'-^•- T^';U;.•^7•" m mfiM BERKELEY LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Kara X'^P^^ *'*'' '''** "ToKeis KTipvccrovres Ka6luravov ras airapxcks ovtwv, SoKifidaavTas t^ irvevfxari, els l-rciffKoirovs KoiX SiaKdvovs rcSu ficWSvrwy viffreveiv. — Clement of Eome, 1. 3. * Licet nullum ex apostolis vel apostolicis auctorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, quae denique quotidie instituuntur ; tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minus apostolicse deputantur pro consanguinitate doc- trinse.' — Tebtuxlian, 8. 8. ' Christus dicit ad apostolos, ac per hoc ad omnes prsepositos, qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt: "Qui audit tos, me audit, etqui me audit, audit eum qui me misit,'" &c. — CrPKiAN, 11, 31. ' Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesise consuetudine ei qui sibi prsepositus fuerit essesubjectos : ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicse veritate, presbyteris esse majores, et commune debere ecclesiam regere.' — Jeeome, 29. 78. Aia\ey6ix€vos irepl iiricrKSnwu, Koi xopctK^Typfrras avToiis, KoL elirwu riva yiiv ex^"', rivav Se aTr4xf(r6ai xph, xai rh twv irpfcrfivTcpuv rdy/JLa af^ PREFACE. The writeu has always taken an interest in what relates to the maintenance and defence of Protestant and Evangelical religion, but did not, until two years ago, contemplate the authorship of such a volume as this. But that which a person may not at first design to do, he may, by a variety of circumstances, be induced to undertake. In these days of change and innovation in the Church, zealous partisans have made the best use they could of the daily press to promote ritualism and priestly power. It was in connection with an effort of this kind that the author contributed a series of letters in a local periodical; and a suggestion was made by the late Kev. Thomas Best and other clergymen that the general contents of those letters should be published in a more permanent form. The author readily attended to the suggestion, but in the first instance contemplated only a pamphlet or small volume. Finding, as he pursued the investigation of the Fathers with this object in view, how unsatisfactory it would be to give only a fraction of their testimony, he determined to include all the writers of the first six centuries, and quote them as fully as he might be able. Had he foreseen the labour and time required for the task, he 914 vi PEEFACE. would not have undertaken it; and now, wishing to be at liberty for equal, if not more important duties, he sends forth his volume, relying more upon the facts and evidence it contains than upon the mode or style in which they are stated. Since the author began his work, Eitualism has been rapidly developed, and some persons might perhaps ask, why has not a more direct attack been made upon that folly ? The answer is, the author has struck at the root of the tree, and not attempted to pluck oflf its leaves. Eitualism is the natural and legitimate fruit of this Anglican doctrine on the Christian ministry, and Dr. Pusey and others have publicly recognised it as such. If the Church of England is to make a trio with the Romish and Greek Churches then the sooner she adopts the antics, attitudes, apparel, and apostacy, of the Churches of Rome and of Greece the better. But surely the Protestant and Evangelical Church of England has not yet come to this ! and it is devoutly to be wished that she never may. As a humble effort to avert so dreadful a catastrophe, the author commends the following work to all Bible Christians, and prays that the blessing of the Triune Jehovah may rest upon it. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Page 1-16 CHAPTER I. The teaching of certain Anglicans on apostolical succession, viewed in the light of Scripture, and shown on their own admission not to be revealed therein, or only- very obscurely so ; and also the interpretation of certain texts by Dr. Words- worth and others proved to be inadmissible, contrary to all antiquity, and in direct violation of their own canons of interpretation .... 17-38 CHAPTER II. The apostolic office shown not to have been transmissible ; that no church rulers were called apostles in the same sense that the twelve were ; that Epaphroditus was not the bishop of the bishops at Philippi, but a messenger of the Church there ; that although many were called apostles in early times, yet they were not regarded as successors to the twelve ; the statements of Hilary the Deacon and Theodoret considered and answered, viz. that bishops at first were called apostles ; the teaching of the Fathers generally concerning other apostles than the twelve ; that the authority of the twelve apostles is handed down in their writings rather than by any class of men coming after them 39-59 CHAPTER III. The analogy, or supposed analogy, between the orders of the Jewish priesthood and the orders of the Christian ministry, as taught by some of the Fathers, forms no real foundation for certain Anglican teaching on the three orders of the Christian ministry. Also the doctrine of the Christian priesthood, as held by the Fathers , . 60-75 CHAPTER IV. The Anglican teaching on the subject of this book stated, as given by Dr. Words- worth and Mr. Perceval, and the principal evidence they have adduced from various Fathers given. An examination of the leading Fathers of the first six iii . CONTENTS. centuries in relation to their testimony on the Church, and especially on its ministry, in the order in which they stand in the first part of the Catena Patrum, together with the evidence adduced from them by the above-named authors and Dr. Pusey and others, 76-274. Clement of Eome, 80-82 ; Hermas, 82 ; Ignatius, 82-89; Polycarp, 89-90; Justin Martyr, 90-91; Irenseus, 91-98; Theophilus, 98; Tertullian, 98-104; Clement of Alexandria, 104-106; Origen, 106-108; Cyprian, 108-177; Firmilian, 177-184; Clarus, 184-187; Novatian, 187; Lactantius, 187-188; Eusebius, 188-190; Athanasius, 190-199; Cyril of Jeru- salem, 199 ; Hilary the Bishop, 199-200 ; Eusebius of Emessa, 200 ; Epiphanius, 200-205; Optatus, 205; Basil, 205; Dionisius, 206; Gregory Nazianzen, 206-211; Victorinus, 211; Pacian, 211-213; Macarius, 213; Jerome, 213-235; Ambrose, 235-237 ; Hilary the Deacon, 238-239 ; Euffinus, 239-240 ; Augus- tine, 240-257; Clirysostom, 257-269; Victor, 269; Gaudentius, 269-270; Cj-ril of Alexandria, 270; Socrates, 270; Theodoret, 270; Vincent, Seduhus, Sozomen, and Eucherius, 270-271; Leo I., 271-272; Arnobius, Eemigius, Andreas, Paschasius, Fulgentius, Arethas, Primacius, and Evagrius, 272 ; Grildas, 272; Gregory the Great, 273 ; Bede, 274; Amalarius and Eutichius, 274. CHAPTER V. A just exposure of Dean Hook's attempt to prove that the^bidding prayer of the 55th Canon has no relation to the Church of Scotland . * , . . 275-299 CHAPTER VI. The Ordinal, and especially the first one, considered in itself, and in its relation to the teaching of the Reformers before they drew it up, and the teaching of our Church authorities afterwards, during the remainder of the sixteenth century, shown to be most inimical to the teaching of these Anglicans on clerical orders, and for the most part admitted to be so by Dean Hook and other Tractarians . 300-337 CHAPTER VII. A practical illustration of the theory of this Anglican teaching in regard to the Church and its ministry, in the claims asserted for the same by the Bishop of Oxford 338-351 CHAPTER Vni. An especial examination and detection of certain links of the Tractarian Catena Patrum on apostolical succession 352-362 CHAPTER IX. The objects contemplated by the Church of England in its believing the Catholic Church stated and considered, in contrast to those objects to which the faith of these Anglicans is directed in their belief in a Catholic Church . 363-384 CHAPTER X. A brief statement of the prevailing kind of Church government exercised in the apostolic age and in the primitive Church, considered in its adaptation to the present time 385-395 CONTENTS, CATENA PATRUM. PART I. Containing extracts from fifty-four Fathers of the first six centuries, and three of a more recent date, concerning the Church and its ministry, and other collateral matters, 397-601. Clement of Kome, 399-401; Hermas, 401-402; Ignatius, 402-410; Polycarp, 410; Justin Martyr, 410-412 ; Irenseus, 412-416; Theo- philus, 416; Tertullian, 416-423; Clement of Alexandria, 423-425; Origen, 425-428; Cyprian, 428-444; Firmilian, 444-445; Council of Carthage and Clarus, 445; Novatian, 445-446; Lactan tins, 446-447 ; Eusebius of Csesarea, 447-449; Athanasius, 449-452; Cyril of Jerusalem, 452-453; Hilary the Bishop, 453-457 ; Eusebius of Emessa, 457-458; Epiphanius, 458-460 ; Optatus, 460; Basil, 461-462; Dionisius, 462-463; Gregory Nazianzen, 463-468; Victorinus, 469 ; Pacian, 469-470 ; Macarius, 470 ; Jerome, 470-489 ; Ambrose, 490-496 ; Hilary the Deacon, 496-500 ; Ruffinus, 500-504 ; Augustine, 505-529 ; Chiysostom, 529-548 ; Victor, 549 ; Gaudentius, 549-550 ; Cyril of Alexandria, 550-556; Socrates, 556-559 ; Theodoret, 559-566; Vincent, 566-567 ; Sedulius, 567-569 ; Sozomen, 569-571 ; Eucherius, 572 ; Leo I. 572-575 ; Arnobius, 575 ; Remigius, 575-578; Andreas, 578-580; Paschasius, 580; Fulgentius, 581; Arethas, 581; Primacius, 582-584; Evagrius, 584; Gildas, 584-585; Gregory the Great, 685-594; Bade, 594-597; Araalarius, 597-601 ; Eutichius, 601. PART II. Containing extracts respecting the Church and the clerical office, from twenty-five authorities of the Church of England, including her martyrs and all her leading authors of the latter half of the sixteenth century, 603-666. Tyndale, 605-608 Cranmer and others, 608-612; Lambert, 612-614; Cranmer, 614-616; Eidley 617-619 ; Latimer, 619 ; Bradford, 620-621 ; Hooper, 621-623 ; Philpot, 623-624 Sandys, 624 ; Becon, 625-626 ; Pilkington, 626-628 ; Bale, 628-629 ; Calf hill 629 ; Nowell, 629-630; Jewel, 631-638 ; Whitgift, 638-643 ; Fulke, 643-646 Anti-Popish Prayers, 646-648; Homily, 648-651 ; Whitaker, 651-657 ; Grindal, 657-658 ; Bancroft, 658-665 ; Raynolds, 665-666. PART III. Extracts relating to the episcopal office, non-episcopal churches, and kindred topic.