec. 9, 1669.
July 22, 1676.
July 31, 1689.
Feb. 2, 1691.
Sept. 28, 1700.
Mar. 18, 1721.
Mar. 3, 1724.
Feb. 21, 1730.
Feb. 6, 1740.




CONTINUITY OF THE SUCCESSION.


365


JVeame.
247, Benedict XIV.,t
248, Clement XIII.,
249, Clement XIV.,
350, Pius VI.,
251, Pius VII.,
252, Leo XII.,
253, Pius VIII.,
254, Gregory XVI.,


Consecrated.
Aug. 17, 1740.
July 10, 1758,
May 19, 1769,
Feb. 15, 1775,
Mar. 14, 1800,
Sept. 27, 1823,
Mar. 31, 1829,
Feb. 2, 1831.


Died.
May 8, 1758.
Feb. 2, 1769.
Sept. 22, 1774.
July 1, 1799.
Aug. 23, 1823.
Feb.   1829.
Nov. 30, 1830.


Of those in the preceding list, who had been Bishops elsewhere, Urban IV., the one hundred and eightieth, was Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Gregory XIII., the two hundred and
third, was Patriarch of Constantinople, at the time of their
election.
CHAPTER XXVII.
ALLEGED BREAKS IN THE SUCCESSION.
FROM the facts detailed in the preceding chapters, it will
be seen, that the idea of a break in the Apostolic succession
is absurd; and the occurrence of such an event next to an
impossibility. But notwithstanding objections have often been
urged by those unlearned in these matters, the principal of
which we shall consider. The first to which we refer is
stated thus: "It has been said that, 'in the year 668, the
successors of Austin being almost entirely extinct, by far the
greatest part of the Bishops were of Scottish ordination by
Aidan and Finnan, who came out of the Culdee Monastery of
Columbanus, and were no more than Presbyters.' " The
original authority for this assertion, is said to be the Venerable
Bede, whom we have so often quoted. But Bede expressly
31*




366


ORDINATION BY SCOTTISH BISHOPS.


tells us that Aidan and Finnan were the Bishops of Lindisfarne, now Durham, in the Arch-diocese of York, that Oswald, king of Northumberland, A. D. 635, sent to the Scottish rulers, desiring them to send Bishops-that they sent
Aidan-that the Bishop coming to the king, had his Episcopal
seat in Lindisfarne-that Bishop Aidan had been a Monk in
the Island of Hii. Chapter fifth of the same book is entitled,
"Life of Bishop of Aidan;" and it is said, "from this Monastery [in the Island of Hii] Aidan was sent, having received
the office of a Bishop."
It does not devolve upon us to show how such mistakes
have originated, but as the reason is obvious, we shall explain
how it probably happened. The Picts were converted to
Christianity by the preaching of one Columb, " an Irish Presbyter, Abbot, and Monk," A.D. 565.*  Among other persons converted by the preaching of Columb, was Bridius, the
king of the Picts, and in return for his eminence, his piety,
and his labors, Bridius gave to Columb the Island of Hii, or
Iona, and conferred upon him the government of the Island.
Bede's account of this Island is: " That Island hath for its
ruler an Abbot who is only a Presbyter, to whose government
all the provinces, and even the Bishops, (contrary to the usual
custom,) are subject, after the example of their first Doctor,
who was not a Bishop, but a Presbyter and a Monk."t Now
because the Governor of this Island was always to be the
Abbot of that Monastery, and that Abbot always to be a Presbyter, the Bishop in civil matters was subject to one, who in
all Ecclesiastical functions was his interior; therefore objectors have inferred, that the Bishops themselves were Presbyters.
Concerning Finnan, we need give only one extract from
Bede. Under date 652, he says: "Finan succeeded him
* Bd. ii. 4.            t B. i.4


* Bd. iii. 4.


t Bd. iii. 4.




BISHOPS IN THE TIME OF AIDAN AND FINNAN.


367


[Aidan] in the Episcopate, being also sent from the Monastery of Hii, in the Scottish Island, and remained a long time
in the Episcopate, (Episcopatu.")*
To show beyond all question, the ignorance which originated this objection, and the folly of urging it, we shall mention a few of the Bishops then living in England. The period
in question extends from 635, when Aidan came into Nor.
thumberland, to the year 668, mentioned in the foregoing
extract.
PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY.
Diocese of Canterbury.
Honorius, consecrated by Paulinus of York,t     634-654.
Adeodatus, consecrated by Ithamar, of Rochester,: 654-664.
[Wilfrid of York,] consecrated by Archbishop of
Paris and eleven others,~                  664-668.
Theodore, consecrated by 76th Bishop of Rome,ll  668- -.
Dorchester.
Birinus, consecrated by Bishop of Genoa,~f      634-650.
Agilbert, consecrated in Paris,**               650-660.
Wina, consecrated in Gaul,tt                    660 —.
Lichfield and Coventry.
Diuma, consecrated by Finnan,4                  656-658.
Ceollach, consecrated by Scottish Bishops,~~    658-660.
Trumhere, consecrated by Scottish Bishops, lll  660-663.
London.
Mellitus, consecrated by Augustine,~~           604-658.
Cedd, consecrated by Finnan and two other Bps.,*** 658-664.
* Bd. iii. 6, 17.         t Bd. iii. 7. Wend. i. 128.
' Bd. iii. 7. Wend. i. 149.  ~ Bd. iii. 28, v. 19. Wend. i. 159.
II Bd. iv. 4. Wend. i. 160.  ~ Bd. iii. 7. Wend. i. 135.
** Bd. iii. 7. Wend. i. 144.  tt Bd. iii. 7. Wend. i. 157.
tt Bd. iii. 21. Wend. i. 154.  ~~ Ib.     111 Ilb.
Ir Bd. ii. 3. Wend. i. 105.  *** Bd. iii. 22. Wend. i. 159




368    BISHOPS IN THE TIME OF AIDAN AND FINNAN.


Norwich.
Felix, consecrated in Burgundy,*
Thomas, consecrated by Archbishop Honorius,t
Bregils, consecrated by Archbishop Llonorius,t
Rochester.
Romanus, consecrated by Archbishop Justus,~
Paulinus, consecrated by Archbishop Justus,jj
Ithamar, consecrated by Archbishop Jlonorius,~f
Damian, consecrated by Ithamar of Rochester,**
Winchester.
Birinius, consecrated by Bishop of Genoa,tt
Wini, consecrated in Gaul,#t


W34-648.
648-652.
652-665.
624-633.
633-644.
644-656.
656-669.
636-660.
660-670.


PROVINCE OF YORK.
Diocese of York.
Paulinus, consecrated by Archbishop Justus,~~     625-644.
Cedd, consecrated by Finnan and two other Bps.,II 666-669.
Wilfrid, consecrated by Archbishop Paris,~~f      669-678.
Lindisfarne, or Durham.
Aidan, consecrated by Scottish Bishops,***        635-652.
Finnan, consecrated by Scottish Bishops,ttt       652-661.
Coleman, consecrated by Scottish Bishops4f f4     661-664.
Tuda, consecrated by Scottish Bishops,~~~         664-665.
Eata, consecrated by Theodore,111                 665-684.
Cuthbert, consecrated by Scottish Bishops,~~~ff   684-687.
*Bd. Ii 15. Wend. i. 129.   t Bd. iii. 20. Wend.. 144.
t Ib.                         E 1d. ii-. 3. Wend. i. 1 21.
11 Bd. ii. 9. Wend. i. 133.  ~T Bd. iii. 14. Wend. i. 142.
** Bd. iii. 20.              tt Bd. iii. 7. Wend. i. 135.
tt Bd. iii. 7. Wend. i. 157.  ~~ Bd. iii. 7. Wend. i. 124.
fltBd. iii. 22.            ~~ Bd. iii. 28, v. 19. Wend. i. 159.
** Bd. iii. 3. Wend. i. 134.  ttt Bd. iii. 6, 17. Wend. i. 148.
tt Bd. iii. 25. Wend. i. 159.  ~~ Bd. iii. 26. Wend. i. 159.
11 1111 VitA Cuth. cc. 6, 25. Wend. i. 168.
'Tlrl Vit& Cuth. c. 25. Wend. i. 176.


I




BISHOPS IN THE TIME OF AIDAN AND FINNAN.


369


We see, therefore, that at the time Aidan was consecrated
Bishop of Lindisfarne, (Durham,) there were certainly seven
Bishops living in England, one of whom was the Metropolitan
of his own province. The objection is, therefore, without any
foundation. The true reason why Oswald sent to Scotland
for Bishops, was not the scarcity of Bishops of England, but
the different practices of the two Churches concerning keeping
Easter. The Northumbrians retained many of the customs
of the British Churches, and among others, that of keeping
Easter with the Greek Church. This was for a long time
a subject of controversy between the Saxon and British
Churches; and the old practice continued in Northumberland
till 664, when it was changed by the King.*
Besides, there is another objection to the hypothesis of our
opponents. When Cedd was consecrated Archbishop of York,
A. D. 666, by Finnan,t in the absence of Wilfiid, exceptions
were taken to his consecration, which was clearly uncanonical,
Wilfrid having been previously elected and consecrated to the
same See. But no exceptions were taken to the sufficiency
of the consecration itself, and though he was displaced from the
See of York, he received that of Lichfield, without any new
consecration, and was confirmed by Theodore, Archbishop
of Canterbury, the Primate of the realm, A. D. 669.4
Another objection, often urged against the succession of the
English Church, is stated thus: "The Church of England
descended from the Church of Rome, and derived her orders
from that Church. Hence it is said, that inasmuch as the
Church of England has been excommunicated by the Bishop
of Rome, the succession has been destroyed." To this objection we reply:1. That the Church of England did not descend from the
* Bd. iii. 25, 26.            t Bd. iii. 22.
t Bd. iv. 2. Wend. i. 159.




370    BRITISH CHURCH INDEPENDENT OF THE ROMISH.


Church of Rome, as has been fully shown in the preceding
chapters.
2. That each Bishop, having been originally, as we have
shown, independent of every other Bishop, no Bishop could
have power to depose or excommunicate other Bishops, unless
that power had been subsequently granted to him by some
sufficient authority. Now there is no authority that could
grant this, unless a General Council; and no General Council ever has granted the Bishop of Rome this authority over
the Bishops of England. On the contrary, it was expressly
enacted by the sixth canon of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325,
that the ancient customs and rights of the Churches should
not be changed; and it is a matter of fact, which no one pretends to question, that the Bishops of England were then subject to the Metropolitan of Caerleon.
3. That whatever authority the Bishop of Rome may have
over other Bishops, he has none over those of England, inasmuch as they have ever been legally and canonically independent of him. This will appear more plainly from a consideration of the original and continued independence of the
British Churches, which will be given in the succeeding
chapter.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
INDEPENDENCE OF THE BRITISH CHURCHES.
IN treating of this subject, we shall first consider the state
of things in Britain at the time Augustine arrived there, in
order to gain a distinct idea of the situation of things in the
British Church at that time. Augustine was consecrated at
Arles, 596. In 598, he wrote to Gregory, Bishop of Rome,




BRITISH CHURCH INDEPENDENT OF THE ROMISH.  371


for advice touching certain points of inquiry. One of the
questions was, In what manner he ought to deal with the
Bishops of Gaul and Britain?  Another, What course he
ought to pursue in reference to the Gallic Liturgy, which,
though different from the Romish Liturgy, was in use in the
British and Gallic Churches? In answer, Gregory tells him,
that he has nothing to do with the Bishops of Gaul, who were
subject to the Bishop of Arles as their Metropolitan; that he
ought to have authority over the British Bishops; and that in
reference to the Liturgy, he ought to adopt that which would
be most acceptable to the Saxon Church.* Here are three
facts conclusively established: (1,) that there were canonical
and lawful Bishops in Britain before Augustine went there.
Consequently, he owed submission to the Metropolitan of
Britain, according to the then existing canons of the Church.
(2,) That the Liturgy used in Gaul was not the same as the
Roman Liturgy; (3,) that this Liturgy was used in Britain.
And this Liturgy, as we have already seen, was the Ephesian.
That these Bishops owed no subjection to the Bishop of
Rome, is clear from the history of those times. Thus in the
year 603, Augustine held a conference with the British
clergy. At this conference, Bede informs us,t there were
"seven British Bishops, and many learned men."  In order
to induce them to acknowledge his authority, Augustine
promised them, if they would keep Easter on the same day
as the Romish Church, would baptize according to the rites
and ceremonies of that Church, and would preach the gospel
to the Saxons, they should be allowed to enjoy all their other
customs; to which the British Bishops replied, we will neither
do these things, nor submit to you as Archbishops over us. Very
little of what passed at that time has been preserved; but
from that little it appears that the subject was strongly de

* Bd. i. 27


t Bd. ii. 2.




372


DINOTH'S ANSWER TO AUGUSTINE.


bated.* Among the speakers was Dinoth, Abbot of the Monastery of Bangor. His answer has been preserved, and it
goes the whole length of sustaining the entire independence
of the British clergy, of the Pope of Rome. He said to
Augustine:
"Be it certainly known unto you, that we all, every one
of us, are obedient and subject to the Church of GOD, to the
Pope of Rome, and to every pious Christian, to the loving of
every one in his stajon, with perfect charity, and to the helping of every one of them by word and deed, to become the
sons of GOD. And I know not of any other obedience than
this, due to him you call Pope, or which may be claimed or
demanded by the Father of Fathers. And this obedience we
are ready to give; and to pay to him, and to every other
Christian continually. Besides, we are under the government of the Bishop of Caerleon upon Uiske, who, under
GOD, is to oversee over us, to cause us to walk in the way
of life."t
* Bd. ii. 2.
t This important passage was first published by Sir H. Spelman, (Concilia, I. p. 108,) from an old MS. purporting to have been copied from
one still more ancient, and is re-printed in Wilkin's, (Concil. and
Smith's Bd. App. x. p. 716, and Fuller's Ch. Hist in anno 601.) The
genuineness of this answer has been assailed by the Romish writers,
(Tuber. Man. p. 406. Ling. Hist. A. S. Church, p. 42,) but on insufficient grounds. It was defended by Stillingfleet (Orig. Brit. c. v. p. 224)
and Bingham, (Antq. Ecc. ii. 9.) The first objection, that "'the language is modern," is without foundation. The second, that the Metropolitan See was not then in Caer-leon, is also without foundation. The
conference between Augustine and Dinoth, took place about A. D. 603,
(Bd. ii. 2,) whereas the Archbishops of London and York had gone into
Wales as early as 597, (Fur. Libro. Epis. Brit. in Ussh. Prim 67. Wrn.
Malms., De Gest. Reg. i. 6. Mat. West. An. 586,) and had fixed their
seat at " Kaerllion ar Uyc,"" Caer-leon upon Uiske," (O'Brien's Focal.
Gaoidh. Intd. xvii., xix.)




NUMBER OF BRITISH BISHOPS.


373 -


These facts prove, beyond all cavil, that before Augustine
came to England, there was a Church established there, duly
organized, upon Apostolical principles, having the same officers or ministers as other Churches, with a Liturgy different
from that of Rome, and with Bishops, owning and acknowledging no subjection to the Pope. The number of Bishops in
England at that time we do not know. Bede says there
were seven present at the conference with Augustine.*   A
very ancient authort reckons the number at twenty-ive Bishops, and three Archbishops. And this is rendered probable
by the fact, that the subscriptions of three Bishops are found
in the ancient councils, as to that of Arles, 314.
We shall now go back and give a few brief historical notices of the British Church, anterior to the time of Augustine,
showing that there had been a Church in England from the
very time of the Apostles. The earliest history of the British Church has been involved in much obscurity, by the destruction of the records of that Church; and much doubt and
uncertainty has been thrown over it, by the manner in which
it has been treated by the later Monkish historians, to whom
we are indebted for very much of the history of those times.
A. D. 58. From those valuable historical documents, the
Welsh Triads,: it appears that Caradog was betrayed and
* Hist. ii. 2.
t Galfrid. Mon. Hist. Brit. ii. 1. Asser. iv. 19, Ed. Heidelburg. See
also Hen. Hunt. i. 170. Smith's Bd. App. iii., Ussh. Prim. 59.
t A couple of passages are of sufficient interest to be transcribed
"The three holy families of the isle of Britain:
"The first, the family of Bran the Blessed, son of Llyr Llediaith: that
Bran brought the faith in Christ first into this island from Rome, where
he had been in prison through the treachery of Aregwedd Foeddawg,
daughter of Avarwy, son of Lludo.
" The second was the family of Amedda Wledig, who first gave land
and privileges to God and his saints in the isle of Britain.