*, from twelve authors of the Church of England subsequent to the sixteenth ceniury, who have been placed in the Catena Patrum on apostolical succession in the Tracts for the Times, and from Rogers and Field, two important authors belonging to the close of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, 667-707. Rogers, 669-680; Hooker, 680-683; Field, 683-687; Hall, 687-688: Bramhall, 688; Mason, 688-690; Pearson, 691; Laud, 691-693 ; Stillingfleet, 693-697; Bingham, 697-705; Sharp, 705-706; Wake, 706; Horsley, 706-707 ; Bilson, 707. INDEX Of matters discussed 709-728 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? INTRODUCTION. The doctrine held by certain Anglicans, that an uninterrupted stream of grace has come down to the English Church from* Christ through the Apostles, exclusively by the episcopal office, and that without such grace, so communicated, there cannot be a valid church and valid sacraments, is either a dangerous delu- sion, or, to use the words of a recent writer, ' is one of the most fundamental of all church principles.' It is a doctrine to which no well-instructed Christian can be indifferent. Were it an in- nocent fiction, the case would be materially altered ; for although we might pity the man who believed so much on such insuffi- cient evidence, yet if his general faith were not affected by it, such a harmless speculation might be tolerated. But a hearty belief in this doctrine constitutes the difference between an evangelical protestant and a superstitious papist; between one who adheres to the Canonical Scriptures simply and one whose faith has several objects to which it must be directed, and all considered to be of equal importance; or, to use the language of the Bishop of Oxford, ^ a hearty belief alike in the sacraments of the Church, her creeds, her orders, and her bible.'* * Charge, 1863, p. 61. B 6 2 WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS? Some parts of Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon amply confirm and illus- trate the practical importance of this point. Thus, he says : — * Christ useth the outward ministry of men, appointed in succession.' .... * Such an organization as essential to the transmission of grace from Christ our Head.' . . . . ' Through which (ministers) spiritual nourishment is ministered to the growth of the whole.' — p. 55. Again he says : — * The doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice depends upon the doctrine of the real objective presence. Where there is the apostolical succession and a consecration in our Lord's words, there, it is held by Roman authorities too, is the Eucharistic sacrifice.' — p. 25. * Those before us have pointed out how the Church of England taught, not an " undefined," but ^' a Real Objective Presence of Christ's Blessed Body and Blood." ' .... * The Church of England believes that the Body or Flesh, and the Blood of Jesus Christ, the Creator and Redeemer of the world, both God and man, united indivisibly in one Person, are verily and indeed given to, taken, eaten, and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper, under the outward sign or form of Bread and Wine.' — p. 23. The doctrine of Transubstantiation, interpreted in a Greek sense, by a distinction without a difference. Dr. Pusey says — * No English churchman who believes the Real Presence as his Chtuch teaches, could hesitate to accept.' — p. 25. Having manufactured a god, he and his friends, naturally enough, have assigned to him a throne to which they bow : — * In the traditional custom of bowing to the altar (when the Holy Sacrament is not there), we mean only reverence to it, as having been " the Throne of God." '—p. 206. When this doctrine of priestly power and its necessary ad- juncts were prominently introduced about a quarter of a cen- tury ago, they received attention by the proper authorities, met with a fitting answer, and some of their leading authors were proscribed. Dr. Pusey himself for a time was suspended. Dr. Newman received such a severe rebuff for the authorship of Tract 90, that, according to his own account, it led to his joining the Roman communion. Archdeacon Wilberforce, INTRODUCTION. 3 brother, in more senses than one, of the present Bishop of Oxford, when about to be called to account for his heretical book on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, openly adopted the Eomish faith. But, notwithstanding these discouragements, this alien doctrine extended throughout the land. The present generation are under the hallucination that Tractarians and their doings are matters of the past; that the men who are the offspring of the heresy are sounder churchmen than others ; and these so-called sound churchmen are not wanting in audacity to assume the title. But it is notorious to every one who will in- vestigate the case, that the successors of the Tractarians approx- imate much nearer to the faith and practices of Rome than their predecessors did. It may be asked — If Tractarians are now more extreme in their Romanizing views than formerly, how is it that so few now go to Rome ? The answer is that they can do the work of Rome more respectably, and with better pay, where they are. This was not allowed when Tract 90 was published. In a little book bearing the misleading title, Defence of Church Principles, containing Tractarian lectures delivered by different clergymen at Ipswich and Norwich, the Rev. R. F. Littledale, LL.D., says : — * Many of the men who went over to Rome some time ago because they thought the EngHsh Church was breaking up, are coming back by twos and threes and fours. Thirty years ago the men who went over to Rome never came back. They come back now because they see real work and healthy religion going on.' — Church Principles tested by their Results^ p. 22. In another lecture he says :— * They go (over to Rome) to get something which they cannot get, do not get, or, what often comes to the same thing, think they cannot get, in the English Church. When once they have got this notion fairly into their heads, all the no-Popery tracts and lectures in England will not keep them back. The real cure is to give them here what they are going to look for ; and if they get all they want with us, yoti may be very sure few of them will take the trouble to go farther. NoWj this is what the b2 4 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Tractarians, as they are called, are trying to do, and it is for this that they are so heartily abused every day of their lives by persons who do not understand what they want.' — Secessions to Rome, p. 4. These extracts require neither note nor comment. The condemnation of Tract 90 by all the bishops of our Church was a severe blow to the Tractarians, and in conse- quence many joined the Eomish Church. Dr. Pusey foresaw this. In his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury he said : — * If this goes on, my lord, where is it to end ? If our own bishops, and others encouraged hy them, say to us — sore as it is to repeat, they are their own words — " Get thee hence, Satan ; " while those of the Roman Communion pray for us, and invite us, is it not sorely adding to the temptations, I say not of ourselves, but of younger men ? ' — p. 86. What is so marvellous in these Tractarians is, that while on the one hand they exalt the office of the bishop, and give him the place of an apostle in power and authority, yet when it suits their convenience they can set aside, not merely one bishop, but all their bishops. Even the Bishop of Exeter said : — * The tone of the tract (90), as it respects our Church, is offensive and indecent ; as it regards the Reformation and our Reformers, absurd, as well as incongruous and imjust. Its principles of interpreting our Ar- ticles I cannot but deem most unsound ; the reasoning with which it supports its principles, sophistical ; the averments on which it foimds its reasoning, at variance with recorded facts.' — Charge, 1842. But in defiance of all the bishops. Dr. Pusey, Dean Hook, Mr. Keble, and Mr. Perceval, stood by the condemned tract. Dr. Pusey stands by it now. In his Eirenicon he says : — * Our dear friend's tract (Dr, Newman's tract 90) has done good and lasting service, by breaking off a mass of unauthorised traditional glosses, which had encrusted over the Thirty-nine Articles/ — ^p. 30. And he and Mr. Keble have republished it. Again he says : — * The trumpet had sounded (Tracts for the Times), steady, clear, cer- tain ; and a very great army had gathered at the call. We do not need the trumpet when God's willing people are gathered. What has had to be done since has been to build on. The building arises " without axe INTRODUCTION. 5 or hammer." Never, I am satisfied, was the work of God among us so wide and so deep as now. Far deeper and wider is it than in those glad, prosperous days, because the leaven which was hidden in the meal has worked secretly, and has now more centres, from which it is everywhere working.'— pp. 282, 283. This is the place to give Dr. Newman's own statement re- specting the Tract 90 : — * If conversions to Rome,' he says soon after Tract 90 was published, ' take place in consequence of the Tracts for the Times, I do not impute blame to them, but to those who, instead of acknowledging such Anglican principles of theology and ecclesiastical polity as they contain, set them- selves to oppose them. Whatever be the influence of the Tracts, great or small, they may become just as powerful for Rome, if our Church re- fuses them, as they would be for our Church if she accepted them. If our rulers speak either against the Tracts or not at all, if any number of them, not only do not favour, but even do not suffer the principles contained in them, it is plain that our members may easily be persuaded either to give up those principles, or give up the Church. If this state of things go on, I mournfully prophesy, not one or two, but many se- cessions to the Church of Rome.' ' Two years afterwards, looking back on what had passed, I said, " There were no converts to Rome till after the condemnation of No. ^O.^'—Apolpro Vita Sua, p. 245. Keferring to his resignation in consequence of the condem- nation of his Tract 90, he says : — " I found no fault with the liberals ; they had beaten me in a fair field. As to the act of the Bishops, I thought, as Walter Scott has applied the text, that they had " seethed the kid in his mother's milk." '—p. 342. And, again, referring to the same thing, he says : — ' I saw indeed clearly that my place in the movement was lost ; public confidence was at an end ; my occupation was gone. It was simply an im- possibility that I could say anything henceforth to good effect, when I had been posted up by the marshal on the buttery hatch of every college of my university, after the manner of discommoned pastry-cooks, and when in every part of the country and every class of society, through every organ and occasion of opinion, in newspapers, in periodicals, at meetings, in pulpits, at dinner-tables, in coffee-rooms, in railway carriages, 6 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? I was denounced as a traitor who had laid his train and was detected in the very act of firing it against the time-honoured Establishment. There were indeed men, besides my own friends, men of name and position, who gallantly took my part — as Dr. Hook, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Perceval : it must have been a grievous trial for themselves ; yet what after all could they do for me? Confidence in me was lost.' — p. 173. Soon after this a change took place in the Tractarian tactics. Tract 90 had proved a failure ; the attack on the Prayer Book was too rude, it even frightened, as we have seen, the Bishop of Exeter ; it had been spoken of as ^ ambiguous,' ' teaching with stammering lips,' as ' a judgment on the Church,' and the like, whilst they extolled the 'Mass Book as a sacred and most precious monument of the Apostles.' But subsequently the Prayer Book was called a * precious jewel,' and the Tractarians became wonderfully sound churchmen ; they became wiser with wisdom not from above, and gave up the openly aggressive plan : to use the words of Dr. Pusey, ' thenceforth the trumpet was not needed, the building arose without axe or hammer ;' and with patience and perseverance, peculiar to propagators of heresy, they adopted and carried into effect more private measures, which must have succeeded beyond their most sanguine ex- pectations. Had Newman now been in our Church, he needed not, according to his own showing, to have gone to Eome. To use Dr. Gratty's language, and speaking from his point of view, Tractarians would not have needed to console themselves on account of their * great loss ' by considering that Dr. Newman had ' not taken with him the good seed he had already sown.'