374


PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY IN BRITAIN.


delivered up by Aregwedd Foedawg, about A. D. 51 or 52,
who, with Bran, (Brennus,) his father, Cyllin, (Linus,) his
son, and Eigan, his daughter, were carried prisoners to Rome,
and remained in bondage seven years. While here, Bran,
probably Caradog, certainly his son and daughter, became
converts to Christianity.  At the end of seven years, when
Bran was set at liberty, he returned to Britain, taking with
him three other converts to Christianity.  Of these, one was
Ilid, a converted Jew, another Cyndav, and the third Arwystli
Hen, who appears to have been the person called Aristobulus,*
whose " household" was saluted by Paul in his Epistle to the
Romans, at the end of the same year, (A. D. 58,) or the beginning of the succeeding. This conclusion is strengthened
by the fact, that Nicephorus, a Greek historian, and another
Greek author, which goes under the name of Dorotheus, both
record that Aristobulus went into Britain, and was ordained
by St. Paul one of the first Bishops of that Church; that he
"The third was Brychan Brycheiniog, who gave his children a liberal
education, that they might be able to teach the faith in Christ to the
nation of the Cymry, when they were unbelievers."-Triad 18.
"The three sovereigns of the isle of Britain who conferred blessings:"Bran the Blessed, [A. D. 63,] son of Llyr Llediaith, who first brought
the faith in Christ to the nation of the Cymry from Rome, where he had
been seven years a hostage for his son Caradog, whom the Romans had
taken captive after he was betrayed by treachery, and an ambush laid
for him by Aregwedd Foeddawg.
"The second, Lleirwg, [A. D. 179,] the son of Coel, surnamed Llenfer Mawr, who made the first Church [building] at Llandaff, and that
was the first in the isle of Britain, and who bestowed the privilege of
country, and nation, and judgment, and validity of oath, upon those who
should be of the faith of Christ.
"The third, Cadwalladr the Blessed, who granted the privilege of his
land and all his property to the faithful, who fled from the infidel Saxons,
and the unbrotherly ones who wished to slay them."-Triad 35.
* Taylor's Cal. by Rob. in Aristob.




ST. PAUL IN ENGLAND.


375


made many converts, ordained Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,
and died there.*
This account of the introduction of Christianity into Britain,
from the Triads, is supported by Gildas, a British historian,
who wrote about 560, who affirms, out of ancient records,
that Christianity was introduced into Britain about the time
of the revolt and overthrow of Boadice, A. D. 60 or 61.t So
Tertullian, A. D. 190, says: "There are places in Britain
inaccessible to the Roman arms, which were subdued to
Christ.": And Origen, A. D. 230, says: " The power of God
our Saviour is ever with them in Britain, who are divided
from our world."~
63. About four years after this, A. D. 63, St. Paul is
supposed by many to have visited Britain. That he had
time, has been shown by Bishop Stillingfleet and others,l
and that he had inducements to do it, there can be no doubt.
There were many persons at Rome who would desire it.
Thus Linus, who was a particular friend of St. Paul, mentioned by him in his second Epistle to Timothy, (iv. 21,) and
ordained by Paul, first Bishop of Rome,~ appears to have
been a native Briton, the grandson of Bran, the British king.
There were also many other Britons at Rome.** That St.
Paul visited England, the early historians of the Church render altogether probable. Clement, of Rome, a disciple of
Paul, (Phil. iv. 3,) and mentioned with commendation by him
in his Epistle to the Philippians, about A. D. 87, or twenty
* These authorities are quoted at length in Ussher, Primordia, pp. 9,
744, 745, and several others added. Aristobulus is also described in the
Greek Martyrology, and in the " Genealogy of Saints," originally written in the ancient British language, as the first Bishop of the Britons.
t Ep. 1. ~ 6, 8.                 t Adv. Jud. c. 7.
~ Luke c. 1. Hom. 6.
II Orig. Brit. Clem. Rom. Ep. Cor. c. 5, and n. in SS. Pat.
1 Apos. Cons. vii. 46.           ** Still. Orig. Brit. c. 1.




376


ST. PAUL IN ENGLAND


years after the death of St. Paul, says, Ehat in preaching the
gospel, St. Paul " went to the utmost bounds of the west,"*
which not only includes the island of Britain, but is the
epithet by which that island was then known.  Eusebius,
A. D. 325, says that one of the Apostles " visited the British
isles,"t and Theodoret, about a century later, A. D. 415,
mentions Britain as one place where St. Paul labored.t
There is, therefore, little doubt, that Christianity was preached, and a Church established, in England, as early as A. D.
63, and that there has been on that island at all times since,
a Church of the living GOD. Aristobulus, being a Greek, and
the disciple of St. Paul, when he went into Britain, would, of
course, carry with him the ecclesiastical rites of the Eastern
Churches, and this accounts for the correspondence of the
Greek and British rites.
167. The Saxon historians, in speaking of this period,
give account of Lucius, a King of the Britons, and tell us,
that this King sent an embassy to Eleutherius, Bishop of
Rome, requesting him to send ministers to Britain to preach
the Gospel there; and that ministers were sent, who converted Lucius and many of his followers, and thus laid the
foundation of the British Church.~  This account was rejected by historians, until the publication of the Triads, from
which it appears that Lleurwg, (Lucius,) the grandson of
Cyllin, or Linus, first Bishop of Rome, was permitted by the
Romans to reign over a part of Britain, and that he exerted
himself to promote the interests of Christianity in Britain. It
is, therefore, not unlikely that he sent an embassy to the
Bishop who filled the See once occupied by his grandfather,
and not unlikely that the Bishop of Rome sent clergymen
to the assistance of Lleurwg, or Lucius, though it would seem
* Ep. Cor. c. 5.                 t Demon. Evang. iii. 5.
t Tom. iv. Serm. 9, in Ps. cxvi.  6 Bd. i. 4.




THIE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES.       377
from the account given in the Old Book of Llandaff, that no
persons returned but those who went to Rome from England,
one of whom was Elvanus, the second Archbishop of London.*
179. The old Saxon historians agree that St. Peter's
Church, Cornhill, was founded about this time, and that it
was afterwards the Cathedral Church of the Archbishop of
London, of which Theonus was the first Archbishop.t  The
Archiepiscopal See of York is supposed to have been founded
about the same time, and Fagan and Theodosius are said to
have been the first Bishops.:  So also the Archiepiscopal
See of Caerleon is supposed to have been founded soon after
-a See which continued long after the others had been destroyed by the Saxons.~
303. During the persecution this year, many suffered
death in Britain, whose names have been preserved by Gildas and Bede.II
St. Alban, of Verolam, the first British martyr, suffered
May 23.~
Aaron and Julius, as Bede says, of the city of Legion, by
which is meant Leon, or Caer-Leon, suffered July 1.**
Socrates and Stephen suffered, Sept. 17.tt
During this persecution, the Churches were demolished,
the holy vessels carried off, Christians were cruelly murdered, and every indignity offered to their persons.
314. This year a Council was summoned by the Emperor
Constantine, at Arles, in France, consisting of the Bishops of
* Mon. Ang. vol. III. p. 188. John Furn. Libro. Ep. Brit. in Ussh.
Prim. p. 67.
t Ralph. Bald. Chron. An. 179, in Ussh. Prim. 66. J. Furn. Libr.
Episc. Brit. in Ib.
t Prim. Brit. 71, 72.   ~ Prim. Brit. 71, 72, 87-98.
11 Ep. ~ 10. Ecc. Hist. i. 7.  I Bd., and all the British historians.
** Ib.                  tt Petr. de Nat. xi. ~ 250, in Prim. 169.
32*




378


THE FOURTH CENTURY.


the principal cities in the various provinces of Italy, Gaul,
and Britain, with a few from Africa, to hear and judge in
the case of the schismatic Numidians. Three British Bishops-Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adulfius,
whose Diocese has been the subject of dispute-attended.
His subscription, as it now stands in the MS. copies of the
doings of that Council, is, Ex civitate Colonia Londinensium.
But this is a copy of the original subscription, which, as
Bishop Stillingfleet has shown, was probably* Ex Civit. Col.
Leg., which the transcriber would naturally construe to
mean, as it is now written. Archbishop Ussher supposes
it denoted Cair-Colun,t which, according to Galfrid of
Monmouth,: denotes the city of Chester. But Mr. Selden~
and Sir H. Spelman,ll suppose it to be the Old Colony of
Camalodunum. We suspect, however, that the subscription
was as Stillingfleet supposes, Ex Civitate Col-Legion, which
is the mere Latinization of Caur-Leon, or Ligion. The British Bishops present at the Council of Arles, were, therefore:
Eborius, Archbishop of York; Restitutus, Archbishop of
London; Adulfius, Archbishop of Caerleon; with Sacerdos,
a Presbyter, and Arminius, a Deacon of that Church.
402. Kiarna and Declan preached the gospel in Ireland,
and converted many to the faith.I
431. Palladius, ordained Bishop of the Scots, by Celestine, forty-third Bishop of Rome.**
448. A Synod was held at Munster this year, at which
Ailbe, Declan, Kieran, and Ibar, opposed Patrick's Archiepiscopal authority, alleging that they had equal authority
with him, that they had been Bishops longer than he had,
and that no one could give him authority over them without
* Orig. Brit. 48.  t Prim. 60, 195.  t Hist. Brit. v. c. 6.
~ In Eutch. 118.  11 Cone. I. p. 39.
' Ussh. Prim. 781, 2, 86. Life Pat. 88.  ** Ib.




THE FIFTH CENTURY.


379


their consent; but they conceded to his merits and to his
success, what they refused to yield when claimed as a right.
Ailbe, or Albeus, was settled as Bishop of Emly, (Imelacensis;) Declan, as Bishop of Ardmore; Kieran, as Bishop of
Sageir, but subsequently translated to Aghavoe, and thence
to Kilkenny; and Ibar made Bishop of Beg-eri.* While in
England, Germanus established several schools, of which
those taught by Dubritius and Iltutus, at a place now called
Boverton, were far the most celebrated.t  The school, afterwards the monastery of Bangor, seems to have commenced
about this time. According to the Welsh Triads, there were
2400 religious persons connected with this establishment,
when Augustine came to England; and Bede informs us
that the Saxon King, as other historians say, at the instigation of Augustine, fell upon and slew 1200 of them.t While
in England, Germanus also consecrated several Bishops,
among whom were Dubritius, Archbishop of Llandaff; Daniel, Bishop of Bangor; and Iltutus, Bishop of a place of the
same name.~
493. This year the Britons, under their new King, gained
a considerable victory over the Saxons at Badon Hill.|l The
Churches were now rebuilt, and Sampson, one of the pupils
of Iltutus, and a man of eminent piety, was consecrated
Archbishop of York. The theological schools established
by Germanus were at the height of their reputation during
the reign of Arthur, and among the many eminent scholars,
* Life Patr. 88. Prim. Ecc. Hist. 801, 866, 7.
t Still. Orig. Brit. c. iv. p. 126.
t Dup. Ecc. Writ. Cent. vii. p. 52.
~ Old Chron. in Leland. Collect. vol. II. p. 42. Old Reg. Lland. in
Mon. Ang. vol. III. p. 188. Hen. Hunt. ii. 178. Galfrid. Mon. Hist
ix. 1. Math. Wes. A. D. 490. Still. Orig. Brit. c. 4, p. 126. Ussher
Prim. pp. 80, 979.
|I Still. Orig. Brit. 129.




380


THE SIXTH CENTURY.


we find the name of St. David, whose piety, virtue, and influence, secured him a place even in the catalogue of Saxon
Saints.*
587. The Saxons at this time gained possession of a
much larger tract of country, whereupon Thomas, Archbishop of London, and Thadioc, Archbishop of York, with
their clergy, retired into Wales;t so that, from that time
there was but one British Arch-diocese-that of Caerleon.
This brings us to the close of the sixth century, at which
time Augustine came to England, and with him other missionaries from Rome, and commenced preaching to the Saxons. Here we must pause a moment, and note the situation
of the British Church at that time. We have seen then, that
the following circumstances existed at that period.
1. That Christianity was preached in Britain and the
neighboring islands at an early period, and that the Church
there had its Bishops and Liturgy, like other orthodox
Churches.
2. That these Bishops did not derive their power from,
nor acknowledge the authority of the Pope, and that they
had continued their succession down to the days of Augustine.
3. That the British Liturgy and ecclesiastical rites were
different from those of Rome, but corresponded in many particulars with those of the Asiatic Churches.
4. That notwithstanding this, the British Church kept up
a friendly intercourse with the neighboring Churches, and
were acknowledged, even by the Bishops of Rome, to be
sound and orthodox.
5. That there were at least one Archbishop and seven
Bishops in England when Augustine landed there, belonging
to the Archiepiscopate of Caerleon.


* Breviary, Salisbury.


t Math. Westmin. A. D. 5186.




INDEPENDENCE OF THE SAXON CHURCH.


381


6. That the authority of the Bishop of Rome to rule over
other Bishops, was denied from the very first, in Ireland; to
which it may be added, that the Pope could not persuade
the Archbishops of Armagh to receive the Pall from him,
until the twelfth century, as is witnessed by Roger Hovedon,*
and the Annals of Mailross, A. D. 1152,t which is also acknowledged by St. Bernard himself.: These facts demonstrate, as clearly as facts can do it, the original independence
of the British Churches. And here we might leave the
point; for, if the Bishop of Rome had no rightful authority
in England, so late as A. D. 600, it is clear that he never
could have any. But, inasmuch as the subsequent acts of
the Saxon Church are appealed to by the abettors of Romanism, as proof of their subjection, we shall give a brief chronological notice of some leading events, which show that this
claim is as groundless as the former.
661. This year a Council was held at Northumberland,
at which the subjects of difference between the Saxon and
British Churches, especially the time of keeping Easter, were
debated before Oswin, King of Northumberland. Wilfrid
was the principal speaker on behalf of the Saxon Churches,
and Coleman, Bishop of Lindisfarne, for the British customs.
The King was persuaded to approve of the Roman custom,
but the Bishops and clergy refused to comply.~
666. This year the King nominated Wilfrid, Archbishop
of York, who went to Paris, and was consecrated by the Archbishop of Paris and eleven other Bishops.ll In his absence
the King nominated Cedd, a Briton, to the same office, who
was consecrated by Wina, Bishop of London, who had been
consecrated in Gaul,~ and two British Bishops, one of whom
* Hov. ii. 454.  t In Life St. Patr. 89.  t Life St. Malachi.
~ Bd. iii. 25.                       (I Bd. iii. 28.
r Bd. iii. 7. Hen. Hunt. ii. 191. Sax. Chron. 39.




382


INDEPENDENCE OF THE SAXON


was Finnan.* Wina was made Bishop of Winchester, 660,t
and Bishop of London, 666.t Wilfrid, upon his return, went
into Lichfield, and finally to Canterbury, where he officiated
as Archbishop until Theodore's arrival. A. D. 669, Cedd
was translated from the See of York to Lichfield, and Wilfrid became his successor.
673. On the death of Adeodatus, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 668, Pope Vitalian succeeded in procuring the election of Theodore, an Italian Monk of good repute, to that
See, who exerted all his influence to introduce the Roman
rites. During his Episcopate, a Council was held at Hereford, A. D. 673, which was attended by the King in person,
and at which Theodore presided. At this time it was decreed that whatever had been canonically determined by the
Fathers, should be observed in England.
The Pope could gain nothing from what was done by this
Council, save an indirect influence he might obtain under the
provisions of the fourth canon, which made Monks independent of their Bishops; whereas, his authority was effectually
cut off by the second, sixth, and eighth, by which no Bishop
could execute any Episcopal function in another Diocese.
Under these canons, the Pope himself could not, canonically,
perform one ministerial act in England, without the consent of
the Bishop in whose Diocese it was to be performed. Besides,
the eighth canon contains what we should now regard as a
pointed rebuke upon his pretended supremacy; for though it
had no immediate application except to England, it is an unequivocal declaration of the Bishops composing that Council,
that they knew of, and acknowledged no superiority among
Bishops, but such as their age and the order of their consecration conferred. They distinctly recognised that princi* Bd. iii. 28. Sax. Chron. 40.
t Sax. Chron. 39.              t Patr. Brit. 67.




CHURCH, OF THE ROMISH.


383


pie which has governed the Church from the beginning, and
which is still in force in this country.
We have now shown conclusively, that the British Church
was not originally a branch of the Romish Church; that the
Anglo-Saxon portion of it, though converted by missionaries
from Rome, practically denied from the very outset, the
supremacy of the Pope, as it is now claimed, and hence it
follows, that all authority which the Pope ever exercised
over that Church, at any subsequent period, was usurpation;
and also, that when the Church of England threw off the
Papal yoke, she only did that which, upon every principle,
she had a right to do-asserted her PRIMITIVE INDEPENDENCE.
678. This year Egfrid, King of Northumberland, divided
the See of York into three Dioceses, and had three Bishops
ordained for them,* without consulting Wilfrid; at which he
was so much offended that he appealed to the Bishop of
Rome, and procured a decree for his restoration. This was
the first instance of a Saxon Bishop appealing to Rome, but
the decree was so little regarded, that Wilfrid was deposed
from his Bishopric by Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury,
(who, it will be remembered, was ordained by the Bishop of
Rome,) and imprisoned by Egfrid, where he remained several
years.t
704. This year a Synod was held upon the river Nid, in
Northumberland, at which Birthwald, Archbishop of Canterbury, presided. Here the decrees of the Bishop of Rome
were read, but their authority was denied by Bosa, Bishop
of York, and John, Bishop of Hexham. The difficulty was
finally compromised by making John Archbishop of York,
and Wilfrid, Bishop of Hexham.: The appeal of Wilfrid
* Ang. Sac. i. 693.
t Dup. Ecc. Writ. c. viii. 128. Crabb, H. C. L. 20. Ling. H. S. C. 108.
t Hard. Cone. III. 1825. Ed. Vit. Wilf. cc. 44-58, in Ling. H. A. S. C




384


INDEPENDENCE OF THE SAXON


was the first appeal from England to Rome, and though it
was disallowed at the time, laid the foundation of subsequent
appeals.
709. This year a Synod was held, at which sixty-five
different tracts of country were ceded to the Pope forever.
Though the Monks had been made independent of the Bishops in 673, they were not independent of the King. To
accomplish this, Egwin, Bishop of Worcester, who had espoused the cause of Monasticism, represented that he had
seen a vision, in which the Virgin Mary appeared to him
and directed the Kings of England to give certain lands to
the Pope, to enable him to establish monasteries; whereupon
Constantine, who filled the See of Rome, wrote to Birthwald,
Archbishop of Canterbury, desiring him to use his influence
to procure the grant of such lands from Kenred and Offa,
Kings of England. Through the conjoined efforts of Egwin,
Constantine, and Birthwald, sixty-five different tracts of country were ceded to the Pope forever, for the purpose of establishing monasteries, which grant was confirmed by a Synod
held this year.* In this way, the Pope was enabled to introduce into the heart of England, an army of Monks, who
were almost entirely independent of the civil and ecclesiastical authority of the realm; and thus was laid the foundation of much of the authority the Bishop of Rome afterwards
obtained in England.
747.' By the third canon of the Council of Hereford, A. D.
673, the monasteries had been made independent of their
Bishops, and A. D. 709, virtually independent of the King.
In consequence of this, they had become the resort of many
besides Monks, so that they were filled with poets, musicians,
and buffoons; and so great had this evil become, that the
second Council of Clofeshoch, held this year, found it neces

* Hard. Con. III. p. 1827. Col. Conc. Brit. T. I. Con. 709.




CHURCH, OF THE ROMISH.


385


sary to make them again subject to the inspection of the
Bishops, whose duty it was to see that the monasteries were
what their name imports, places of silence, peace, and repose, the abode of persons occupied by spiritual reading,
singing, and praying.*
787. It was enacted by the Councils of Northumberland
and Mercia, that the Monks should not choose an Abbot for
their monastery, without the consent of the Bishop. At these
last Councils, and probably at the preceding, the King and
his nobles were present, and assented to the canons.t Subsequent to this time we hear less of the British clergy, as
distinct from the Saxon-English; yet as late as A. D. 812,
there were so many of them in Wales, Ireland, and Scotland,
that it was thought necessary, by the Council of Celchith,
held that year, to prohibit the British Bishops from performing any Episcopal acts within the Dioceses of the English
Bishops, even with their consent.:  Councils were subsequently held in the years 788, 800, 803, 822, 824, 903, 923,
928, 944, 971, 977, 988.~ Nothing was done in these Synods,
recognizing the authority of the Pope, yet it is evident that
he was gaining ground in England, and that many of his
claims were acquiesced in, though not acknowledged. The
great number of Monks who had established themselves in
England, conduced very much to this end. But the Pope
did not obtain a sure foot-hold in this country until the Nornan conquest, A. D. 1066.
WILLIAM I., 1066-1095. Having shown that the Saxon
Church was legally and canonically independent of the
Church of Rome, up to the time of the conquest, we shall
take a hasty glance at such acts of subsequent times, as
* Hard. Cone. III. 1953.       t Hard. Cone. III. 2072.
t Dup. Ecc. Writ. Cent. ix. p: 117.
~ Hard. Cone. IV. 823-1265, VI. 589-715.
33




386


INDEPENDENCE OF THE NORMAN


manifest a similar state of things. It is necessary to remark, however, that the Gallic Church to which William
belonged, had not remained as independent of the Church of
Rome as the English; and one of the first acts of this King
was, to request the Pope to send a legate to England, to assist in reforming the English Church; by which he meant,
the expulsion of the English clergy, and the substitution of
the Norman.* William immediately separated the civil and
ecclesiastical departments of the State, thus strengthening
the power of the Pope.t Appeals, however, were still made
by the clergy to the King, and not to the Pope.:
WILLIAM II., 1095-1100. William II. found it impossible
to control the clergy as he wished, and consequently he contrived to keep a number of Sees vacant. At the time of his
death he had in his hands one Archbishopric, and four Bishoprics.~ Anselm was nominated to the See of Canterbury,
by William. He acknowledged the authority of Pope Urban, before he had been acknowledged by the nation. For
this, the whole body of Bishops, at Rockingham, renounced
the allegiance of the Archbishop. [ He was afterwards reconciled to the King, but was not permitted to convoke Synods,
nor to fill up vacant Dioceses.
HENRY I., 1100-1135. Henry restored the Saxon laws,~
re-united the ecclesiastical and secular branches of the gov.
ernment, and required the Bishops to attend the Councils of
the nation.** Appeals to the Pope, however, were allowed,tt
but not without licence from the King.4: He disputed, but
relinquished the right of investing Bishops with the ring and
* Ling. Hist. Eng. vol. II. p. 23
t Char. Rolls. Ric. II. No. 5. Wilk. Leg. Sax. 292.
X Crabb, Hist. Eng. Corn. Law, p. 49.
~ Ling. H. E. II. 76.    11 Ead. Vit. Ansl. 27. Ling. II. 79.
~ A. S. LL. 301.         ** LL. Hen. I. c. 5. Wilk. 301.
tt LL. Hen. I. c. 5.      3t Ead. 112-116.




CHURCH, OF THE ROMISH.


387


crosier.* He denied the right of the Pope to appoint a legate in England, save the Archbishop of Canterbury, unless
by request of the King,t and maintained his ground against
all opposition.
STEPHEN, 1135-1154.   Nothing important transpired in
this reign, though the encroachments of the Pope were continued.
HENRY II., 1154-1189. The growing power of the Pope
met with an effectual check in the reign of Henry II., who
called a council at Clarendon, A. D. 1164, composed of
Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Lords, Barons, &c., at which
sixteen canons were enacted, which, if they had been strictly
adhered to, would have put an end to the power of the Pope
in England forcver.:
By these canons the clergy were forbidden to leave the
realm without the consent of the King-were made amenable to the secular courts-were prohibited from making
appeals to the Pope. It was also required of them, that the
election of Bishops should not be made without the King's
consent-that no freeholder should be laid under interdict,
without an application to the King, or Chief Justice, with
several other regulations of a similar kind.~ These canons
were transmitted to Rome, when Pope Alexander, in full
Council, passed a solemn condemnation and revocation of
them; but notwithstanding this, they were confirmed by the
King, Lords, and clergy, at a Council in Northampton, A. D.
1176, in presence of the Legate of the Pope; and during the
reign of Henry all were strictly adhered to, except that
-which required the clergy to answer for their crimes in the
civil courts. I
* Ead. 90. Ling. 95.   t Ead. 58, 118, 126. Ling. II. 113.
t Mat. Par. 100.       ~ Wilk. LL. A. S. 321-324
II Crabb, H. E. C. L. 113.




388


INDEPENDENCE OF THE NORMAN


RICHARD I., 1189-1199, did nothing touching this point of
our inquiry.
JOHN, 1199-1216. During the reign of this inconstant
and imbecile Prince, Popery raised its head within the British dominions, by consent of the King. At first John made
a stand against the encroachments of the Pope, and refused
to receive Stephen Langton, who had been made Archbishop
of Canterbury, against the will of the monarch, in opposition
to the choice of the Bishops and clergy, and the election of
the Monks.* The King, however, was compelled to submit,
to swear fealty to the Pope, to pay annually a thousano
marks to the Pope, and to guarantee the payment of Peterpence, which then amounted to about ~200.t
HENRY III., 1216-1272. During the long reign of this
monarch, the power of the Pope was at its height in England,
and the oppressions of the clergy almost past endurance.
The King, warned by the fate of his predecessor, acquiesced
in silence, and the Barons imitated his example. But the
opposition of the great body of the clergy was aroused.
They remonstrated with the Pope, they complained to the
King, and finally drew up a list of their grievances, sent it
to the Pope, and appealed from him to a General Council.:
EDWARD 1., 1272-1307. In the reign of this Prince was
commenced a series of laws, which eventually overturned
the whole power of the Pope in England. He would not
allow the Bishops of England to attend a General Council,
until they had solemnly promised not to receive the papal
benediction, and in the thirty-fifth Edward I., A. D. 1306,
the statute de Asportatis Religiosorum~ was enacted, which
forbid the carrying of any ecclesiastical property out of the
realm, under penalty of being grievously punished for such
* Mat. Par. 222-245. Ling. III. 23, 24.  t Ling. III. 32, 33.
t Ling. III. 86-89.               ~ Stat. Westm. 2. c. 41.




CHURCH, OF THE ROMISH.


389


ontempt of the King's injunction, and was intended to antiihilate the custom introduced by Nicholas, in the preceding
reign. The preamble describes the taxes as laid by the Abbots, but the statute is couched in such terms as to leave no
room for the Pope to interfere.* Edward, like most sovereigns of those days, when he wanted money, compelled those
who had it to contribute to his necessities, and he laid heavy
burdens on the clergy. They appealed to the Pope, and he
issued a Bull, A. D. 1296, forbidding the clergy to pay such
taxes, and excommunicating those who should lay them.t
But Edward had both the disposition and ability to enforce
his will, and with the approbation of the lay peers, the whole
body of clergy were outlawed, until they made amends to
the King.f
EDWARD II., 1307-1327. The long disputed boundary between the ecclesiastical and civil judicatories, had been settled during the reign of Edward I., and the privileges of the
clergy in criminal trials confined within much narrower
limits, which were still further confined by the statute de
Articuli Cleri, enacted in the ninth Edward II., A. D. 1316,
by which certain canons published by Boniface, Archbishop
of Canterbury, in the reign of Henry III., were revoked.~
By this statute the King was invested with authority to reverse any sentence of excommunication, that would affect his
own liberty or safety.
EDWARD III., 1327-1377. After the passage of the statute
de Asportatis Religiosorum, in the reign of Edward I., it was
usual for the Abbeys and Priories to receive provisions, which
they disposed of to persons called provisors, when they sent
the money annually to Rome. To put a stop to this, a statute
was passed the twenty-fifth Edward III., A. D. 1351, which
* Stat. Realm, I. 151.           t Rym. Foed. II. 706.
t Ling. III. 202.                ~ Stat. 9 Ed. II.
33*




390


INDEPENDENCE OF THE NORMAN


declared all persons who purchased such provisions, traitors
and outlaws, which was also confirmed by statutes enacted in
1353 and 1364.* An ordinance was also passed the fortieth
of Edward III., A. D. 1366, making it criminal to carry the
contributions called "Peter-pence," out of the kingdom.t
This year, it was also declared by the King, Lords, and Prelates, that the donation which John had pretended to make to
the Pope, was illegal and void, and that every person appealing to the court of Rome, or citing another to appear there,
should be held as a traitor and outlaw.:  And the three estates bound themselves, if the Pope attempted to enforce payment of the sums due him for Peter-pence, that they would
resist him to the utmost of their ability.  It was also asserted
in this reign, that the Pope could not invest the Bishops with
their temporalities, and that these must be given by the
King.~
RICHARD II., 1377-1399.  These laws being found insufficient to prevent the transportation of ecclesiastical property
to Rome, a law was passed the third Richard II., A. D. 1379,
subjecting all persons guilty of making gifts of ecclesiastical
property to the court of Rome, or of sueing out any process
from it, to forfeiture of property, imprisonment, and sometimes death.lI Before the passage of this last act, the Lords,
Commons, and Prelates, had pledged themselves to stand by
the laws of the country, against the Pope and his adherents,
in the cases specified.T
* Stat. 25 Ed. III. St. 5, c. 6, and St. 6, c. 2. 27 Ed. III. St. 1, c. 1.
38 Ed. III. St. 1, c. 4. St. 2, c. 1.
t Stowe, Chron. 461. Fab. 40 Ed. III.
t Rot. Parl. II. 289, 29Q.
~ Spelm. Colc. ii. 435. Rym. Foed. in various places.
11 Stat. 3 R. II., c. 3; 7 R. II., c. 12; 12 R. II., c. 15; 13 R. II., c.
2; 16 R. II., c. 5.
' Ling. IV., 186.




CHURCH, OF THE ROMISH.