* We justly question the goodness of the seed. Judging from its fruits at Oxford and elsewhere, we should rather consider it to be impure. One of the most convincing proofs of its impurity is that it has so degenerated at Oxford as to produce a crop the very opposite to that which was intended, viz., sceptics instead of superstitionists, men who believe too little rather than too much. Unsound religion is always liable to extremes. If a * Sheffield Daily Telegraph, December, 1863. INTRODUCTION. 7 man ceases to exercise legitimately the faculties of mind which God has given him, the next thing is he will accept of nothing in religion but what can be made obvious to his senses and in which faith has no place. In a charge delivered by the Bishop of Ripon this point is well stated. He says : — * Within the memory of most of those whom I am now addressing, two opposite schools of theology have displayed within the bosom of the Church the greatest activity. They are still striving for ascendency. The distinguishing feature of the one is the exaltation of authority, the distinguishing feature of the other is the exaltation of the intellect. * By the one class of theologians implicit faith, almost unquestioning obedience, is claimed on behalf of the Church, on the ground of her Divine original ; her ministry derived by an unbroken series of Hnks from the Apostles themselves ; her right of administering the sacraments, her traditions, her guardianship of Holy Writ ; her office both to keep and expound the mysteries of Divine truth. By the other class of theologians, this claim on the ground of exclusive authority, is to a great extent, if not altogether, set aside. Truth is to be tested by the powers of the human reason. Revelation itself must submit to the same searching process of investigation as that by which the facts of profane history or of science are weighed and determined. Conscience is elevated to a position of pre-eminence to the revealed Word of God, and a claim is set up on the part of man himself to the possession of a verifying faculty, by the exercise of which he may determine what is to be accepted and what rejected, even in the volume of Revelation itself How far it may be the case that secret affinities exist between . these two apparently antagonistic schools of theology is a question by no means devoid of interest. It might not be difficult to show that the natural consequence of claiming more than is due on the side of authority is to provoke resistance to every species of control. Unnatural restraint almost inevitably leads to unbridled license. It is then more than possible that with all these palpable divergences, the two schools of theology to which I have referred have this relation to each other. The extravagant claim on the footing of authority which has been set up by the one has prepared the way for the extravagant exaltation of reason as independent of authority by the other. But in each case, the real root of the evil is to be found in the want of due reverence for the Supreme authority of Scripture as a Divine revelation. In each case, singular enough, the practical result is the same as regards the S WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? dishonour which is done to the Word of God. The disciples of the one school maintain that we are indebted to the Church for the possession of the Scriptures, and that, independent of her teaching, we are not at liberty to interpret their meaning. The disciples of the other school maintain that, owing to the extraordinary advance of historical, geogra- phical, or scientific research, the progress of human intellect, and the freer range of thought, the time has arrived when the facts and even the doctrines of the Bible must be submitted to methods of trial and in- vestigation similar to those which are applied to verify the conclusion of the historian or philosopher. Thus in either case, the fundamental truth of the supreme authority of Revelation is practically obscured or denied, and we are in peril of being drifted into superstition on the one hand, or swallowed up in the vortex of infidelity on the other.' This extract from the Bishop of Eipon admits of two very striking illustrations. Suppose some unfortunate person of weak or misguided judgment should believe, on the testimony of the Bishop of Oxford, that ' the Divine authority of Holy Scripture rests upon the Divine authority, in its proper place of the Holy Catholic Church.'* Let this disciple of the bishop be disposed on good grounds to give up such a faith in the Church, mixed up as it is by the bishop with the Divine inspira- tion and Divine authority of the Holy Scripture, there would be considerable danger in throwing overboard his superstition, of his also making shipwreck of his faith. Dr. Pusey is another such case. He believes the inspiration of the book of Daniel, and the truth of the prophecies contained therein. In the book in which he ably states the grounds of his belief, he also records his faith in the inspiration of Cyprian bishop of Carthage, and his belief that he was a real prophetic character. * I do not, of course, deny Christian prophecy after the apostolic age, such as I have myself pointed out as having been vpuchsafed to St. Cyprian, along the whole course of his episcopate.' — Lectures on Daniel^ p. 627. It is not to be denied that there might be Christian prophecy * Charge, 1863, page 58. INTRODUCTION. ' 9 after the apostolic age. But the dozen instances referred to in the episcopate of Cyprian are extremely difficult to believe. We shall refer to one instance only, out of those selected by Dr. Pusey. It is the one when Cyprian had a revelation to inform him that the sacramental cup should be mixed with wine. A questionable revelation certainly. * But you should know that I have been admonished, that in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord should be observed, nor aught else be done by us, than what the Lord has first done for us ; that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For whereas Christ says, " I am the true wine," the blood of Christ is not merely water, but wine.' — Epis. 63. For other instances of Dr. Pusey's faith in the superstition and delusions of Cyprian, see ch. iv. of this vol, sects. 125, 137, 139. It must be admitted that Tractarians have manifested a laudable zeal against modern scepticism in the Church, and have denounced some of the Essayists as dishonest in their subscrip- tions to the Articles, &c. (S:c., paying no regard to the excellent advice, ' Physician, heal thyself.' To what account the Tract- arians have turned their opposition to the Essayists, and how it has acted in favour of their superstition, is shown in the charge of the Bishop of Carlisle. Speaking of some, whom he denomi- nates a third party in the Church, he says : — * I, for one, can have no sympathy with men who had rather that all things should be brought to a standstill than that any the least alteration should be made which does not fully and exactly tally with the day- dreams of their own ambitious imaginations. And such men there are still at work amongst us. They were until recently regarded with a just and an universal suspicion, as animated by the spirit of sacerdotal absolutism, which, more than two centuries ago, involved our Church and kingdom in a common overthrow. The notable zeal with which, all the while retaining a cordial dislike to the distinguishing doctrines of the Reformation, they have thrown themselves into the anti-rational- istic movement, has caused too many to condone their errors, and thus given them the opportunity, of which they have been by no means backward to avail themselves, of silently urging onwards their cherished scheme of unprotestantizing the National Church.' 10 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Now what is the key-stone of the arch of this via media bridge between Canterbury and Rome ? Most undoubtedly their teach- ing on the episcopal office. If, then, it is shown that this their teaching is not found in their own selected authorities, viz. the Holy Scriptures, the Fathers of the first six centuries, or in the formularies and Articles of the English Church, and especially as interpreted by her reformers and defenders of the sixteenth century, the arch of their bridge will be without strength and cohesion, and consequently every stone of the arch will be worth- less. In fact, to lay aside all figure, their whole system of teaching as peculiar to themselves will turn out to be error and delusion. To prove this is the task which has been undertaken, and which is submitted to the reader in the following pages as accomplished. It is believed by all parties, that the doctrine in question is not revealed in Holy Scripture, and it is made to rest on the tradition of the Fathers. All Anglo -catholics have subscribed to the following proposition : — ' Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' — Art. vi. True churchmen cannot accept any other standard of authority ; but these Anglo-catholics do when they appeal to the Fathers for a vindication of their private views on the episcopal office, which they hold to be necessary to the very existence of a church, and consequently necessary to salvation. With all their boasted respect for church authority, they most schismatically set up outside the Church a dogma, essential in their estimation, not required within it. Let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that the Fathers of the first six centuries did hold the doctrine in question, as held by these Anglo-catholics, and that it will bear the test of the canon of the monk of Lerins, ' Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ah omnibus creditum est;' still that INTEODUCTION. 