391


HENRY IV., 1399-1413. Papal interference was still further prohibited by statute, second Henry IV., A. D. 1400,
which made all persons guilty of buying bulls of exemption
from the Pope, or who brought them into the kingdom, liable
to the same penalties which had been made against provisors.*
HENRY V., 1413-1422. By statute passed 1st Henry V.
A. D. 1413, aliens were prohibited from  holding benefices
in England, except in case of Priors, and they were required
to obtain sureties for their obedience to the laws of the
realm.t
HENRY VI. 1422-1452. EDWARD IV., 1452-1483.
RICHARD III. 1483-1485.  HENRY VII., 1485-1509.
The laws that had been enacted under former sovereigns
were sufficient, had they been put in force, but the civil discords and the wars abroad, which distracted the kingdom
during the reigns of these princes, left them little time to look
after the Church. Consequently, all the old abuses were revived, and perhaps the Pope had never greater influence in
England, than at the accession of Henry VIII.
HENRY VIII., 1509-1547. Upon Henry's accession to the
throne of England, he manifested no disposition to interfere
with the claims of the Pope, and it was not until the twentyfirst year of his reign that he made war upon the papal usurpations. This year, a statute was enacted,: regulating the
fees in the ecclesiastical courts, and abolishing pluralities.
The carrying of property to Rome was prohibited by severer
penalties.~  The statutes against foreign jurisdiction passed
in the reigns of Edward I. and III., and -of Richard II. and
Henry IV., were re-enacted, enlarged, and enforced, by sew
* 2 H. IV., cc. 3, 4. Stat. Real. II. 121, 122.
t 1 H. V., c. 7, and 2 H. V., St. 1.
t Stat. 21 H. VIII., cc. 5, 6, 13.
~ Stat. 23 H. VIII., cc. 6, 20. 32 H. VIII., c. 45.




392


ANGLO-NORMAN CHURCHMEN.


verer penalties.* The election of Bishops, the publication
of new canons, and other similar matters, were also regulated,t until the power of the Pope in England was completely
overturned and annihilated.
This brief view of the legislation of the Anglo-Norman
Church and nation, proves most unanswerably, that there
never was a time, even under the reign of the Norman
princes, when the Pope could legally and canonically exercise the powers he claimed in England, and hence, though
his exactions and usurpations were from time to time submitted to, and his alliance frequently courted, the nation was
at liberty to throw off his allegiance at any moment it saw fit.
It would also be easy to show, that during this whole period,
there were leading men in the English Church who made
bold stand not only against the usurpations, but also against
the corruptions of that Church. Even Archbishop Dunstan,
in many things subservient to the Pope, did not hesitate to set
at defiance the papal mandate, when he deemed it unjust or
improper, A. D. 961.4  And Alfric Puttock, Archbishop of
York, fiom 1023 to 1050, openly impugned the doctrine of
transubstantiation. In his "Sermon to be spoken to the people at Easter, before they receive the holy housel," (communion,) he teaches doctrines that would now be considered
orthodox by sound theologians.~  In the next century, Gilbert
Foliat, consecrated Bishop of Hereford, 1148, translated to
London, 1163, died 1187, set at defiance the papal authority,
and though twice excommunicated by the Pope, paid no regard to the thunders of the Vatican.Il Contemporary with
* Stat. 24 H. VIII., c. 12. 25 H. VIII., c. 19, etc.
t Stat. 25 H. VIII., c. 19, etc.  t Ling. H. A. Sax. Ch. 240.
~ Elfric's Sermon, in Petheram's Hist. Sk. A. S. Lit. p. 33. See also,
Ecc. Const. about 1050, Wilk. LL. A. S. p. 159. Disc. Sax. Chr. p 251.
II Mat. Par. 99-145.




THE ENGLISH REFORMATION CANONICAL.


393


Foliat, was Ormin, the poet, whose works present us with the
purest English, and the purest doctrines of that age.* The
next century was rendered famous by Robert Grostete, or
Greathead, Bishop of Lincoln, from 1234 to 1258. In 1247,
a demand was made by the Pope for six thousand marks,
(about ~50,000,) and he had the courage to refuse to levy it
until h'e had the sense of the nation upon it. He visited
Rome, and protested against its corruptions, before the Pope
and Cardinals. After his return, the Pope again tried his
courage by collating an Italian youth to a vacant Canonry in
the Cathedral of Lincoln. But Grostete was inflexible. He
set at naught the Pope's commands, for which he was excommunicated. But the thunderbolt fell harmless at his feet,
and he died in peaceful possession of his See.t Other examples of a similar nature occur, but these are amply sufficient
to show that many of the clergy asserted that, in their writings, to which they assented in their legislative capacities.
It remains now simply to show, that the clergy consented to
the Reformation individually, as well as collectively, which
will be done in the next chapter.
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE ENGLISH REFORMATION CANONICAL.
WE have already seen, that every Church is, in fact, independent of every other Church, and that the Bishops of any
province, are independent of those in every other province.
Consequently, the Bishops and clergy of any one province,


* Ear. Eng. Poets, N. Y. R. IX., 392.
t Le Bas Life Wick. pp. 79-84. Mat. Par. pp. 400-918.




394      BISHOPS DEPRIVED BY EDWARD AND MARY.


with the consent of the laity, have the right to make any regulations for the government of their own branch of the Church,
not inconsistent with Apostolical organization and order.
That this was done by the English Reformers, will be evident
from a brief survey of the manner in which they conducted
the Reformation.
In the reign of Henry VIII. very little opposition was made
by any of the clergy, to an assertion of the Church's independence, which was all that was then proposed, and very few
deprivations were made. Even under the reign of Edward
VI., very few of the clergy made any objection to the reformation of doctrine and discipline, which was then brought
about. A few Bishops, however, were deprived in the reign
of Edward; as, Bonner, of London;* Gardiner of Winchester;t Heath, of Worcester; and Day, of Chichester;: for
non-conformity to laws enacted by Parliament, touching the
proposed reforms, and Tunstall, of Durham, on the alteration of his Diocese.  These were all restored upon the accession of Mary.~  Those deprived by Mary, were, Cranmer
and Holgate, Archbishops of Canterbury and York; and
Bishops, Taylor, of Lincoln; Hooper, of Worcester; larley, of Hereford; Ferrar, of St. David's; Bush, of Bristol;
Bird, of Chester; Scorey, of Chichester; Coverdale, of Exeter; Ridley, of London; and Poynet, of Winchester.~ That
is, five were restored and eleven deprived, making sixteen, or a
majority of the twenty-six Dioceses.  All this was done by
Mary, before she attempted to restore the Popish religion.
* Burnet, vol. II. Par. 1, p. 166.  t Ib. p. 216.  t Ib. p. 266.
~ Burnet, II. Ann. 1553, vol. III., p. 314.
II Lingard, Hist. of Eng., vol. VII., 143. Rym. Foed. xv. 370, 371.
The successors of all these but Cranmer, were consecrated while the Protestant Bishops were in possession of their Sees, and hence, upon primi.
tive principles, were uncanonical and schismatical. Ling. VII., 143.
~ Ling. VII., 293.




BISHOPS DEPRIVED BY ELIZABETH.


395


Nor even then did she attempt to restore the Romish practices
by authority of the Church, but merely by vote of Parliament.
The Reformation in the time of Edward, was brought about
by THE CLERGY, convened in Synod, and approved by the laity
in Parliament. In the reign of Mary, it was arrested by an
interference of the State, without convening a Synod or consulting the clergy. Consequently, when, in the reign of Elizabeth, this unlawful interference was withdrawn, the Church
became at once, legally and canonically, what it was in the
reign of Edward.
At the accession of Elizabeth, or immediately after,* nine
Dioceses, viz., Canterbury, Norwich, Chichester, Hereford,
Salisbury, Rochester, Gloucester, Oxford, and Bangor, were
vacant, by the death of the incumbents. After the enactment of the act of Uniformity, in the first year of Elizabeth,
Kitchen, Bishop of Llandaff, took the oath of supremacy and
conformed. About the same time, the oath of supremacy
was tendered to fifteen other Bishops, who refused to take it,
and were therefore deprived of their Sees. Of these, six,
Tunstall, of Durham; Morgan, of St. David's; Ogilthorp, of
Carlisle; White, of Winchester; Baines, of Lichfield and
Coventry; and Holyman, of Bristol, died before their places
were filled; and three, Scot, of Chester; Goldwell, of St.
Asaph's; and Pate, of Worcester, abandoned their Sees and
left the kingdom. The remaining seven, Heath, of York;
Bonner, of London; Thirlby, of Ely; Bourne, of Bath and
Wells; Turberville, of Exeter; Watson, of Lincoln; and
Pool, of Peterborough; lived and died in England, but never
attempted to exercise any Episcopal functions. Of these
seven, four held places from which Protestant Bishops had
been illegally and uncanonically ejected by Mary; viz.,
Bonner, of London, from which Ridley had been deprived;
* Strype, Eliz. p. 154. Linds. Vind. p. xxvi.




396   CONFORMITY OF THE CLERGY UNDER ELIZABETH.


Turberville, of Exeter, from which Coverdale had been deprived; Bourne, of Bath and Wells, from which Barlow had
been deprived; and Heath, of York, from which Holgate had
been deprived.*
We have, therefore, in the foregoing list, twenty-six Dioceses, fifteen of which, at the time of the Consecration of
Protestant Bishops under Elizabeth, had become vacant by
death. The incumbents of three had abandoned their Sees;
the incumbents of four held places from which Protestant
Bishops had been unlawfully and uncanonically deprived by
Mary, either because "they were married," or "had been
consecrated according to the Ordinal of Edward VI.;"t and
one, Kitchen, of Llandaff, had conformed. In the fifteen
vacant Dioceses, even the Romanist will not deny the right of
Parker to ordain Protestant Bishops, and these, with Kitchen,
constituted a large majority of the twenty-six Dioceses. Nor
is it presumed they will deny the right to fill the Sees of
those who had gone abroad. And if they assume that the
restoration of the Bishops of Winchester, Durham, London,
Worcester, and Chichcster, by Mary, was lawful, (had it
been done canonically,) because they had been deprived under Edward, then it was lawful for Elizabeth to deprive the
Bishops of York, London, Exeter, and Bath and Wells, for
the same reason. Hence, then, at least twenty-five of thef
twenty-six Bishoprics were legally, properly, and canonically
filled in the first years of Elizabeth, with Protestant Bishops.
Among the minor clergy, the case was widely different;
for, as appears by a calculation made at the time, out of
nine thousand four hundred ecclesiastical persons in the land,
only one hundred and seventy-seven left their places, and of
these, only eighty were Rectors of Churches.:  Hence it
* Lind. Vind. pp. xx-xxviii.     t Lingard, VII., 143.
t Strype, Eliz. p. 73. Camden, 47. There were six Abbots and




ROMISH SCHISM IN ENGLAND.


397


follows, that an immense majority of the clergy of the English Church consented to the Reformation. And all the acts
of the clergy in Synod, both in the reigns of Edward and
Elizabeth, were submitted to, and approved by the King and
Parliament, so that every act of Reformation was performed
upon strictly canonical and legal principles. It may, therefore, be said, with great propriety, that the Reformed Church
of England was not another, but the same Church; though
reformed, its identity, as a Church, was not affected. The
Reformed Church of England is, therefore, the Old Catholic
Church of that country. Consequently, all those who, in
England, refuse to unite with it, but go off and establish
another altar, and build another Church, are, upon Apostolical and Primitive principles, schismatics. This conclusion is
as applicable to the Romanist as to any other dissenter.
Their plea of submission to the Pope can not save them from
the dilemma, (1,) because he has no rightful jurisdiction in
England, and (2) because it was not the original ground
taken, being an after-thought put into their heads by the
Pope and his emissaries. Elizabeth succeeded to the crown
of England, Nov. 17, 1558. As early as 1562, the various
Dioceses were filled with Protestant Bishops, and no Bishop
was allowed to execute any function of his office within the
realm, without first taking the oath of supremacy. Consequently, no Romish Bishop could execute the duties of his
office within that kingdom. But notwithstanding this, Pope
Pius IV. seems never to have abandoned the idea of regaining Elizabeth and the Church of England to the See of
Rome;* but his successor, Pius V., considered the caution


Abbesses, twelve Deans, twelve Archdeacons, fifteen hea1s of Colleges,
and fifty Prebendaries. In Ireland, a still smaller number left their
places. Linds. Vindic. cxix.
* Lingard, VIII., 39.
34




398


SEPARATION OF THE


of his predecessor as a dereliction of duty. " In the spring
of 1569, he sent Dr. Nicholas Morton, who had been a
prebendary of York, under Mary, into the northern counties
of England, with the title of Apostolical Penitentiary. The
object of his mission appears to have been to impart to the
[Roman] Catholic Priests, as from the Pope, those faculties
and that jurisdiction which they could no longer receive in
a regular manner from their Bishops. Camden says, that he
urged the northern men to rebellion.... Of his activity
in promoting the insurrection, there can be little doubt."*
On the 25th of February, 1570, the Pope issued a bull of
excommunication against Elizabeth, pretending to put her
out of the pale of the Church, assuming to depose her from
the crown, to absolve her subjects from all allegiance to her,
and requiring all the faithful to withdraw from her, under
pain of excommunication. A copy of this bull was affixed
to the gates of the Bishop of London, on the 15th of May,
1570, and other copies were circulated through the kingdom.
The more intelligent and liberal-minded of the Romanists regretted the act, and considered it as "an imprudent and
cruel measure,"t but it evidently had its effect upon the common people, and necessarily compelled all Romanists to separate from the Church of England; and hence the English
Romanists may properly be said to have separated from the
Reformed Church in the twelfth of Elizabeth, and thus, at
that time, to have formed a sect.
The other sectaries and schismatics in England separated
from the Church at a much later period, and hence a con.
sideration of their history does not fall in with the design
of this work. But some (of the arguments by which they
attempt to justify their separation, deserve to be considered;
since, if true, they prove that the English Church, at the


* Lingard, VIII., 40.


t Lingard, VIII., 56.




ENGLISH CHURCH FROM ROME.          399
time of the Reformation, abandoned the fundamental principles of Apostolic organization and order, and was not, therefore, legally and canonically reformed. The arguments are
mainly two, each of which will be considered separately.
First, it is claimed that " the Church of England separated
from the Church of Rome, and, therefore, others may separate from the Church of England." This assumption is false
in two respects, for (1) it would not follow, if the Church of
England separated from the Church of Rome, that individuals
might separate from the Church of England. The two cases
are utterly unlike, and we can not reason from one to the
other. But (2) the Church of England did not separate from
the Church of Rome. The Church of England did no more
than assert her original and primitive independence-an independence that she had enjoyed for more than five centuries
unmolested, and which for nine centuries more, she had
continually attempted to defend. The Reformation in the
Church of England was simply a return to primitive truth
and order. She separated from no one. She excommunicated no one; and it was not until the twelfth of Elizabeth
that the Bishop of Rome presumed to cut himself off from
her communion, for that was all that his pretended bull of
excommunication could effect.
But, second, it is said, that the Reformers of the Church
of England, and the Church of England herself, gave up, at
the time of her Reformation, one of the fundamental principles of Apostolic organization and order-the necessity of
Bishops to the due organization of the Church. This objection, as generally presented, divides itself into two branches
-that the English Reformers believed, and the Church of
England taught, (1,) that Episcopacy did not exist by divine
right, that is, they believed it to be a human institution;
and, (2,) that Bishops and Priests are not different orders of
clergy. Now if these charges are true, the English Re



400


CHARACTERISTICS OF THE


formers gave up one fundamental principle of primitive order, and were, in fact, Presbyterian. And if the Church of
England is Presbyterian, then there can be no doubt that
others have a right to separate from her; for those who have
themselves separated from Apostolic order, can not complain
if others follow their example. In proof of these positions,
our opponents are wont to quote the opinions of Cranmer,
and sundry others who were among the leading Reformers
of the English Church, in which some of them say something to the purpose for which they are quoted. We shall,
therefore, inquire under what circumstances, and for what
purpose, the opinions which are quoted in support of the
above positions, were expressed, and what and how much
they prove.
It must be borne in mind, that all the Reformers of the
English Church had been educated in the Romish faith. A
complete change of sentiment could not be wrought in a day
or a year. The change must be gradual; unless, as often
happens, it goes from one extreme to the other. But such
was not the case with the English Reformers, and evidence
of their progress appears in the productions of the various
epochs of the Reforrmation. From this it will be seen, that
the date of a document cited as evidence on this head, is
most material. If a given document contains the opinion of
Cranmer and others, who were afterwards Reformers, while
they were Romanists, then to quote that as evidence of what
the Reformers thought, is gross misrepresentation.
To show how these various documents came to be produced, and that our readers may see how far they are
pertinent to prove the opinions of the Reformers, we shall
allude to the manner in which the English Church was reformed. The first distinguishing feature of the English Ref.
ormation is, that it was the calm, dispassiorate, and deliberate
act of the most pious and learned among the clergy, approved




ENGLISH REFORMATION.


401


by the great body of the laity; while in other countries it
was usually the act of some rash and head-strong individual,
opposed to the body of the clergy.  The second is the mode
in which they conducted their efforts for reformation. This
we can not better state, than in the language of an historian
of former days. He says: " First, the whole business they
were to consider, was divided into so many heads, which
were proposed as queries, and these were given out to the
Bishops and Divines; and at a prefixed time, every -one
brought in his opinion in writing, on all the questions."*
In this manner all questions relating either to faith or
practice, were examined. When these opinions had been
handed in, the authors met and conferred upon their points
of difference, until they were able to agree upon something
to be laid before the convocation, to be approved by that
body.t  One of the first of these conferences was held in
1537 or 1538, at which a number of papers were drawn up.
Two of these papers have been preserved by Burnet.: One
of them is entitled, "A Declaration made of the Functions
and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests." This paper
is signed by Cranmer and a large number of Bishops and
Divines, and contains the following passage: " In the New
Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of Deacons or Ministers, and of
Priests or Bishops."~
* Bur. vol. I. p. 372.    t Bur. vol. I. Par. 1, pp. 372-374.
t Hist. vol. I. Par. 2, Add. No. 1 and 4.
~ The Papists, to avoid the charge of having created a new order in
the ministry, contend that Bishops and Priests are of the same order,
the Pope alone constituting the third order. This point was hotly debated in the Council of Trent. On the part of the Pope it was contended, that all ecclesiastical authority was derived from St. Peter, who
alone derived his authority from CHRIST. And those who, with the
Archbishops of Grenada and Paris, held that all the Apostles, and con31*




402


INSTITUTION OF A CHRISTIAN MAN.


The Institution of a Christian Man was compiled from these
papers,* and published the same year.  This book contains
the paragraph we have copied from the foregoing "declaration," and is one of the authorities usually cited by AntiChurchmen. With how much fairness it can be thus quoted,
our readers can judge, when we tell them, that this book,
compiled from these documents, and signed by Cranmer and
thirty-six of the most learned of the clergy, established the
Romish doctrines of " Transubstantiation, communion in one
kind, celibacy of the clergy, auricular confession, seven sacraments, and purgatory."t  In all things they proved themselves staunch Papists, save in the single item of the Pope's
supremacy, and perhaps the subject of monastic vows. This,
therefore, was the opinion of these men as Romanists, not as
Reformers, and the man who quotes them as such, is either
too ignorant to write, or too dishonest to be trusted.
The next document in point of chronology, cited to prove
the Anti-Episcopal notions of the English Reformers, bears
date in 1540.  The history of that paper is as follows.  In
1539, the King proposed six questions to the clergy relative
to points of doctrine; in answer to which, they asserted the
doctrines of "Transubstantiation, communion in one kind,
celibacy of the clergy, sacrifice of the mass, auricular confession," &c.t  Upon these answers the act of Parliament,
called "the bloody hill," was passed, an act which sent Protestants and Romanists to execution upon the same hurdle.
sequently, all Bishops, derived their authority from CHRIST, were told,
that they thus took away the authority of the Pope, and that it was
idle to pretend that the Pope was head of the Church, and yet to
hold that there was authority in the Church not derived from him.
Fra. Paolo. Hist. Coun. Tr. L. vii.
* Strype, Ann. B. 1, c. 41, p. 315, and App. No. 88.
t Strype, Ann. pp. 311, 315. Bur. vol. I. Par. 2, pp. 375-398.
t Srype, Ann. B. 1, c. 47, pp. 361, 362.




AUTHORITATIVE DOCUMENTS OF THE REFORMATION. 403


The complaints under this act, caused a new commission to
be issued the same year, to re-examine the various points of
disputed doctrine.  Seventeen questions were proposed for
consideration.  Those who wish to see the whole paper, will
find it in Burnet.*  That summary is sufficient to show, that
these men were then Romanists, and hence those opinions are
no evidence of what they thought as Reformers.
The next paper usually cited in proof, bears date 1543, and
is drawn from a work entitled, " The Necessary Erudition of
a Christian Man." This book was merely a revision of the
"Institution," of which we have spoken,t revised and corrected by the King.:  The book was somewhat enlarged,
and the doctrine of purgatory omitted. In other respects, it
taught the same doctrines as the Institution, and in common
with that asserted, that Bishops and Priests were of the same
order, and this is the last we hear of that opinion. With this
book, published five years before the death of Henry VIII.,
and seven years before the compilation of the Book of Common Prayer, ends the chain of authorities by which the Reformers of the English Episcopal Church are to be proved
Presbyterian.  If, therefore, these publications are pertinent
to prove what were the opinions of the Reformers on one
point, they are pertinent on another, and if they prove any
thing, they prove that the Reformers of the English Church
believed in transubstantiation, seven sacraments, sacrifice of
the mass, auricular confession, celibacy of the clergy, monastic
vows, communion in one kind; they prove in fact, that the
English Church was not reformed, and that it is still Roman
Catholic. They prove this, or they prove nothing to the. purpose for which they are so often quoted.


* Hist. Ref. vol. I. Par. 2, pp. 256-303. Strype, B. i. p. 357, App. No.
III. p. 300.
t Strype, p. 377.
t Hallam, Cons. Hist. Eng. vol. I. pp. 79, 110.




404


DOCTRINES OF THE PRAYER BOOK.


Having examined the books published before the reign of
Edward VI., usually cited to prove the Presbyterianism of
the English Reformers, we shall endeavor to ascertain what
were the opinions of the Reformers of the Episcopal Church,
concerning TIE CHURCH, and its ministry; and for this purpose, we shall only quote from authoritative documents, published in the reign of Edward and Elizabeth. Our chief
authority shall be the book of Common Prayer. It will be
borne in mind, that a distinct recognition of any principle, or
point of doctrine, IN A PRAYER, is conclusive evidence that
tlose who composed or adopted that prayer, believed the
"principle" so recognized, to be certain truth.
THE CIURCI. "Art. 19. The visible Church of Christ is
a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of
GOD is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."
OF THE MINISTRY. "Art. 23. It is not LAWFUL for any
manl to take upon himself the office of public preaching, or
ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be
LAWFULLY called and sent, to execute the same. And those
we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen
and called to this work by men who have public authority given
unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into
the Lord's vineyard."
TImE MINISTRY DIVINELY INSTITUTED. Collect at the ordination of a Deacon.-" ALMIGHTY GOD, who by Thy divine
Providence hast appointed divers orders of ministers IN THY
CHURCH."   Collect at the ordination of a Priest,-" ALMIGHTY
Go:, giver of all good things, who by Thy HOLY SPIRIT
hast appointed divers orders of ministers IN THY CHURCH."
Prayer at the consecration of a Bishop.-" ALMIGHTY GOD,
giver of all good things, who by Thy HoLY SPIRIT hast ap.
pointed divers orders of ministers IN THY CHURCH."




DOCTRINES OF THE PRAYER BOOK.


405


THE MINISTRY CONSISTS OF THREE ORDERS. Litany.-" That
it may please Thee to illuminate all Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons, with true knowledge and understanding of Thy
word." Collect at ordaining a Deacon.-" And didst inspire
thine Apostles to choose into the order of Deacons, the first
martyr, Saint Stephen, with others, mercifully behold these
Thy servants, now called to the like office and administration."
Collect at ordaining a Priest.-" Mercifully behold these Thy
servants, now called to the office of the Priesthood." Prayer
at the consecration of a Bishop. —" Mercifully behold this Thy
servant, now called to the work and ministry of a Bishop."
Litany at the ordination of Deacons or Priests.-" That it
may please Thee to bless these Thy servants, now to be admitted to the order of Deacons," [or Priests.] Litany at the
ordination of a Bishop.-" That it may please Thee to bless
this, our brother elected, [to the office of Bishop,] and to send
Thy grace upon him." Preface to the Ordinal.-" It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been
these orders of ministers in CHRIST'S Church-Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons."
BISHOPS SUPERIOR TO THE OTHER CLERGY.-This follows
from the above, for, if GOD has " appointed divers orders of
ministers in his Church," the different kinds of ministers so
divinely constituted and appointed,-of necessity belong to the
" divers orders;" and the first order must be superior to the
second, or any subsequent order, so that Bishops must be superior to every other order. This superiority is recognized
throughout the whole Liturgy. Prayer for the clergy and
people, used both in the morning and evening service."Send down upon our BISHoPS and other clergy, and upon
the congregations committed to their charge, the healthful
spirit of Thy grace." The same superiority is recognized
in the Litany, in the Form of consecration of a Bishop, and




406


DOCTRINES OF THE PRAYER BOOK.


ordaining Priests and Deacons, in the Order of confirmation,
in the Rubric in the communion service, in the thirtieth article,
and in numerous other places. Indeed, this distinction of
order between Bishops and Priests, is uniformly kept in sight,
throughout the Liturgy and Articles.
WHO "LAWFULLY CALLED AND SENT "-" Art. 36. The
Book of consecration of Bishops, and ordaining of Priests
and Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this
Church, in 1792, [in the English Prayer Book, lately set forth
in the time of King Edward the Sixth, with which the American Book agrees in every important particular, except in
slight verbal alterations,] doth contain all things necessary to
such consecration and ordering..... Whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said form, we decree all such
to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered."
Preface to the Ordinal, established by the foregoing Article." It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture
and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have
been these orders of ministers in CHRIST'S Church-BISHOPS,
PRIESTS, and DEACONS. Which offices were evermore had
in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to
execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as were requisite
for the same; and also by public prayer, with imposition of
hands, were approved and admitted thereto by lawful authority."  The "lawful authority" here meant, is, of course, the
authority prescribed by the Ordinal, that is, the Bishop. We
learn, therefore, from the foregoing, what were the opinions
of the framers of our Liturgy, that is, of the Reformers of
the English Church, AS REFORMERS, concerning THE CHURCH,
and its ministry, and also what is the opinion of the Church
itself. They were as follows:The visible Church of CHRIST is a congregation of faithful
men, in the which the pure word of GOD is preached, and the




PRACTICE OF THE ENGLISH REFORMERS.


4A07


sacraments be duly ministered, according to CHRIST'S ordinance; that by the ordinance of CHRIST, no man may take
upon himself the office of public preaching, or ministering
the sacraments, before he is lawfully called and sent to do the
same; that by the same ordinance, the ministry, by which
the word is to be preached and the sacraments administered,
is made to consist of three distinct orders, called Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons; that these three orders, so divinely
constituted, have existed in the Church of CHRIST from the
time of the Apostles; that by the same authority by which
these three orders exist, power and authority to call and send
men to preach the word and administer the sacraments, is
vested in the Bishop alone.
But notwithstanding the certainty of this conclusion, there
are some who still persist in urging other reasons, to prove
the very things we have so clearly disproved. The principal
of these we shall mention. Thus it is said:1. That " Dr. Bancroft, chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift,
[first] divided off the Bishops from the body of the Presbyters, and advanced them into a superior order by divine right,
in a sermon at St. Paul's Cross, January 1, 1588." Those
who know what the Book of Common Prayer teaches, know
this can not be true; but all may not know, that in the sermon referred to, there is not one word on the subject.*
2. That "those who had been ordained in foreign Churches,
in the reign of Mary, were admitted in Elizabeth's reign to
their ministerial offices and charges, and to legalize this, an
act of Parliament was passed the thirteenth Elizabeth, allowing of ordination of Presbyters without a Bishop." No
such act was ever passed by the British Parliament. The
act referred to, is entitled, An act to reform CERTAIN DIS* So says Hallam, Const. Hist. Eng. vol. I. p. 504, who says he had
read it.




CASE OF FOREIGN CLERGYMEN.


ORDERS touching the ministers of the Church.* The first section enacts, that every minister under the degree of Bishop,
who had received ordination or consecration by any other
form than that prescribed by the Ordinal of Edward VI.,
should, in a certain limited time, subscribe to the articles of
religion, confessions, &c. &c., prescribed by law, and in default thereof, should be deprived. One of the things they
were thus required to sign, was the Preface to the Ordinal.
The second section of the same act declares, that any minister who teaches or preaches any thing contrary to those
articles, shall be deprived, and there is not, in the whole
chapter, one word about, or one allusion to ordination by
Presbyters.
3. "That Archbishop Grindal commissioned a Presbyterian minister to preach in his Diocese." This case of itself
proves, that the English Church did not allow his orders, foi
if it had, there would have been no need of a commission.
Further, for this very act and other irregularities, the Archbishop was suspended.t
4. "That ministers from abroad, who had received only
Presbyterian ordination, were received in their ecclesiastical
character by the Reformers, without re-ordination." These
lists usually include the names of "Calvin, Knox, Fagius,
Bucer, Tremellius, Peter Martyr, Ochinus, Travers, Whittingham, John A Lasco," &c. Of each of these separately.
Of CALVIN.    And (1) he never visited England, and,
therefore, could not have been admitted to their pulpits; and
(2) he never was in Priest's orders,4 and, therefore, could not
have been acknowledged as a minister of Christ.
* Stat. 13 Eliz. c. 12, pp. 546, 547.  t Strype, Life Grind.
Beza, Life Cal. Spon, Hist. Geneva, iii, p. 243, cited in Bayle,
Hist. and Crit. Dict. vol. II. p. 264. Leti, Hist. Gen. vol. III. p. 41, in
Bayle, ubi. sup. Maimbourg, Hist. Calvinism, p. 64, ib.




CASE OF FOREIGN CLERGYMEN.


409


KNOX was Episcopally ordained in the Romish Church,
before becoming a Reformer, and was, therefore, upon the
same footing with the rest of the Reformers.*
FAGIUS. Of Fagius little is known, as he died very soon
after he arrived in England.t
BUCER was a Dominican Friar, and Episcopally ordained,
before joining the Reformers.:
TREMELLIUS, an Italian Monk, was Episcopally ordained a
Priest, before becoming a Reformer.~
PETER MARTYR had been Episcopally ordained in the Romish Church, before becoming a Reformer. l
OCHINUS had received orders in the Romish Church, and
was at one time Father Confessor to Pope Paul III.~
Of TRAVERS, it is sufficient to say, that "Archbishop
Whitgift silenced him, and ultimately removed him, by
means of the High Commission Court, as unqualified for
ministering in the Church of England, from want of Episcopal
ordination. "**
WHITTINGHAM.    As for Whittingham, "he seems to have
had merely what is termed, among Dissenters, a call, from
the English refugees at Geneva, and to have been set apart
for the ministry, by some of them, not in orders, in a private
house. * * * * A solemn adjudication of this case was precluded by the Dean's [Whittingham's] death; but Archbishop Whitgift declared soon after, that he would have been
* Rob. Scot. vol. I. p. 238. Biog. Univers. vol. XXII. p. 499. Eneyc. Am. vol. VII. p. 341. M'Crie's Life Knox, p. 8.
t Bur. vol. II. p. 116.
t Encyc. Am. vol. II. p. 206.
~ Bossuet, Hist. Prot. cit. in Trav. Irish Gent. p. 241, n. Strype,
Ann. B. ii. c. 18, p. 387.
ll Encyc. Am. vol. VIII. p. 312. Bow. Lett. vol. I. p. 204.
~ Churchm. xiii. 47.
** Soames's Elizabethan Religious History, p. 444.
35




410


CASE OF FOREIGN CLERGYMEN.


deprived, had he lived, without ' especial grace and dispensation.' "*
JOHN A LASCO had never received Episcopal ordination,
and was never received into Episcopal pulpits. But Edward
and Cranmer, desirous of patronizing eminent Reformers,
though they did not adopt Episcopacy, issued a commission,
authorizing A Lasco and four other foreigners, to preach to
their countrymen, in certain chapels erected for the purpose.
It has also been said that the consecration of Scotch Bishops, in the time of James I., who before had only received
Presbyterian ordination, was an acknowledgment of Presbyterian ordination. But this inference does not follow, for we
have seen, that both in the Churches of Alexandria and
Rome, even laymen were elected to the Bishopric, and consecrated without passing through the intermediate orders.
Thus much for this charge, which our readers will see by
this time, is wholly unfounded. The Episcopal Church never
has renounced the divine institution of Episcopacy, nor has
she, as a Church, done any act that amounts to an acknowledgment of the orders of any one who has not been Episcopally ordained.
* Soames's Elizabethan Religious History, pp. 232-3.