11 ought to form no part of the faith of Anglo-catholics; for, if held at all, it must be as a mere private opinion. But it is maintained in the following pages that the Fathers of the first six centuries did not hold the doctrine in question ; but so far from its bearing the test of the canon so vauntingly put forth by these modern Anglo-catholics, the canon can only be consist- ently applied to it in a negative sense, viz. the doctrine of the episcopal office, as held by these Anglo-catholics, was Twt believed everywhere and always during the first six centuries, and not by any of the Fathers of that period whose writings have come down to us. Proof may be safely challenged to the contrary. These Fathers have stated facts, have avowed beliefs, which ai*e incompatible with this modern notion of succession. In the first part of the Catena Patrum, appended to this book, the reader may consult for himself the statements of each several father, and draw his own conclusions. The evidence adduced from the Fathers, admitting they did not hold the doctrine in question, must of necessity be negative and indirect : they could not categorically deny or refute a doctrine of which they had no knowledge. On the other hand, if they had held the doctrine in question, we should expect to find in their voluminous writings proof positive, such as could neither be questioned nor doubted, especially as they have discussed, very frequently and fully, kindred doctrines. In the first part of the Catena will be found all, or nearly all, the passages usually quoted by these Anglo-catholics and their sympathisers in favour of their view of the doctrine. We have not knowingly omitted one extract of that kind which has come under our notice. In quoting so largely from the Fathers on clerical orders and kindred subjects, other points are of necessity introduced, which at first sight might startle simple Evangelical Christians. But such readers may compose themselves by reading the Sixth Article, and bearing in mind the rule of Bishop Latimer, L2 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? viz. to believe the Fathers when they bring Scripture for what they say. One serious fault of the Fathers is their believing too much; confounding their own superstition with the faith of the Grospel, their fancies with facts, their own teaching, or that of theii* uninspired predecessors, with the teaching of Holy Scripture. They are to be pitied, who follow such blind guides in matters of faith and practice not revealed in Scripture. For instance, in such cases as praying, or offering sacrifice for the dead, connecting exorcism and the use of the oil with the sacrament of baptism, &c. &c. These practices would almost bear the test of the canon of the Monk of Lerins, and these Anglo-catholics complain that our Church, not having these things, is seriously wanting in ancient catholicity. It is grievous to think that any class of men in our Church should attempt to fetter the interpretation of Holy Scripture by the teaching of any of the Fathers, when in most cases in matters of funda- mental importance, the Scriptures themselves are much more simple and easy to be understood than the Fathers are. Our greatest poet, and one of the first biblical and classical scholars. * If these doctors, who had scarce half the light that we enjoy, who all, except two or three, were ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, and many of the Greek, blundering upon the dangerous and suspectful translations of the apostate Aquila, the heretical Theodotian, the Judaized Sym- machus, the erroneous Origen ; if these could yet find the Bible so easy, why should we doubt, that have all the helps of learning, and faithful industry, that man in this life can look for, and the assistance of God as near now to us as ever ? But let the Scriptures be hard : are they more hard, more crabbed, more abstruse than the Fathers ? He that cannot understand the sober, plain, and unaffected style of the Scriptures, will be ten times more puzzled with the knotty Africanisms, the pam- pered metaphors, the intricate and involved sentences of the Fathers, besides the fantastic and declamatory flashes, the cross-jingling periods which cannot but disturb, and come thwart a settled devotion, worse than the din of bells and rattles.*— 0/'i?f/onna 5, 6.) Subsequently to the time of the apostles, the rulers of the Church having no pretensions to the apostolic office, appointed the two titles of bishop and presbyter, which had been common to one class of officers, to two distinct classes of officers, viz., those of bishop and presbyter as they undoubtedly existed sometime subsequent to the time of the apostles. Of the two offices, that of the bishop was the higher, and had the exclusive right of ordination. In proof of this, Amalarius refers to Jerome. (56- 8.) But it is plain he did not misunderstand or misrepresent Jerome as these Anglicans do in maintaining that he, from the beginning, believed bishops to have had that right in contradistinction to presbyters ; for Amalarius plainly shows that the first Alexandrian bishops had no other consecration than that of presbyters, and were promoted to their primacy without the intervention of any higher order than that of presbyters. (56- 5, 6.) Amalarius, quoting as he does passages from Jerome which, together with his own commen- tary upon them, and what he has quoted from the writer he calls Ambrose, are singularly fatal to certain Anglican assumptions respecting their bishops. 46 WHOSE ABE THE FATHERS? Chap. II. §§ 13, 14. 13. It is of the utmost importance that we should have a fair acquaintance with what the Fathers generally teach on the apostleship. Some of them, as we shall see, speak most dis- tinctly of bishops and presbyters as successors of the apostles ; the question is, do they mean of the twelve, or of the seventy, whom the Fathers gene^jally call apostles ? As far as we have seen, they do not definitely state that bishops are successors of the twelve, but they do affirm that they are successors of the seventy. Dr. Wordsworth, how^ever, states that bishops succeed the twelve apostles, and presbyters the seventy disciples. But he gives this on the authority of a second person, who, in all probability, knew less about the matter than he did himself, whilst he does not give the evidence upon which this second person rests his statement. But we shall give his own words : — ' As the apostles are succeeded by bishops in the Church, so the seventy by presbyters. " We very well know," says Bp. Andrewes to Peter Moulin, "that the apostles and the seventy-two disciples were two orders, and these distinct ; and this likewise we know, that everywhere among the Fathers, bishops and presbyters are taken to be after their example ; that bishops succeeded the apostles, and presbyters the seventy-two." He then quotes Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose.' — On Luke x. 1. 14. For the proof of this we are referred to other sources, which we have sought out, and shall here give: — * That these two orders were by our Lord appointed in those two. Cyprian : " Deacons must remember that our Lord chose the apostles, that is bishops and prelates ; but the apostles, after the Ascension of our Lord appointed deacons for themselves as ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church." (11. 6.) Nay, St. Jerome : " With us bishops hold the place of apostles." (29. 10.) "All (bishops) are successors of the apostles." (29. 28.) And that is a famous place in him ; in him, and St. Augustine too, upon the forty-fourth Psalm, " Instead of thy fathers thou shalt have children, i.e. instead of apostles bishops." (29. 50. and 33. 49.) St. Ambrose {Hilary the Deacon) in 1 Cor. xii. 28: "God hath set in the Chmch. {caput apostolos) first apostles ; now the apostles are bishops ; the apostle St. Peter, giving us assurance of it ; " and his bishoprick let another take." (31. 2). And a little after, " are all Apostles? He says right; for in one Church but one bishop." (31. 3.) And in Ephesians iv. " The apostles are the bishops." ' (31. 6.) — Wordsworth's Christian Institutes, vol. iii. pp. 231, 232. Did Dr. Wordsworth know that none of these quotations Chap. II. § 15. SUCCESSORS OF THE SEVENTY. 4 teach that bishops are successors of the twelve any more than presbyters are ? For such is really the case. One of the chief quotations teaches, that both bishops and presbyters are suc- cessors of the seventy disciples. Bishop Andrewes affirms * that these two orders (bishops and presbyters) were by our Lord appointed in these two,' (twelve apostles and seventy-two dis- ciples). But most certainly the extract from Cyprian does not state that bishops succeed the twelve apostles, and presbyters the seventy-two disciples. It would be interesting to know Cyprian's opinion upon this point ; and happily he has made it known to us, in the most express language : ' Christ says to the apostles, and thereby to all rulers, who by a vicarious ordi- nation are successors to the apostles, "He that heareth you heareth me," &c.' (Luke x. 16.— 11. 31.) Dr. Wordsworth, in his Instruction for the Young Student, has given this passage, and this only, from Cyprian, in proof that 'bishops succeed and represent the [twelve] holy apostles.' Whereas it is plain that Cyprian refers to the seventy disciples, whom the Fathers generally call apostles. According to the testimony, then, of Cyprian, both bishops and presbyters succeed the seventy disciples or apostles; and this is, as we shall see, the general teaching of the Fathers. The extracts from Jerome and Augustine are explained in Chap. IV. 200, 239-242. 15. We turn with considerable interest to Dr. Wordsworth's Notes on the Greek Testament, to see what he says on Luke x. 16: 'He that heareth you heareth me; and he that des- piseth you, despiseth me ; and he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me;' and we are struck with his profound and ominous silence ; and, considering his expressed regard for the interpretations of early antiquity, we are puzzled by his reti- cence, especially as the Fathers generally have made so much use of this text. Elsewhere, as we have seen. Dr. Wordsworth himself has quoted Cyprian, in the case where he adduced that text in proof that bishops do succeed apostles by a vicarious ordination. Illustrations shall now be given of what the Fathers have taught respecting the apostles, both of the first and of the secondary kind. We shall commence first with Ignatius, who certainly speaks 48 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. II. § 16. more distinctly than any of the Fathers of the college of apostles being replaced by successors. But he uniformly assigns the place of the apostles to the presbyters, and never to the bishops. (See 3. 23, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 49, 50.) If we accept the testimony of this ancient writer, called Ignatius, presbyters have the place of the apostles, and bishops have the place of Grod. The Fathers, in general, speak of others beside the twelve as being apostles. They uniformly call the seventy disciples apostles. Justin Martyr speaks of them in that character. He ' The Word of God is called angel and apostle, for He declares all that ought to be known, and is sent to proclaim what is told, as, indeed, our Lord himself said (to His apostles) : *' He that heareth me," &c. (Luke X. 16.— S. 1.) 16. Irenaeus says, 'For after the twelve apostles, it is found our Lord sent seventy others.' (6. 1.) Tertullian states, 'And he chose other seventy apostles beside the twelve.' (8- 14.) Clement of Alexandria says, 'The apostle Barnabas, who was one of the seventy.' (9. 3.) Origen says, ' And mark, that the cities which receive not tlie apostles (seventy disciples).' — On Luke x. 10. Catena Aurea, vol. iii. p. 354. Cyprian, as we have just seen, re- presents the seventy disciples as apostles, and calls rulers of the church their successors. Hilary the bishop says, ' The Lord gave to the apostles (seventy disciples) saying, " Behold, I give unto you power," &c.' (Luke xvi. — Id. 5.) Basil makes the same statement. (Z3. 3.) So also Macarius. (28. 1.) Ambrose states, ' But the apostles (seventy disciples) are appointed to preach the Grospel without shoes.' (Tom. iii. Col. 130.) Jerome com- monly speaks of apostles beside the twelve. (Z9. 23, 32, 63,64.) Augustine not only calls the seventy disciples apostles, but the five hundred brethren also. (33. 78. 81.) Chrysostom on the words, ' Then of all the apostles,' (1 Cor. xv.) remarks : ' For there were also other apostles, as the seventy.' He considered that there was a female apostle^ of whom he says,' Oh ! how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!' (34. 37.) Calmet, in his dictionary under the term Junia, says : — Chap. II. § 17. THE SEVENTY CALLED APOSTLES. 49 * St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and several others, take Andronicus for a man, and Junia for a woman, perhaps his wife. The Greeks and Latins keep their festival day, May 17, as husband and wife.' If after all it should turn out that there was a lady once in the chair of Peter at Eome, supposing he ever had a chair there, that need not of itself make any interruption in this Anglican succession. Theodoret not only calls the seventy apostles, but numbers apostles by myriads. (39- 16, 17.) Eemigius says, on the text ' Who are of note among the apostles.' ' That is, among the twelve apostles. But it also may be understood of them, because perhaps they were of the seventy-two apostles.' (46. 3, 9.) Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, calls the seventy disciples apostles, as quoted in the Catena Aurea, vol. iii. p. 356. Bede, on Luke x. 12, ' There were no such guests found among the men of Sodom as prophets, as the apostles (the seventy disciples), among the Jews.' — Tom. V. Col. 329. 17. It is important to notice how some of the Fathers contrast what they consider to be the first order of Apostles with the second order, and how they represent the latter as having their places filled by others, but the former as still continuing, and not represented by any successors. TertuUian regarded the twelve apostles as being prefigured by the twelve fountains in Elim, and the seventy apostles, or disciples, as prefigured by the seventy palm-trees. (8.14.) After referring to the twelve fountains, he states : — ' For just so many apostles were foretold should water the arid and desert nations of the world, as is well known.' (8. 13.) It is plain these fountains — these apostles — in the mind of TertuUian were never intended to be replaced by any successors. In his day he considered the original twelve still to be the fountains to water the thirsty world. Jerome regarded the foun- tains and palm-trees in the same light as TertuUian, but makes a still more definite application of them, from which it is cer- tain he never considered the apostleship of the twelve to be delegated to anyone. In his mind, the twelve apostles, whom 50 . WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. II. §§ 18, 19. he represents as the first order of disciples, still retained their office, and in his day, after the manner of fountains, irrigated the parched world; of which fountains he and others drank. (Z9. 32.) On this point there can be no possibility of misunder- standing Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, as quoted by Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea. He says, on Luke x. 1 : — ' In the book of Numbers, also, it is written of the children of Israel that they came to Elim, which is, by interpretation, " ascent," and there were twelve fountains of water, and seventy palm-trees. For when we fly to spiritual refreshment we shall find twelve fountains, namely, the holy apostles, from whom we imbibe the knowledge of salvation as from the well-springs of the Saviour ; and seventy palms, that is, those who are now {nunc) appointed by Christ.' — Vol. iii. p. 345. It is plain that in the mind of this archbishop of the fifth century, the twelve apostles could have no successors but the seventy had. 18. Theophylact, who lived in the eleventh century, bears similar testimony to that of the more ancient Fathers. On Luke X. 1, he *It is written in Exodus, when the " children of Israel came to Elim, and there were there twelve fountains of water and seventy palm-trees." What, therefore, was then by history, and done in figure, now becomes true. Elim is interpreted " ascent;''^ which .means no other thing than that ye are not to remain in the situation of the Jews in the letter of the law, but be ascending in4^hristianity to more perfect knowledge and spiritual increase. We find twelve fountains, and we find twelve chief apostles, who are the most sweet fountains of all doctrine. The palm- trees, indeed, are those who have been educated and taught by the apostles ; for although Christ chose them, they were, however, inferior to those twelve, and afterwards were their disciples and companions. Therefore, these palm-trees have been educated by the fountains, which I call apostles.' — F. 196. This famous Greek commentator and Archbishop of Bulgaria, it is plain, had no conception that bishops succeed in any proper sense the twelve apostles ; or if he had, his manner of expressing himself is altogether unaccountable. 19. Dr. Wordsworth gives with approval the statement of Bishop Andrewes, viz. 'That everywhere among the Fathers . . . bishops succeeded the apostles, and presbyters the seventy-two.' This good bishop was doubtless under a misapprehension. Dr. Chap. II. § 20. SUCCESSOES OF THE SEVENTY. 51 Wordsworth has made thousands of references to the Fathers and extracts from them ; and if there were proof of it everywhere among the Fathers it is strange he has not given us any, but, in the absence of proof, has reiterated the statement. Many notions now common to the Anglicans respecting their bishops never appear to have crossed the minds of the ancient Fathers. But we have one instance at least, where the thought occurred that there was an analogy between the twelve apostles and bishops and the seventy disciples or secondary apostles and pres- byters. Aquinas ascribes this sentiment to Augustine, and Nicolas de Lyra ascribes the same sentiment to Bede. It is not to be found in the writings of Augustine, but is in those of Bede, and accordingly we have given it. (55-4.) Now if it were believed everywhere by the Fathers that bishops succeed the twelve apostles from the beginning, and presbyters the seventy disciples, how unlikely that Augustine, or Bede, or any early Father, should say that the twelve apostles exhibited and /ore- skadowed the form of bishops, and that the seventy showed the form of the presbyters, and at the same time instruct us ! ' Nevertheless, in the primitive times of the Church, as the Aposto- lical Scripture is witness, both were called presbyters, both were called bishops,' &c. Augustine, or any writer after the second century when the distinction between a bishop and a presbyter was becoming more marked, very naturally might give utterance to such a sentiment. How differently these Anglicans express themselves in regard to the bishops being successors to the twelve apostles ! and as differently w^ould any ancient Father have expressed him- self if he had possessed their notions. 20. When the Fathers represent bishops or presbyters as successors of the apostles, it is the seventy and others not of the twelve, they more especially refer to. As far as we have seen, the only direct reference they make to Scripture in proof that bishops and presbyters are successors of apostles, is the case of the seventy. And even here they do not claim bishops or presbyters to be apostles in the same sense, for they so define the different kinds of apostles as to show that in one sense the seventy could have no successors, inasmuch as they were sent E 2 52 .WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. II. §§ 21, 22. personally by Christ. On the other hand, they generally speak of the twelve as retaining their office and ruling, or exercising their authority by their writings ; making good the statement of Bishop Pearson, ' The apostles are continued unto us only in their writings.' (88.) But these are points which we shall now investigate and prove, commencing with the definition which the Fathers give of the various kinds of apostles. 21. Jerome has given the fullest definition, which appears to have been generally adopted by subsequent Fathers. (Z9. 63.) Here it will be seen that the first kind, such as the twelve, the seventy, and 8t. Paul himself, could have no successors. The second kind might consist of all bishops and presbyters who were called of Grod and duly appointed by men. Theodoret must have had in his mind apostles of this kind when he numbered them by myriads. (39.16.) Hilary the deacon makes abroad distinction between the apostles as sent by Christ, and others sent by the churches. (31- 4.) Augustine gives Jerome's defi- nition in an abridged form. He says the term * apostle is interpreted sent. There are four kinds of apostles, namely, those of God, not by man ; of God, but by man ; by man only ; and of themselves.' — Dialogus Quces. 