APPENDIX.
Consecration of Archbishop Parker.
ABOUT fifty years after the death of Archbishop Parker, a story was
made up by some of the Papists, denying that Parker was consecrated.
This story became the subject of controversy, and is thus described by
Rev. JOHN LINGARD, D. D., the Roman Catholic historian of England,
in the following note, Hist. Eng., vol. VII. p. 293, Am. Ed., p 422,
Paris Ed.
" It may, perhaps, be expected that I should notice a story which
was once the subject of acrimonious controversy between the divines of
the two communions. It was said that Kitchin and Scorey, with Parker and the other Bishops elect, met in a tavern called the Nag's Head,
in Cheapside; that Kitchin, on account of a prohibition from Bonner,
refused to consecrate them, and that Scorey, therefore, ordering them to
kneel down, placed the Bible on the head of each, and told him to rise
up Bishop. The facts that are really known, are the following. The
Queen, from the beginning of her reign, had designed Parker for the
Archbishopric. After a long resistance, he gave his consent; and a
cong6 d'6lire was issued to the Dean and Chapter, July 18, 1559. He
was chosen August 1. On September 8, the Queen sent her mandate
to Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Pool of Peterborough, Kitchin of Llandaff, Barlow, the deprived Bishop of Bath
under Mary, and Scorey of Chichester, also deprived under Mary, to
confirm and consecrate the Archbishop elect. (Rym. xv. 541.) Kitchin
had conformed; and it was hoped that the other three, who had not
been present in Parliament, might be induced to imitate his example.
All three, however, refused to officiate; and, in consequence, the oath
of supremacy was tendered to them, (Rym. xv. 545;) and their refusal
to take it was followed by deprivation. In these circumstances no consecration took place; but three months later, (December 6,) the Queen
sent a second mandate, directed to Kitchin, Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale,




412


APPENDIX.


the deprived Bishop of Exeter under Mary, John, suffragan of Bedford,
John, suffragan of Thetford, and Bale, Bishop of Ossory, ordering them,
or any four of them, to confirm and consecrate the Archbishop elect:
but with an additional clause, by which she, of her supreme royal authority, supplied whatever deficiency there might be according to the
statutes of the realm, or the laws of the Church, either in the acts done
by them, or in the person, state, or faculty of any of them, such being
the necessity of the case, and the urgency of the time. (Rym. xv. 549.)
Kitchiu again appears to have declined the office. But Barlow, Scorey,
Coverdale, and Hodgskins, suffragan of Bedford, confirmed the election
on the 9th; and consecrated Parker on the 17th. The ceremony was
performed, though with a little variation, according to the Ordinal of
Edward VI. Two of the consecrators, Barlow and Hodgskins, had
been ordained Bishops according to the Roman Pontifical, the other two
according to the Reformed Ordinal. (Wilk. Con. iv. 198.) Of this consecration on the 17th of December, there can be no doubt: perhaps, in
the interval between the refusal of the Catholic prelates, and the performance of the ceremony, some meeting may have taken place at the
Nag's Head, which gave rise to the story."
This note called forth an attack in the Birmingham Magazine, by an
anonymous writer, signing himself " T. H.," to which Rev. Dr. Lingard
made the following reply:
" Mr. Editor,-In your last number, a correspondent, under the signature of T. H., has called on me to show why I have asserted, (Hist.
Eng. VII. p. 293,) that Archbishop Parker was consecrated on the 17th
of December, 1559. Though I despair of satisfying the incredulity of
one who can doubt after he has examined the documents to which I
have referred, yet I owe it to myself to prove to your readers the truth
of my statement, and the utter futility of any objection which can be
brought against it.
"The matter in dispute is, whether Parker received, or did not receive, consecration on the 17th of December; but the following facts
are, and must be admitted on both sides: 1st. That the Queen, having
given the royal assent to the election of Parker, by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, sent, on September 9, a mandate to six prelates to
confirm and consecrate the Archbishop elect; and that they demurred,
excusing, as would appear from what followed, their disobedience by
formal exceptions on points of law. 2d. That on the 6th of December,
she issued a second commission to seven Bishops, ordering them, or any
four of them, to perform that office, with the addition of a sanatory




APPENDIX.


413


clause, in which she supplied, by her supreme authority, all legal or ecclesiastical defects, on account of the urgency of the time, and the
necessity of the thing —' temporis ratione et rerum necessitate id prostulante;'-words which prove how much the Queen had this consecration at heart; and certainly not without reason, for at that time, with
the exception of Llandaff, there was not a Diocese provided with a
Bishop; nor, as the law then stood, could any such provision be made
without a consecrated Archbishop, to confirm and consecrate the Bishops elect. 3d. That four out of the seven Bishops named in the corn.
mission, (they had been deprived or disgraced under Queen Mary, but
had now come forward to offer their services, and solicit preferment in
the new Church,) having obtained a favorable opinion from six counsel
learned in the law, undertook to execute the commission, and confirmed
Parker's election on the 9th of December.
" Now, these facts being indisputable, what, I ask, should prevent the
consecration from taking place? The Queen required it; Parker, as
appears from his subsequent conduct, had no objection to the ceremony;
and the commissioners were ready to perform it, or rather under an obligation to do so; for by the 25th of Henry VIII., revived in the last
Parliament, they were compelled, under the penalty of praemunire, to
proceed to the consecration within twenty days after the date of the
commission. Most certainly all these preliminary facts lead to the presumption that the consecration did actually take place about the time
assigned to it, the 17th of December, a day falling within the limits I
have just mentioned.
"In the next place, I must solicit the attention of your readers to
certain indisputable facts, subsequent to that period. These are:-1st.
That on the 18th (and the date is remarkable) the Queen sent to Parker no fewer than six writs addressed to him, under the new style of
Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Primate and Metropolitan of
all England, and directing him to proceed to the confirmation and consecration of six Bishops elect, for six different Sees. This was the first
time during the six months which had elapsed since his election, that
any such writ had been directed to him. What, then, could have hap.
pened, just before the 18th, to entitle him to this new style, and to
enable him to confirm and consecrate Bishops, which he could not do
before? The obvious answer is, that he himself had been consecrated
on the 17th. 2d. That on the 21st, he consecrated four new Bishops;
on the 21st of January, five others; two more on the 2d, and two on
the 24th of March. Can we suppose that so much importance would
35*




414


APPENDIX.


be attached to consecration given by him, if he had received no consecration himself? or, that the new Church would have been left so long
without Bishops at all, if it had not been thought necessary that he,
who was by law to consecrate, the others, should previously receive that
rite? 3d. That afterwards, at the same time with the new prelates, he
obtained the restoration of his temporalities-a restoration which was
never made till after consecration. 4th. That he not only presided at
the convocation, but sat in successive Parliaments, which privilege was
never allowed to any but consecrated Bishops. In my judgment, the
comparison of these facts, with those that preceded the 17th of December, forms so strong a case, that I should not hesitate to pronounce in
favor of the consecration, even if all direct and positive evidence respecting it had perished.
" But there exists such evidence in abundance. That Parker was
consecrated on the 17th of December, is asserted, 1st, by Camden,
(i. 49;) 2d, by Godwin, (De Praes. p. 219;) 3d, by the Archbishop himself in his work, (De Antiquitate Brittanicae Ecclesim,) published in
1572, three years before his death; or, if that book be denied to be his,
in his diary, in which occurs the following entry in his own hand:
' 17th Dec. Ann. 1559, consecratus sum in Archepiscopum Cantuariensem. Heu! Heu!      Domine Deus, in qua tempora servasti me!'
(Strype's Parker, App. 15.) And 4th, by the Archiepiscopal Register, a
record which details the whole proceeding, with the names of the Bishops, of the Chaplains, and of the official witnesses. In truth, it descends to so many minute particulars, that I think, Mr. Editor, it must
be the model after which are composed the descriptions of consecrations,
ordinations, and dedications, which we have the pleasure of perusing in
your pages. In one respect only must it yield the superiority to them.
It names not either the organist or the singers.
" Now to this mass of evidence, direct and indirect, what does your
correspondent oppose? That Harding and Stapleton, and the more ancient Catholic controvertists, denied that Parker was a Bishop? That
is, indeed, true; but I always understood that their objections (which is
certainly the case with respect to the two passages quoted in your last
number) referred to the validity, not to the fact of his consecration;
and if Dr. Milner has chanced to assert to the contrary, I fear that he
wrote it hastily, and without consideration. I am not aware of any
open denial of the fact, till about fifty years afterwards, when the tale
of the foolery supposed to have been played at the Nag's Head, was
first published. In refutation of that story, Protestant writers appealed




APPENDIX.


415


to the Register; their opponents disputed its authority; and the consequence was, that in 1614, Archbishop Abbot invited Colleton, the
Archpriest, with two or three other Catholic missionaries, to Lambeth,
and submitted the Register to their inspection, in presence of six of his
own Episcopal colleagues. The details may be seen in Dodd, ii. 277,
or in Godwin, p. 219.
'" Your correspondent assures us that the Register contains 'so many
inaccuracies and points at variance with the history of the times, as
manifestly prove a forgery.' Were it so, there still remains sufficient
evidence of the fact. But what induces T. H. to make this assertion?
Has he examined into all the circumstances of the case? Or does he
only take for granted the validity of the several objections which Dodd,
without expressing any opinion of his own, has collected from different
controvertists?  However that may be, I have no hesitation in saying,
that all those objections are founded on misconception or ignorance
that the Register agrees in every particular with what we know of the
history of the times; and that there exists not the semblance of a reason
for pronouncing it a forgery."
Epistles of Ignatius.
Among the authorities quoted in this volume, is Ignatius, Bishop of
Antioch. He is important, both for the early date and fullness of his
writings; and it has been found the easiest way to dispose of him is, to
deny the authenticity and genuineness of his epistles. It is agreed, that
Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, a distinguished man and Christian,
sentenced to death by Trajan, and was sent to Rome to die, A. D. 107,
or 116; on his way, he wrote several epistles to several different
Churches. It is also agreed, that we have two copies of seven epistles
purporting to have been written by Ignatius; that the longer copy
teaches Arianism, the shorter, the Divinity of Christ; that Eusebius
had, when he wrote, A. D. 305, the same number of epistles, having
the same directions as those we possess. Now it has been repeatedly
shown, to our entire satisfaction, that Ignatius wrote seven epistles to
seven Churches; that they taught the doctrine of the Trinity; that
the shorter copy is the same as that of Eusehius, Athanasius, Jerome,
and other orthodox men of that age, in this respect.
But this conclusion has been assailed with great violence. The op



416


APPENDIX.


ponents are of two classes: (1,) the Arian and Socinian, who finds his
notions of the Trinity contradicted by that copy which has by far the
greatest claim to authenticity; and (2) the anti-Episcopalian, who finds
his views of the existence and authority of Bishops in that primitive
age, controverted by them. Yet there are many non-Episcopalians
who speak differently. MosHEIM says: " The seven shorter epistles
are, by most writers, accounted genuine.... To this opinion I cheerfully accede." Dr. MURDOCK says: " Moderate men, of various sects,
especially Lutherans, are disposed to admit the genuineness of the epistles in their shorter form, but to regard them as interpolated and altered."
This is the opinion of the leading German historians; as NEANDER,
(Allgm. Gesch. Christ. Rel. I., B. III., Abth. 1107,) and J. E. C.
SCHMIDT, (Handb. Christ. Kirch., I. Theil. ~~ 47, 119.) J. C. I. GIESELER (Text-Book, Ecc. Hist. Div. I. ~ 33) places them among the genuine writings. A common opinion among good scholars now is, that
the seven shorter epistles of Ignatius are genuine, but interpolated.
But if these epistles are interpolated, can we quote them as authority?
Certainly not, until we have ascertained the true text. Nor is this a
difficult task, as has been shown by SCHMIDT, (Christ. Kirch. I., ~ 47.
Versuch fiber gedop. Recens. Briefe Ign. in Henckes Mag. Relig. Bd.
III. S. 91.) Thus, if we compare the two copies, and reject from each
things not contained in the other, what remains will be genuine. That
is, where they agree in phraseology, there is no reason to suspect either
has been altered, and this may be set down as the certain text. Where
the longer merely expands the idea of the shorter, the text of the shorter
is the highly probable text. Where the only difference is, that the
longer changes the language of the shorter, teaching another doctrine,
the text of the shorter is the probable text. Finally, when either contains passages not in the other, and not relating to doctrine, that must
be regarded as probably spurious. In this volume, Ignatius is never
quoted as authority, except from the certain text.
Here we might leave this subject, inasmuch as no objection can be
made against the passages we have quoted; but it may be well to add
a few facts, in answer to some other objections, showing their futility.
All the objections which can be urged with any plausibility, were
brought together in the [monthly] Christian Spectator, published at
New Haven, vol. V., No. 8; the chief of which we shall notice.
Objection 1. " The account of the martyrdom of Ignatius, which
has been defended as ancient and authentic, disagrees with the relation Eusebius has given of his progress to Rome." (P. 393.)




APPENDIX.


417


We have compared both carefully, and cannot find a single point of
disagreement or contradiction.
Objection 2. "If the larger epistles be claimed as genuine, their
Arianism militates against their genuineness; if the smaller, their opposition to that doctrine [which did not arise till the 4th century] equally
proves them supposititious." (P. 393.)
The expressions said to be directed against the Arians, are:(1.) "JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD." This occurs twice in the Epistle to
the Ephesians, and is found once in most of the other epistles. Salutation
to Eph.: "Jesus Christ our God;" c. 18: " Our God Jesus Christ."
Compare with this-Tit. ii. 10: " God our Saviour;" Tit. ii. 13: " Our
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ;" Tit. iii. 4: " God our Saviour."
If the occurrence of this expression twice in eighteen sections of Ignatius's Epistle to the Ephesians, proves that spurious, what shall be said
of St. Paul's Epistle to Titus, when the same expression occurs three
times in nine verses?
(2.) " BY THE BLOOD OF GOD." Ign. Ep. Eph. c. i.: " By the blood
of God." Acts xx. 28: " The Church of God, purchased by his own
blood."
(3.) " There is one physician, both carnal and spiritual, create and
uncreate, GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESI." Ign. Ep. Eph. c. 7: " God
manifest in the flesh." 1 Tim. iii. 16: " God manifest in the flesh."
These are all the passages cited, which are said to be directed against
Arianism, and all are scriptural!
Objection 3. " The word Bishop (Episkopos) was not used to distinguish the President, (Proestos,) or Messenger, (Angelos,) in their respective churches, from the other Presbyters, (Presbuteroi,) who were
equally Bishops until long after the death of Ignatius." (P. 394.) For an
answer to this objection, see pp. 147-152, 185, 199, 248-253, of this work.
Objection 4. " Many of the terms used in these epistles appear to
be of later adoption than the days of this venerable martyr." (P. 395.)
The terms cited and objected to, are:(1.) "The Church is called Catholic." See ante, p. 29, in reply.
(2.) "A place of worship is called a temple, vaov, having one altar,
eva0aor7plov." (P. 395.)
This occurs in the certain text of the Epistle to the Magnesians,
(c. 7:) " Wherefore come ye all together, as unto one temple (naon) of
GOD, as unto one altar (thusiasterion.)" It will probably be sufficient
to reply that this language is copied from the Bible. (Luke i. 22, 23.
Acts vii. 48; xvii. 24. Heb. xiii. 13, &c.)




418


APPENDIX.


(3.) "The Eucharist is called the flesh (eapze) of JESUS CHRIST,
which suffered for our sins; and also, the bread (dpros) of GOD."
(P. 395.)
This language is from the certain text of the Epistle to the Romans,
(c. 7:) "I delight not in the food of corruption, nor in the pleasures of
this life; I desire the bread of GOD, the heavenly bread, the bread of
life, which is the flesh of JESUs CHRIST, the Son of GOD." Like the
rest, too, the expressions cited by the objector, are both from the Bible.
" And he took bread, (artos,) saying, This is my body, (soma.)" (Mat.
xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24.)
(4.) " But the favorite and predominant expression appears to be'Be in subjection unto the Bishop,' to which is also added, ' as unto
the grace of God."' (P. 395.) See, in reply to this, pp. 207-210,
248-252, of this work.
Objection 5 is, in substance;-" It is denied in these epistles, that
JESUS CHRIST proceeded from Sige, (acny,) silence, one of the Eons of
the Valentinians, which heresy was first preached after the death of
Ignatius." This language occurs in the Epistle to the Magnesians,
(c. 8:) " There is one GOD, who hath manifested himself by JESUs
CHRIST his Son, who is his (eternal) Word, (not coming forth from silence, (Sige,)) who was in all thiijgs well pleasing to him that sent him."
The words in the parenthesis in this quotation, belong to the doubtful
text of Ignatius, and are, therefore, to be rejected. Consequently, the
objection falls to the ground. Should they be retained, however, it were
easy to show that the objection is groundless.
Objection 6. " The language is not such as we should expect from
the venerable martyr." (P. 394, 395.)
It is easy to make this assertion, but it would be hard to prove it.
To our minds it seems the most natural and proper language imagina.
ble. See, on this point, pp. 34, 239, 240, 248-252, of this work.
Those who wish to pursue the inquiry further, will find an article on
the subject by the writer, in New York Review, vol. I. pp. 367-383.
The scholar will also consult the Vindication of Bp. Pearson, printed
originally in a separate work, and reprinted in Le Clerc's Apostolic
Fathers.




EDITIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS CITED, OR
REFERRED TO, IN THIS VOLUME.
Adam's Rom. Antiq. 8vo. N. Y. 1833.
Ambrose. 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1575.
American Bib. Repository. (Period. N. Y.)
Anacharsis the Younger, Travels of. 5 vols. 24mo. Paris, 1822.
Ancient Universal Hist. 21 vols. 8vo. Lond., 1747-1754.
Apostolic Canons. See Le Clerc.
"    Constitution.  See Le Clerc.
Assemani Bibliotheca Orientalis. 4 vols. fol. Rome, 1719-1728.
(    History of Nestorian Patriarchs. 4to. Rome, 1745.
"    Collection of Liturgies. See Pusey.
"    Oriental Chronicle. See Byzantine Historians, XVII.
Athanasius. 2 vols. fol. Cologne, 1686.
Aucher's Armenian Dictionary. 2 vols. 8vo. Venice, 1821.
Augustin. 11 vols. fol. Paris, 1686.
Baptist Advocate. (Periodical, N. Y.)
Barnabas. See Le Clerc.
Barnes. See Episcopacy Tested by Scripture.
Bausobre's History of Manicheism. 2 vols. 4to. Amsterdam, 1734.
Baronius' Annals. 12 vols. fol. Antwerp, 1610-1629.
Basil. 3 vols. fol. Paris, 1618.
Bayle's Hist. and Crit. Dic. 5 vols. fol. Lond., 1734.
Bede, Ecc. Hist. fol. Canterbury, 1722.
" Trans. 8vo. Lond., 1840.
Beza's Life of Calvin. 12mo. Phil., 1836.
Bingham's Antiquities. 2 vols. fol. Lond., 1798.
Bloomfield on N. T. 2 vols. 8vo. Boston, 1837.
Bosworth's Anglo-Saxon Dic. 8vo. Lond., 1838.
Bowden's Letters to Dr. Miller. 2 vols. 12mo. N. Y. 1831.
Bowyer's Hist. of the Popes. 4 vols. 4to. Lond., 1748.
Brett on Liturgies. 8vo. Lond., 1720.
Burnett's Hist. Reformation. 6 vols. 24mo. Lond., 1825.
Buttman's Greek Gram. 8vo. Andover, 1833.
Byzantine Historians. 28 vols. fol. Venice, 1729-1733.
Calvin. See Potter.
Camden's Britannia. 3 vols. fol. Lond., 1789.
Canou of Wells. See Wharton.
Castell's Heptagloten Lexicon. 2 vols. fol. Lond., 1669.
Chronicle of Lichfield. See Wharton.
Chrysostom. 10 vols. fol. Paris, 1621.
Clement of Rome. See Le Clerc.
"    Trans. 12mo. N. Y. 1834.
Coke on Littleton. fol. Lond., 1789.
Coleman's Primitive Church. 12mo. Boston, 1844.
Congregational Catechism. 24mo. New Haven, 1844.
Crabbe's Hist. Eng. Common Law. 8vo. Burlington, 1831
Cristodulos. See Jarvis.
Cyprifan. fol. Bremen, 1698.
"    Trans. 2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1839, 1844.
Cyril of Jerusalem. fol. Oxford, 1703.




420


AUTHORS CITED, OR REFERRED TO.


Dunstan's Annals. See Saxon Chronicle.
Dupin's Hist. Ecc. Writers. 5 vols. fol. Lond., 1696.
Dutch Book of Common Prayer. 12mo. Amsterdam, 1838
"   Dictionary. 8vo. Amsterdam, 1741.
"       "       8vo.      "      1642.
Ecchellensis. See Byzantine Historians, XVII.
Elfric's Annals. See Saxon Chronicle.
"   Epistles. See Wilkins.
Encyclopedia Americana. 13 vols. 8vo. Phil., 1836.
Ephrem of Syria. 6 vols. fol. Rome, 1737-1746.
Episcopacy tested by Scripture. 12mo. N. Y. 1835.
Ethiopian Version. See Walton.
Eusebius' Ecc. Hist. 8vo. Phil., 1838.
"    Demonstration Evang. fol. (no date.)
Eutychius' Annals. See Jarvis.
Fabricius Codex. Apoc. N. T. 3 vols. 12mo. Hamburg, 1719.
Fontenelle's Hist. of Oracles. 8vo.
Forcellini Lat. Lex. 2 vols. 4to. Lond., 1828.
Gallia Christiana. 11 vols. fol.
Gases, Greek Lexicon. 3 vols. 4to. Venice, (no date.)
Gerard's Elem. Bib. Criticism. 8vo. Boston, 1823.
Gesenius, Thesaurus Heb. and Chal. 3 vols. 4to. Leipsic, 1729-1842.
Gibbon's Dec. and Fall. 4 vols. 8vo. N. Y. 1831.
Gieseler's Ecc. Hist. 3 vols. 8vo. Phil., 1836.
Gildas, Epistles and History. 8vo. Lond., 1841.
Girald of Cambria. See Ussher.
Golius, Arab. Lex. fol. Lyons, 1651.
Godwin's Lives of English Bishops. fol. Canterbury, 1743.
Graveson's Ecc. Hist. 9 vols. fol. Augsburgh, 1738.
Gregory Nazianzen. 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1630.
"    Nyssen. 3 vols. fol. Paris, 1638.
"    Thaumaturgus. fol. Paris, 1622.
Guthries' Hist. Eng. 3 vols. fol. Lond., 1744.
Hallam's Constitutional Hist. Eng. 3 vols. 8vo. Boston, 1829.
Hammond on N. T. fol. Lond., 1659.
Harduin's Councils. 12 vols. fol. Paris, 1715.
Hargrave. See Coke.
Harris' Ethiopia. 8vo. N. Y. 1844.
Hegesippus. See Eusebius.
Henry Huntingdon, Hist. Eng. fol. Lond., 1596.
Hermas. See Le Clerc.
Hesychius. 4to. Lyons, 1668.
Hilarion. See Gases.
Hilary. fol. Paris, 1693.
Home's Introduction 0. and N. Test. 2 vols. 8vo. Phil., 1835.
Hug's Introduction N. T. 8vo. Andover, 1836.
Ignatius. See Le Clerc.
Ingulph, Hist. Croyland. fol. Lond., 1596.
Irenaeus, Against Heresy. fol. Oxford, 1702.
Jahn's Bib. Archeology. 8vo. N. Y., 1832.
Jarvis, S. F., in Chron. Church, vol. 4. 4to., 1840
Jerome. 3 vols. fol. Paris, 1609.




AUTHORS CITED, OR REFERRED TO.


421


Joceline of Furness. See Ussher.
John of Tinnmouth. See Ussher.
Josephus. 2 vols. 4to. Boston, 1823.
Justin Martyr. fol. Lond., 1 722.
Kirschius' Syriac Lexicon. 12mo. Hofte, 1789.
Le Bas, Life of Wickliffe. 18mo. N. Y., 1832.
be Clerc, Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. fol. Antwerp, 1698.
bernprier's Classical Dictionary. Svo. N. Y.. 1832.
beti's Hist. Geneva. See Boyle.
Lingard's Hist. Aug. Sax. Church. 8vo. Phil., 1841.
it Hist. Eng. 8 vols. 8vo. Phil., 1827.
Livy. fol. Lyons, 1553.
Locke, On the Epistles. Svo. Cambridge, 1832.
Ludoif's Ethiopian bex. and Gram. 4to. Lond., 1661.
Maimbourg's Hist. Calvinism. Sec Boyle.
Mason's Vindication Church Eng. fol. bond., 1728.
Matthew Paris. fol. bond., 1640.
it  Win. Rishanger's Continuation. fol. Loud., 1640.
Michaelis' Edition of Castell's Syr. bex. 2 vols. 4to. Gottingen, 1788.
Mosheim's Ecc. History. 3 vols. 8vo. New Haveni, 1832.
Muratori, Annals of Italy. 12 vols. fol. Genoa, 1773-1778.
cc   Italian Writers. 31 vols. fol. Milan, 1723-1738.
Neander's History of Chr~itianity. 4 parts, 8vo. 1825-1828.
New Englander. (Periodical. New Haven.)
New York Review. (Periodical. N. Y.)
Nicephorns' Ecc. [list. 2 vols. fol. Langius, (no date.)
Nicholas' Annals. See Saxon. Chronicle.
O'Brien's Hiberno-Celtic Dictionary. Svo. Dublin, 1832.
Oniderdonk. See Episcopacy Tested by Scripture.
Oshern's Annals. See Saxoe Chronicle.
Oriental Chronicle. See Byzatitine h~istorians, XVII.
Origen. 2 vols. fol. Basle, 1571.
Owen's Welsh Dictionary. 2 vols. 4to. bond., 1793.
Palev's Horam. Paulin,-e. 8vo. Phil., 1831.
Palmer's Origines bitturgicre. 2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1836.
Pamnelius' Notes on rertullian. fol. Cologne, 1617.
Papius. See Eusebi us.
Patrick, bife of St. l2mo. Baltimore, (no date.)
Patriarchate of Britain. l2mno. bond., 1839.
Petheram's History Ang. Sax. Lit. 8vo. bond., 1840.
Peyron's Coptic Grammar. 8vo. Turin, 1841.
Phlegmund's Annals. See Saxon Chronicle.
Photius' Bibliotheca. fol. Geneva, 1612.
Pliny's Epistles. 2 vols. 8vo. bond., 1796.
Poole's Synopsis of thme Critics. 5 vols. fol. bond., 1669.
Polycarp. See Le Ci-'erc.
Polycrates. See Eusebias.
Pond, on the Church. 18mo. Boston, 1837.
Potter, on Church Government. 8vo. Phil., 1824.
Procopius. See Byzantine Hilstorians, II.
Pusey, on Holy Baptism. 8vo. N. Y., 1839.
Quarterly Christian Spectator. (Periodical. N. H.)  4
3(6i




422


AUTHORS CITED, OR REFERRED TO.


Ralph Baldwin. See Ussher.
Remnaldus' Annals. See Saxon Chronicle.
Renaudot, Hist. Pat. Alex. 4to. Paris, 1713.
Robinson's (J.) Grecian Antiquities. 8vo. Lond., 1827.
(E.) Greek Lexicon. 8vo. Boston, 1836.
4  Calmet's Bib. Die. Svo. Boston, 1833
Robertsoii's Hist. Scotland. 2 vols. 8vo.
Roger Hoveden. fol. Lond., 1596.
Roger Wendover. 4 vols. Svo. 1843.
Rymer's Fredera. 20 vols. fol. Lond., 1703-1735.
Saxon Chronicle. 4to. Oxford, 1692.
Schmidt, Church Hist. 6 vols. 8vo.
Schroder's Thesaurus Lingua Arrneniacm, 4to.
Scoto-Celtic Dic. 2 vols. 4to. Edinburgh, 1836
Selden. See Jarvis.
Septuagint. 8vo. Leipsic, 1824.
Severus of Ashmonia. See Jarvis.
Socrates, Ecc. Hist. 8vo. Loud., 1844.
Sozomnen, Eec. Hist. fol. Cambridge, 1683.
Spelman's English Councils. 2 vols. fol.
Spon, Hist. Geneva. See Boyle.
Statutes of the [Eng.] Realm. 8 vols. fol. Lond., 1810-1819.
Stigand's Annals. See Saxon Chronicle.
Stillingfleet. 6 vols. fol. Loud., 1710.
Storr and Flatt, Elemn. Bib. Theol. 2 vols. 8vo. Andover, 1826.
Strype's Annals. 3 vols. fol. Lond., 1720-1723.
it Elizabeth. fol. Lond., 1709.
cc   Life of Grindal. fol. Lond., 1710.
Suidas' Greek Lex. fol. Venice, 1514.
Suicer, Thesaurus Eccles. 2 vols. fol. Utrecht, 1746.
Syriac Version. See Walton.
Tertullian. fol. Paris, 1675.
Theodoret, Ecc. Hist. fol. Mayence, 1689.
Thornton. See Cyprian.
Tittman's Synonymes N. T. 18mo. Edinburg, 1838.
Tyschius' Syriac. Lex. 12mo. Rostock, 1793.
Utrecht, Hist. of Bishops. See Bosworth.
Ussher's Primordia. 4to. Dublin, 1639.
Valpey's Etymological Dic. Lat. Lang. 8vo. Loud., 1828.
Vander Kemp's Catechismus. 4to. Rotterdam, 1728.
Walsh's Lives of the Popes. 8vo. Lond., 1769.
Walter of Monmouth. See Ussher.
Walton's Polyglott. 5 vols. fol. Loud., 1657.
Wansleb. See Lutdolf.
Whately's Kingdom of Christ. L2mo. N. Y., 1842.
Wharton's Angli-Sacra. 2 vols. fol. 1691.
Wickliffe, Life of. See Le Bas.
Wilkin's English Councils. 2 vols. fol.
William of Malnisbury. fol. Lond., 1596.
William Rishanger. See Matthew Paris.
Wulstan's Annals. See Saxon Chronicle.
Zahn's Momso-Gothic Gram., Lex., and N. T. 4to. Weisenfels, 1805




GENERAL INDEX
AFRICAN Liturgy, 121.
Agios, agiazo, meaning of, 70.
Aidan, a bishop, 366.
Alexandria, bishops of, 199, 281.
Caius and Jerome, upon, 195.
ordinations at, 201.
Alfric Puttoc, Archbishop of York, 392.
Andrew, first Bishop of Scythia, 217.
Amad, (Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic,) meaning of, 53.
American bishops, 346.
Anabaino, meaning of, 52.
Angels of the churches, 175, 214.
Annianus, Bishop of Alexandria, 217.
Antioch, bishops of, 281.
Apostles, authority of, 174.
confirmation by, 202.
discipline of the members, 210.
governors of the Church, 208
ordination by, 172, 187.
Jerome on, 194.
presidents of councils, 211.
bishops consecrated by, 185.
did not go to the same countries, 227.
married, 277.
meaning of word, 175.
name, to whom applied, 174, 175, 185.
one in each church, 212.
Crete, 212.
Colosse, 216.
Ephesus, 213, 219.
Jerusalem, 212.
Philippi, 214, 223.
seven churches of Asia, 214.
powers of, 172.
Apostolic Church, who composed it, 36.
perpetuity of, 232.
commission, 169.
characteristics of, 180.
construction of, 169.
powers renewed by, 171.
form of prayer, 132.