64, torn. iv. f. 148. Sedulius, a Scottish presbyter, gives Jerome's definition more fully (41- 3), and elsewhere illustrates the term. (41- 1, 2.) Remigius repeats most of Jerome's definition with additions and illustrations, especially the case of Ambrose, who speaks of the sacred office being bought and sold for money; and he thinks we ought to understand by the term apostleship, the mission of preaching. (46. 1, 2.) Primacius repeats Jerome's definition in an abridged form. (51. 1.) We gather from this what was the authentic teaching of the Church in the time of Jerome, and nearly two hundred years subsequently. From this definition it is plain that these modern Anglican notions were unknown to the Fathers, or they would have given us a very different description of the apostleship. 22. We shall now more especially give proof from their teaching in relation to the office and work of the twelve apostles, that they never conceived of this office being delegated to others. Justin states : — Chap. II. § 22. SUCCESSION OF DOCTEINE. 53 ' The twelve apostles, who depended on the eternal High-priest, and through whose voices the whole world is filled with the glory and grace of God,' &c. (S. 4.) He does not say that the whole world was filled by men who had succeeded to the apostolic office ; no, but by the teaching of the apostles, which ministers of Christ had widely disseminated. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, gives utterance to exactly the same sentiment. (7. 1, 2.) TertuUian reiterates the same thought, but so speaks of the number twelve in relation to the apostles, as to make it certain that he never conceived of that number being replaced by successors. He represents the twelve as those who w^ere foretold ^ should water the arid and desert world of the nations,' not by successors to their office, but by their doctrine. (8. 13.) How this was done he graphically de- scribes, and in a manner reproduces the apostles, not in the persons of other men, but by their writings. (8- 10.) Clement of Alexandria, in the usual style of the Fathers, records the same views. (9- 2.) In his estimation, the twelve are apostles still, as existing in their writings, and to whom there could be no suc- cessors. The learned presbyter Origen in a manner represents St. Peter as having successors both to his title as a rock, and his office of bearing the keys, not merely in the Pope of Eome, not merely in all bishops constituted after a certain Anglican fashion, but in all Christians who have the faith of Peter, other- wise, according to Origen, none can be successors to him. He states : — ' And if anyone say this to him (" Thou art the Christ," &c.), the revelation being made not by flesh and blood, but by the Father which is in heaven, that will follow, which the letter of the Gospel declares was said to Peter ; for his spirit teaches him that whosoever becomes such an one, he is the same as that Peter. For all the imitators of Christ derive their name from the rock — that spiritual rock w^hich follows them who are saved, that from it they should drink spiritual drink. They take their name from the rock, that is, Christ ; for as, because they are members of Christ, by the name derived from Him they are called Christians, so from his being the Eock {Petra), they are called rocks.' {Petri or Peters.) (10. 4.) Again he says : — * We see, by all this, how it may be said to Peter, and to everyone who is a Peter, " I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." ' (10. 6.) 54- WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. II. §§ 22-24. These sentiments were common to many of the Fathers. 23. Novatian, with the Fathers in general, represents the giving of the Holy Spirit to the apostles, not as confined to any particular class of ministers in the Church, but to all believers. (14. 2.) Lactantius represents the apostles as being succeeded only in their writings. (15- 2.) Athanasius makes a general application of the words * Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' ' And when the Spirit was given to us, the Saviour said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost." God is in us, for so John wrote, " If we love one another, God dwelleth in us." ' (17. 1, 3.) Cyril of Jerusalem so speaks of the apostles and their number being twelve, as plainly to intimate that he had no conception of their having successors to their office. (18. 1.) He exhorted his hearers not to be ashamed of their apostles, meaning the twelve ; and with several other Fathers, he thinks that there is an analogy between God breathing into the first man, and Christ breathing on His apostles. According to this view, every Christian who has the Spirit succeeds the apostles, and not merely any particular class of ministers. (18. 2, 3.) Eusebius of Emissa so speaks of Peter and Paul as to show that he did not consider them to be succeeded in their power and authority, but that they left on record their teaching, which was to be ^ for the commerce of eternity.' (ZO. 2.) Victorinus represents those apostles of whom it was said ' Grod hath set some in the church, first apostles,' as having ceased in the Church. (26.) 24. Basil, Bishop of Csesarea, with many of the Fathers, consi- ders the twelve apostles to be represented prophetically in the Old Testament under the character of princes, and as princes who govern the whole world, and as constituted upon twelve thrones ; but for these apostles Basil provides no successors. (Z3. 1.) Macarius so speaks of the twelve apostles as to show that he did not consider that their office was transmitted to any suc- cessors. (28. 2. ) The learned presbyter Jerome, on all points under discussion between us and these Anglicans, is singularly against them. He most distinctly teaches that the authority of the apostles is continued to us only in their writings. (Z9. 52, 53, 54.) Ambrose, like Cyril of Jerusalem, as referred to above, considers that there is an analogy between the moral image of Chap. II. § 25. THE APOSTLESHIP NOT DELEGATED. 55 the first unfallen man, and the moral image of a Christian. And he so applies the text, ' Eeceive ye the Holy Grhost,' to all Chris- tians as plainly to show that he did not conceive that the Holy Grhost was confined to the apostles or any particular class of persons who might succeed them. He appears to regard Christians generally as having received the Holy Grhost and thereby made priests, and in a sense fitted to remit the sins of others. (30. 3.) Again, in an exposition of the Eevelation com- monly ascribed to him, he so represents the holy apostles as to make it preposterous to suppose they had any successors, any more than Jesus Christ Himself had. (30. 1 8.) Hilary the deacon makes a general application of the words, ' Receive ye the Holy Grhost,' to all Christians, and describes them and himself, though only a deacon, as successors to the Levitical priesthood, and as having sacrifices. (31. 14.) Ruffinus, the learned presbyter, expressly represents the apostles as retained to us under the character of continuing mountains, but he also speaks of a second rank of apostles, who are reputed so by merit. He says nothing of succession. (32. 1.) 25. The evangelical Augustine, the reformers' friend, like nearly all the Fathers, represents the holy apostles 'as still retain- ing their office and authority in the Church, not by any personal successors, but by their doctrine as contained in their writings. Thus he says : — ' Why are the apostles foundations ? Because their authority is the support of our weakness. Why are they gates ? Because through them we enter the kingdom of God ; for they proclaim it to us.' (33. 51.) Like many Fathers above referred to, Augustine applies the words, ' Receive ye the Holy Grhost,' and their context, not to any class of ministers in the Church, but to the Church itself. The words, of course, were addressed personally to ten apostles, and as explained by these Anglicans (see sects. 2-5 above) must be confined to bishops exclusively, as the only successors of the apostles. But Augustine makes the Church, and not any class of ministers, their successors. He says : — * If, therefore, they (the apostles) represented the Church, and this Avas said to them as if it were said to the Church itself, then the peace of the Church remits sins, . . . not according to the will of man, but 56 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. II. § 26. according to the will of God and the prayers of holy spiritual men, who judge all things, but they themselves are judged of no man.' (33. 38.) This, in some measure, will illustrate what Ambrose says above respecting the laity remitting sin and being spiritual priests. Again, where the Papists make the Pope successor to Peter, and these Anglicans all their bishops, Augustine makes the believing laity his successors. He states : — * For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples ; as it is written, " I will give unto thee the keys of the king- dom of heaven." ' (33. 54.) Again he says : — * For if in Peter there were not a sacrament, the Lord would not have said to him, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." If this was spoken only to Peter, then the Church doeth not this. But if this thing is done in the Church also, that what things are bound on earth are bound in heaven, &c. ; because when the Church excommuni- cates, the person, excommunicated is bound in heaven ; ... if, I say, this thing is done in the Church, then Peter, what time he received the keys, denoted the Holy Church.' (33. 60.) This kind of teaching pervades the writings of Augustine. See also 33. 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, where still more decisive testimony will be found from this most Protestant Father re- specting the Church being the successor of Peter and the other apostles, and not any order of clergy merely. No doubt the Church would act through her ministers, but the power would be derived not from the ministry, but from the Church itself, it, as Hooker states, being originally the seat of all power. 26. Chrysostom very eloquently represents Peter and the other apostles as still being princes of the Church and rulers of the world. (34b« 17, 18.) Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, in addition to what we have already quoted from him, says : — * The fountains of water are the divine disciples, who rain discourses from on high by the Spirit on the whole world.' (37. 3, 15.) On this point Theodoret is one of our most important witnesses. He, as we have noticed, regarded the seventy and Chap. II. §§ 27, 28. THE APOSTLESHIP NOT DELEGATED. 57 the five hundred disciples as apostles, and in fact numbered them by myriads. (39. 16, 17.) The way in which he represents the twelve apostles as being so many foundations shows that he could have had no conception of their office being delegated to anyone. (39. 