424


GENERAL INDEX.


Apostolic succession, 283.
alleged breaks in, 365.
how traced in United States, 284, 327, 345.
in Church of England, 328.
from Ephesus, 289.
from Jerusalem, 329
from Rome, 328.
test of orthodoxy, 186.
Archbishoprics in Britain, 331.
Aristobulus in Britain, 374.
Aries, bishops of, 292.
Armagh, archbishops of, 354.
Augustine in England, 289, 296, 371, 380.
Baisdim, (Celtic,) meaning of, 85.
Baist, (Celtic,) meaning of, 86.
Bancroft's sermon on Episc. jure divino, 407.
Baptism, Abyssinian, 80.
Anglo-Saxon, 88.
Armenian, 80, 88.
a seal, 131.
Barnabas on, 53-55.
Britano-Celtic, 85.
"buried in," 46-51.
Cyprian on, 50.
Syriac on, 48.
Chaldean, 81.
Clement of Alexandria on, 62, 63.
coming to CIRIST in, 67.
Coptic, or Egyptian, 80, 86.
Dutch, 89.
descending into the water, 51.
Ethiopian, 87.
Gothic, 87.
Greek, 81.
Hermas on, 55-58.
Hiberno-Celtic, 85.
immersion, first distinct trace of, 60.
indelible character of, 63.
Irenaeus on, 75.
Justin Martyr on, 58-62.
primitive usage, 53-65.
received standing, 53.
regeneration, 59. 75, 130.
renunciation of, 97.
requisites of, 90.
sanctification by, 69, 77.
of water, 130.
'Scripture account of, 41-46.
sponsors in, 97.
sprinkling, 55, 57, 61, 64.




GENERAL INDEX.


425


Baptism, subjects of, 65.
Council of Carthage on, 77.
Cyprian on, 77.
Hermas on, 72.
Irenetus on, 75.
Justin Martyr on, 74.
Scripture account of, 65-72.
Tertullian on, 76.
Syriac, 48, 53, 80.
Baptizo, meaning of, 38, 42.
Beecher on, 50.
Clement of Alexandria on, 62.
Gases, 38.
Hilarion, 38.
Hesychius, 37.
Schneider, 40.
Scripture account of, 41-46.
Suidas, 37.
Bapto, meaning of, 38.
Barlow's consecration, 313.
Barnabas, his time, 53.
Basil's Liturgy, 109.
Bede, sources of his history, 294.
Bedyzian, (Welsh,) meaning of, 85.
Bishops of Alexandria, 199, 281.
American Church, 345.
Antioch, 281.
Aries, 292.
confirmation by, 202.
consecration of, 276, 280.
Barlow, 313, 314
by one Bishop, 284.
in time of Mary uncanonical, 313, 314.
consecrators of, 277.
in England, 296.
customs relating to, 260.
discipline by, 210.
election of, 156, 200.
of Ephesus, 281.
equality of, 195, 257.
essential to the being of a Church, 179.
governors of the Churches, 208, 241.
independence of, 256.
in the first century, 217.
Jerome on, 194.
Jerusalem, 281.
Lyons, 292.
list of, in four patriarchates, 281.
married, 277.
ministers of the Church Catholic, 259.
one in a Church, 219, 254.
36*




426


GENERAL INDEX.


Bishops, ordination by, 172, 187.
presidents ot councils, 258.
Scottish, 340, 365.
succeed by ordination, 243.
successions of; 275.
in England, from Ephesus, 291.
Jerusalem, 281.
Rome, 356.
note of the Church, 243.
successors of the Apostles, 241.
qualifications of, 260.
Britain, Christianity in, 374.
Bishoprics of, 331, 373.
first cathedral in, 377.
persecutions inl, 377.
British Bishops at Council of Aries, 378.
clergy go into Wales, 380.
consecrations of, valid, 369.
Liturgy, 124.
Bucer, episcopally ordained, 410.
Calvin, not in orders, 408.
Canons, assented to by the laity, 138.
Canterbury, archbishops of, 296.
Caerleon, See of, 377.
Catholic, use of the word, 26.
Celibacy, 274.
Cheirtoneo, meaning of, 155.
Church, character twofold, 29, 239.
Christian, succeeded the Jewish, 79.
difflrence between, 32.
compared to the body, 27.
duty of its members, assembling for worship, 99.
participating in, 101.
assenting to canons, 138.
contributions by, for poor, 133.
supporting the gospel, 133.
sending the gospel, 133.
liturgies used in worship, 101.
mutual aid of the brethren, 134.
obedience to rulers, 136.
testimonials from, for candidates for ordiof England independent of Rome, 369. [nation, 138, 141, 153.
in time of Augustine, 371, 380
foundation of, what, 220.
Gallican, source of its episcopate and rites, 290.
head of, 35.
historical characteristics of, 245.
militant type of triumphant, 31, 34.
nature of, 25.
officers of-deacons, 140.




GENERAL INDEX.


427


Church, officers of-presbyter-bishops, 147.
apostolic bishops, 167.
origin of the word, 117.
Saxon, how reduced to Roman bondage, 383.
unity of, 25.
Clement of Alexandria, on the Church, 34.
Clerical vestments, 271.
Christmas, keeping of, 266.
Chrysoston's Liturgy, 111.
Coming to CHRIST in baptism, 68.
Community of goods, none at Jerusalem, 143.
Conference between British bishops and Augustine, 371.
Confirmation, 202.
Creeds, names of, 90.
Alexandria, 96
Antioch, 96.
Cyprian, 93.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 93.
Irenceus, 91.
Jerusalem, 95.
Lucian the Martyr, 94.
Origen, 92.
Tertullian, 92.
Damas, Bishop of Magnesia, 179.
Daup, (Mceso-Gothic,) meaning of, 87.
Deacons, officers of the Church, 140.
ministers of, 140.
qualifications of, 141.
ordination of, 142.
powers and duties of, 143.
to take care of the alms, 143.
to preach, 145.
to baptize, 146.
to assist in the Eucharist, 146.
to obey rulers, 147.
Dia, force of, 190.
Dinoth's answer to Augustine, 372.
Dionysius, Bishop of Athens, 186.
Dip, meaning of, 39.
Divine appointment, meaning of, 237.
Dokinmasia, meaning of, 159.
)unstan's Annals, 294.
Easter, observance of, 264.
Ecclesiastical terms in tht; Gothic languages, 118.
copied from the Greek, 253.
Egyptian Calendar, 115.
Elfric's Annals, 294.
England, conversion to Christianity, 337.
English bishops, by whom consecrated, 295.




428


GENERAL INDEX.


English Church, not subject to the Pope, 369.
Episcopacy under Cromwell, 319.
Reformation, act of synod, and approved by people, 394.
canonical, 393.
how conducted, 400.
Reformers on episcopacy, 405.
on the ministry, 404.
on superiority of bishops, 405.
Epaphroditus, Bishop of Philippi, 175.
Ephesians, Epistle to, an encyclical letter, 222.
Episcopal government and apostolical succession, 283.
Epiphany, observance of, 269.
Epistolary writing, nature of, 20.
Ethiopian Calendar, 115.
Eucharist, words of consecration in Liturgy of St. James, 163.
St. Mark, 164.
St. Peter, 165.
Ethiopian, 165.
administered weekly, 99.
Eusebius, materials of his history, 280.
Evidence, nature of, 15, 18.
rules of, 18, 22.
Fagius in England, 409.
Fathers, relevancy of their testimony, 13.
means of knowledge, 23, 76.
name, to whom applied, 149.
Fasts, weekly, 263.
annual, 264.
Festivals, Christmas, 264.
Easter, 266.
Epiphany, 269.
Whitsunday, 260.
Finnan, a bishop, 366.
Fullian, (Anglo-Saxon,) meaning of, 88.
Galatians, this Epistle directed to two churches, 222.
Gallican Liturgy, 116, 290.
Gases, Anthimas, account of, 78.
Gilbert Foliat, Bishop of London, 392.
Greek terms copied in Latin Church literature, 253.
Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury, censured, 408.
Henry Huntington's History, 295.
Heresy caused by ambition, 249.
Hilarion, a Greek Archimandrite, 36.
Historical characteristics of the Church, 240.
from A. D. 35-63, 241.
from A. D. 63-100, 246.
from A. D. 100-150, 248.
from A. D. 150-200, 252




GENERAL INDEX.


429


Ignatius, on the Church, 34.
genuineness of his Epistles. See Appendix.
Immerse, meaning of, 39.
Independence of British churches, 370.
Ingulph's History of Croyland, 295.
Institution of a Christian Man, 402.
Instrumental case, 44, 48.
Ireland, Christianity in, 253, 378.
Irish Liturgy, 124.
James, Bishop of Jerusalem, 188, 212, 217.
Liturgy of, 100.
Jerusalem, Bishops of, 333.
mother of the Churches, 212.
Jin-onm, (Coptic,) meaning of, 87.
John A Lasco in England, 410.
John, St., at Ephesus, 188.
Liturgy of, 115.
Justin Martyr, peculiarities of his Greek, 60.
Katabaino, meaning of, 52.
Knox, episcopally ordained, 409.
Kom, (Syriac,) meaning of, 156.
Laodiceans, epistle to, 222.
Laymen elected Bishops, 200.
name when first employed, 253.
customs relating to in the second century, 262.
Latin ecclesiastical terms from the Greek, 283.
Lingard, Dr. John, on consecration of Parker. See Appendix
Liturgy, ante-communion service, 185.
African, 121.
Alexandrine, 112, 127.
American, 129.
Baptismal, agreement of, 129.
British, 124, 371.
Cesarean, 109.
Chrysostom's, 111.
colmmunion service, 185.
Constantinopolitan, 111.
correspondence of the ancient, 126.
Ephesian, 115.
Gallican, 116, 290.
Irish, 124.
Jerusalem, 106, 127.
Milanese, 125.
order of the parts, 127.
Romish, 119, 128.
Spanish, 123.
Llandaff, Bishops of, 334.
Diocese of, 331.




430


GENERAL INDEX.


Locke on the Epistles, 20.
London, Archbishops of, 330.
Lucius, a British king, 376.
Lyons, Bishops of, 292.
Mark, St., Bishop of Alexandria, 185.
Liturgy of, 112.
Martureo, meaning of, 142.
Matthew Paris, History of, 295.
Mekertiel, (Armenian,) meaning of, 88.
Meta, meaning of, 190.
Metropolitan Bishops, 258.
Ministry in three orders, 168.
names of in first century, 246.
no other mode of accounting for its uniformity, 240.
no other should be recognised, 243.
of divine appointment, 237.
Missionary contributions in the Primitive Church, 133.
Monks, how introduced into England, 385.
how governed, 385.
Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, 404.
Nicholas' Annals, 291.
Ochinus episcopally ordained, 409.
Oms, (Coptic,) meaning of, 86.
Onesimus, Bishop of Ephesus, 179.
Onoma, meaning of, 242.
Ordination of St. Paul?, 192.
Ordinations, records of, 198.
Organization, no platform of in N. T., 15.
Parker's consecration canonical, 313.
defended by Dr. Lingard. See Appendix.
Paul, St., in Enlgland, 375
Peter, St., Liturgy of, 119.
Peter Martyr, episcopally ordained, 410.
Phlegmund's Annals, 294.
Pole, Cardinal, his succession, 311.
Polybius, Bishop of Tralles, 179.
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, 185.
had oversight of Philippi, 223.
Pope, power of, in England, 382.
denied by British Bishops, 372, 383.
enlarged by William I., 388.
John, 388.
restricted by Henry I., 386.
Henry II., 387.
Edward I., 388.
Edward II. and III., 389
Richard II., 390.




GENERAL INDEX.


Pope, power of, restricted by Henry IV., 391.
Henry VIII., 391.
Pope, land granted to, in England, for the monks, 384.
no authority in the Church of England, 369.
Prayer, stated hours of, 270.
Presbyter-bishop, 147, 226.
use of words in Scripture, 147.
in the fathers, 148, 226.
qualifications of, 152.
election of, 155.
ordination of, 160.
powers and duties of, 161.
to preach, 161.
to rule in the Church, 162.
to administer the sacraments, 162.
to watch over the members, 166.
to sit in councils, 166.
to obey rulers, 167.
customs relating to, 262.
Presbyterians in the Church of England, 407.
Presbytery, meaning of, 192.
Primates, 258.
Rahats, (Hebrew,) meaning of, 41.
Reformation in England canonical, 393.
Bishops deprived at, 394.
the act of synod and parliament, 393.
Remaldus' Annals, 295.
Renascor, meaning of, 75.
Responsive worship, 101.
Robert Grostete, Bishop of Lincoln, 393.
Roger Hovedon's Annals, 295.
Romanists il England, separatists and dissenters, 3'Ji.
Rome, Bishops of, 356.
Rule of Faith, creeds so called, 90.
Sacrament, Gothic words for, 117.
Saints, children so called, 72.
days, 269.
Saint David's, diocese of, 330.
Bishops of, 334.
Salak, (Syriac,) meaning of, 53.
Scotland, Bishops of, 340, 365, 378.
Scripture, how interpreted, 23.
Spanish Liturgy, 122.
Stigand's Annals, 294.
Sunday, observance of, 99.
Sursurn corda, 105.
Synods of the Primitive Church, 280.
Bishops consecrated at, 280.
Syriac, to baptize, (amad,) 84, 204.




432


GENERAL INDEX.


Syriac, to confirm, (kom,) 204.
to ordain, (kom,) 204.
Tabal, (Hebrew,) meaning of, 29.
Tamaa, Tamaka, (Ethiopian,) meaning of, 87.
Tertullian, the first Latin father, 63.
Thalo, (Syriac,) meaning of, 74.
Testimonials to candidates for orders, 142, 154, 157.
Thomas, Bishop of Parthia, 217.
Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, 173, 185, 202.
ordination of, 188.
Tingo, Tertullian's use of, 63.
Titus, Bishop of Crete, 173, 185, 189, 212.
Transubstantiation denied by Saxon clergy, 392.
Travers displaced for defect of orders, 409.
Tremellius episcopally ordained, 409.
Trisagion, 105.
Unity of the Episcopate, 30.
Universality of Episcopacy, 241.
Vestments of the Primitive Church, 271.
Welsh Triads, 373.
Whitsunday, observance of, 265.
Whittingham's orders defective, 409.
Wilfrid of York, 381.
appealed to Rome, 383.
deposed by Theodore, 383.
William Rishanger's History, 295.
York, arch-diocese of, 318, 377
archbishops of 338.




I
I
I
I




I
a,
K




y2.
~7


X-  7 —'  5/,.z  7








MNUHM rAI IR  unrlULIUAI C U LIDnl
ICZ1 V648.C43
A view of the orgnizution and order of
Chapin A


BV
64a
C453   hain, A. B.
A view of the organization
and order of the primitive
church


29767


Library