13.) He describes those who come after them as succeeding to their doctrine, their preaching, and their work. (39. 3, 1 1, 20.) He also says, ^ No one dares to arrogate to him- self their title.' (39. 11.) He speaks too of the apostles as if they still retained their office. (39. 5.) And this, it seems, they did, according to Theodoret, by their writings. ' The divine apostles not only obtained those places which they had trodden, but also those places in which their allwise writings have been read.' (39. 2.) In the mind of Theodoret, the apostolical authority, or the authority of the twelve, was not conferred personally upon those who came after them, whether bishops or presbyters, but was retained in their writings ; and hence, as we have seen, bishops and presbyters succeeded to their doctrine and preaching. 27. Leo, like many of the Fathers whom we have already noticed, regarded the gift of the Holy Spirit as common to all believers. (44. 6.) Eemigius is still more definite and express on that point. (46. 5.) The words, ^ some apostles,' he regards as relating to the twelve and seventy-two, but does not speak of any successors,' and explains the words, ^ some pastors and teachers,' as alike descriptive of bishops and presbyters. (46. 9.) Andreas, Bishop of Csesarea, so explains portions of the Revela- tion in relation to the apostles as plainly to intimate that he never conceived of there being any successors to their rank. He represents the twelve apostles as having a power peculiar to themselves, as being of the 'first order, and martyrs and teachers coming after them, as being of a second or lower order, and being a second br lower succession. (47. 3, 4. See also 2, 6, 7.) Arethas, another Bishop of Csesarea, shows, like one of his predecessors, that the apostles could have had no successors. (50. 2.) Primacius, Bishop of Adrumetum, reiterates the same sentiments with additions. (51. 2, 9.) 28. Gregory the Grreat, chronologically considered, is the last witness on this point we have to adduce as of the yet undivided Church of antiquity. 58 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. II. § 28. Strong as is the testimony already given against the assump- tions of these Anglicans, that now to be given is stronger still ; and it is all the more remarkable from the circumstance that in point of fact he exercised a more extensive jurisdiction in the Church than any one of the apostles appears to have done, except perhaps St. Paul. But for these holy twelve apostles Grregory finds no successors, — at least not to their office. The reader will perhaps be astonished when he reads the opinions of Grregory adduced on Christian orders from the ancient book of Job. However, in this, as in almost every other case with respect to the Fathers as quoted in this volume, we have more to do with the conclusions to which they come than with the grounds on which they are based. But only conceive if these Anglican notions had but once entered into the convolutions of Grregory's brain, and taken hold of his heart, how his enormous allegorising powers would have been brought into play on the book of Job, to develope, illustrate, and establish the theories peculiar to these Anglicans. But this great Grregory seems to have been quite as ignorant of nonentities as all his predecessors up to the time of the apostles, and the result is, that instead of bringing out of the book of Job anything on Christian orders to comfort and strengthen these Anglicans, he has with very con- siderable skill deduced evidence (negative of course, for what else could we expect from the book of Job ?) which by antici- pation refutes and rebukes their alien notions. He says : — * By the seven sons of Job is represented the order of the preachers (that is, the apostles), and by the three daughters the multitude of the hearers.' (54. 2.) He divides the whole Christian Church into two classes : — 1. The twelve apostles. 2. All those who are not so. These latter are again subdivided into — 1. Pastors; 2. The unmarried, that is, monks and nuns ; 3. The married. He'says : — ' The sons call their sisters to the feast in that the holy apostles . . . feed the pastors — bishops and presbyters, and the two other classes, *' with the feast of God's word." ' (54. 1, 2, 3.) He especially designates the apostles clouds (54- 5), and he says : — ^ By these words of preachers (apostles), that is, drops of the clouds (apostles). Because in truth Almighty God first reproves and rouses Chap. II. § 29. THE APOSTLESHIP NOT DELEGATED. 59 us from our evil deeds by means of His preachers (apostles). . . . For if the Divine dispensation did not act the part of a judge by these clouds, He never would have said to these same clouds, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost, &c." . . . For what does Peter effect, when he speaks by his epistles ? . . . What are Paul and John labouring at when speaking by their epistles ? ' (54. 10.) He represents the twelve apostles as doors of the Church, and speaks of them as still retaining that office. ' What is designated by " doors," but holy preachers (apostles), and what by the " bar," except the Lord incarnate ? For because these doors of holy Church are strengthened by this bar being placed against them, they could be battered indeed by the waves, but they could not be broken through. . . . Let us consider what a door of the Church was Peter. . . . What are all the apostles but doors of holy Church, when they hear by the voice of the Redeemer, " Receive the Holy Ghost," &c. ? ... As if it were plainly said to them, "By you those to whom ye open yourselves shall come in to me ; and those to whom ye close yourselves shall be rejected." ' (54. 11, 12, 13.) Again he says : — * Who else are designated in this place by the name of the cock, but these same holy preachers (apostles) mentioned in another way, who strive amid the darkness of this present life to announce by their preaching, as if by their notes, the approaching light ? For they say, *'The night is far spent, but the day is at hand." Who by their voices, &c. ? . . . The cock girt in the loins, that is, holy preachers (apostles) announcing the true morn. . . . Whom else in this place do we understand by a ram, but the first rank of priests in the Church ? The lion is therefore placed first, the cock second, the ram last. For Christ appeared, next the holy preachers, the apostles, and then at length the spiritual fathers, the rulers of the churches, the leaders, &c.' (54. 14, 15, 16.) See also 54. 19, 30, 31. Bede, our English presbyter, who flourished at the beginning of the eighth century, gives similar testimony to that of his predecessors. (55-l,5,7.) 29. We shall conclude this chapter by giving a fraction of the testimony of the learned Barrow. On this point, 'The Apostolic Office,' he says : — * As such was personal and temporary and therefore, according to its nature and design, not successive or communicable to others in perpe- tual descendance from them. ... It was not designed to continue by derivation ; for it contained in it divers things, which apparently were not communicated, and which no man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could challenge to himself Neither did the apostles pretend to communicate it.' — Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy^ pp. 113, 115. 60 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. III. §§ 1-3. CHAPTER III. THE ANALOGY, OR SUPPOSED ANALOGY, BETWEEN THE ORDERS OF THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD AND THE ORDERS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, AS TAUGHT BY SOME OF THE FATHERS, FORMS NO REAL FOUNDATION FOR CERTAIN ANGLICAN TEACHING ON THE THREE ORDERS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. ALSO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD, AS HELD BY THE FATHERS. 1. Dr. Wordsworth, in chapter ix. Part I. of his Theophilus AnglicanuSy ' On the Three Orders of Ministers in the Church,' states the subject, in question and answer, thus : — * Q. Are all ordained ministers of equal rank and dignity ? A. No. Q. How many degrees are there of them ? A. There are thi^ee orders in the Christian Church, as there were three in the Church of the Jews. Q. What are they called ? A. The orders of bishops, priests, and dea- cons, corresponding to those of high -priests, priests, and Levites. ' S. Ignat. " Without these (bishop, presbyters, and deacons) a church is not called." * Optatus. (For the extract see 22. 2.) ' S. HiERON. " And as we know that the apostolical traditions were taken out of the Old Testament, that what Aaron and his sons and Levites were in the Temple, bishops, presbyters, and deacons claim for themselves in the Church." * S. Clem., cap. xi. " The chief-priest (bishop) has his proper services, and to the priests (presbyters) their own place is appointed, and to Levites (deacons) appertain their proper ministries ; and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded laymen." * Theophylact. In S. Luc. xix. on the differences and various func- tions of the Three Orders.' (pp. 83, 84.) 2. Mr. Perceval, one of Dean Hook's authorities on aposto- lical succession, has quoted Clement for the same purpose as follows : — * It will behove us (Christians), looking into the depths of the Divine knowledge, to do all things in order, whatsoever our Lord has com- manded us to do. He has ordained, by His supreme will and authority, both where and by what persons they [the sacred services and oblations] are to be performed. For the chief-priest has his proper services, and to the priests their proper place is appointed ; and the layman is con- fined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen.' — Apology for the Doctrine of Apostolical Succession, pp. 90, 91. 3. Ignatius certainly mentions three orders, but only one out Chap. III. § 4. THE THREE ORDERS. 61 of the three corresponds to the orders as required by these Anglicans. (See chap. iv. 27-30.) Optatus names the three orders. Of course, in the fourth century, the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, as they now exist, were universal ; but he says nothing respecting the origin of the distinction, as it then existed, between a bishop and presbyter. (See 22^. 1, 2.) ' The differences and various functions of the three orders,' as given by Theophylact, and referred to by Dr. Wordsworth, are as follows : — * We see that there are these three things in the Church, viz. purifi- cation, illumination, and perfection. For the orders take these three offices : — the deacons purify by instruction and teaching, the presbyters illuminate by bapt'sm, and the bishops appoint and complete sacerdotal orders.' — On Luke xix. Lat. Trans, f. 255. Such are the orders as described by Theophylact. If this influ- ential Grreek Father knew anything of Dr. Wordsworth's teach- ing on clerical orders, would he have given such an account as that above ? We think not. But Clement and Jerome are the more important witnesses on the subject of this chapter, and their testimony shall now be considered. 4. Dr. Wordsworth, by placing the term bishop after chief priest, and presbyters after priests, and deacons after Levites, in the above extract, makes Clement teach what he really does not teach. Mr. Perceval, by a judicious use of italics, and the con- nection in which he has placed the extract in his book, perverts Clement after the same manner. But let the extract be considered in connection with the con- text, and it will be found that Clement is not by that language representing Christian orders at all, but the Jewish, and the Jewish only ; for throughout his epistle he uniformly describes the Christian orders as being two only, and uniformly speaks of them as being: of that number. If the extract be considered and interpreted by the context, as given in 1. 1 — 5, it will be seen that he has not referred to the Jewish orders as representing the Christian orders in number and in office, for the language he uses forbids any such conclusion. After having stated the Jewish orders, and the strictness of the rules under which they were held, he concludes thus : — 62 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. III. §§ 5, 6. ' They, then, which do anything not agreeable to his will are punished with death. Consider, brethren, that the greater the knowledge is which hath been vouchsafed to us, the greater is the danger to which we are exposed. The apostles have preached to us, &c. ; they appointed their first-fruits for bishops and deacons, &c. ; their bishops in right- eousness, and their deacons in faith.' (1. 2, 3.) Here he describes the Christian orders as being two, and so far from drawing any analogy between them and the Jewish, he grounds both their origin and number on a prophecy of Isaiah. He then describes the means adopted by Moses to prevent any emulation respecting the office of the priesthood, and concludes by showing that the apostles also adopted measures to prevent similar emulation in the Christian ministry. * So likewise our apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ that con- tention would arise on account of the name of the episcopate, and therefore, having a perfect knowledge of this, they appointed the bishops and deacons before mentioned, and afterwards gave directions how,' &c. (1. 5.) The argument of Clement is, that as the Jewish priesthood was taught to discharge their functions in order and with regu- larity, so should the Christian ministry. That as means were adopted and observed to prevent emulation and strife in the one case, so also was it in the other. This is all that can be legiti- mately inferred from the teaching of Clement. Through the whole of his long epistle he does not give the re- motest hint of any rulers in the Church superior to presbyters ; nor can it be discovered from this epistle that there were any ministers in the Church higher than presbyters, called some- times presbyters and sometimes bishops. We shall have to revert to Clement again in a subsequent chapter. 5. Other Fathers, later in the Church, regarded the Christian orders as in some measure analogous to the Jewish ; Jerome especially. He also represents this analogy as an apostolical tradition, which the learned Barrow explains as an * immemorial custom.' But Jerome no more serves the purpose of Dr. Wordsworth than Clement does. His teaching, and that of some other of the Fathers on this point, is absolutely fatal to the exalted position which these Anglicans assign to their bishop. 6. The successors of Aaron, in all essential particulars, were Chap. III. §§ 7, 8. SUCCESSION OF THE JEWISH PKIESTHOOD. 63 identically the same as their fellow-priests ; for all had one and the same anointing, and were of one and the same priesthood. The high-priest neither conferred anything on his successor nor communicated anything to him. The priest who took the place of the high-priest had the dignity conferred on him by his junior fellow-priests. Dean Hook, an impartial authority on this point, says : — * It has been well remarked, that Christ Jesus has taken more abun- dant care to ascertain the succession of pastors in His Church, than ever was taken in relation to the Aaronical priesthood. For, in this case, the succession is transmitted from seniors to juniors, by the most public and solemn action, or rather, series of actions that is ever performed in a Christian Church.' — Succession. Ch. Diet. 7. The succession of the high-priest is altogether dissimilar to the supposed succession of bishops as held by certain Anglo- catholics ; and consequently, if the Fathers regarded the two successions as being analogous, then the succession will be found in both cases to be with the second, and not with the first order. The high-priest was not an order distinct from the priests, but was a single individual, and himself a priest. Our version, however, in one place represents the high-priest and the other priests as if they were two distinct orders. Thus, we read in 2 Kings xxiii. 4 : ' Hilkiah the high-priest, and the priests of the second order.' But there is nothing in the original to corre- spond to the term ^ order.' We are taught here that the ordi- nary priests were Tieiz;^ or seco7i(i to the high -priest. The same phrase is so translated in 2 Kings xxv. 18 : ' The chief-priest and Zephaniah the second priest.' But in this case the second priest denotes a vice high-priest — one who could perform all the func- tions of the high-priest, when circumstances so required. The same language is used to denote the same functionary in Jere- miah Hi. 24. 8. Before adducing abundant testimonies on this point from the Fathers, it will not be out of place, in this instance, to refer to Holy Scripture, and in part to the rabbinical and patristic interpretation of the same, in relation to the point in question. The word spriest occurs upwards of 600 times in the Old Testa- ment ; the phrase high-priest about a dozen times, and in most 64f WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. III. § 9. instances in relation to his death ; the phrase chief-priest only a few times ; and this seems to designate the leading priest of a course. These Jewish orders are very frequently spoken of, referred to, and described, never as high-priest, priests, and Levites, but always as ^ priests and Levites.' Bishop Beveridge says : — * Aaron is never, in the books of Moses, styled anything more than simply priest. In these books, neither Aaron, nor Eleazar who suc- ceeded him in the high-priest's office, is ever any otherwise denominated than by the term priest, as common with him and all the other priests.' Isaiah foretells the calling of the Grentiles to be priests and Levites in the days of the Messiah, which, necessarily implied that the law of Moses should be abrogated ; for while that was in force, none could be priests but the lineal descendants of Aaron, and none could be Levites but such as were of the tribe of Levi. 'And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord.' (Isaiah Ixvi. 2L) If the Jewish orders in any proper sense could represent the Christian orders as maintained by these Anglo-catholics generally, then the lan- guage of Isaiah is unaccountable. Augustine applies this text to the two Christian orders : ' He electeth priests and Levites as we now see,' &c. (33. 23.) 9. We have not the remotest hint in Holy Scripture that the high-priest had that pre-eminence, or authority over his brethren which these Anglo-catholics claim for the bishop over the presbyters. 'And the Lord said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood,^ (Numb, xviii. 1.) Of course the priesthood of Aaron and his sons is one and the same. In Leviticus we read, ' And he that is the high-priest among his brethren,' &c. (xxi. 10.) Jerome translates it thus : ' The high -priest, that is to say, the priest, is the greatest among his brethren' {maximus inter fratres suos). The Septuagint : ' High-priest from among his brethren.' The Chaldee Paraphrase by Onkelos: 'The high-priest who is anointed by his brethren.' Syriac version : ' The priest greater than his brethren.' We learn from these renderings the senti- ments of the ancients in regard to the relation in which the high-priest stood to his fellow-priests. Onkelos shows how a Chap. III. §§ 10, 11. PEOMOTION OF THE HIGH-PKIEST. 65 priest became high-priest, by being anointed by his equals, or juniors. 10. We come now to the direct teaching of the Fathers on this question. On the anointing of the priests and the instal- ling of the high-priest, Augustine speaks thus : — * It may be asked if anyone after the death of Moses anointed a suc- cessor to the high-priest, who certainly could not succeed him unless he were dead ? If he was one who had been already anointed among the second priests, it surely was the same oil with which both the high- priests and the second priests were anointed, the high-priest only took the vestment, by which his chief-priesthood might be known, and if it were thus, whether he himself took the robe, or another put it on him, just as after his death Moses put it on the son of his brother ? If, there- fore, the robe were put on by another, could a high-priest be made by a second one, especially as it was such a robe as was necessary to be put on him by another ? Was he thus robed before even as also afterwards ? For it was not that, when once robed, he never laid aside the vest- ment, nor, when he had laid it aside, never resumed it. Therefore, perhaps, it might happen that the second priests might robe a first one by favour, not by merit. Whence might it appear which one of the sons should succeed the high-priest ? For Scripture has not determined the first-born, or the elder, unless we understand by some divine indication how it is accustomed to come to pass, either by prophets or by whatever other mode in which God is accustomed to be consulted. Although from contention it would appear that it came to pass, as that afterwards there were many high-priests, because, when more excellent persons contended, for the sake of putting an end to the strife, the honour itself was conferred on many.' — Qacestionum super Leviticum lib. Hi. torn. iv. f 44. The whole of this extract from Augustine, though written in the interrogative style, is to be understood in the affirmative sense. 11. Again Augustine says : — *In reference to those who had been high-priests, not succeeding their fathers who had been high-priests, but were however of the sons of Aaron, that is, of his posterity. If it happened that the high-priest either had no sons, or had those who were so reprobate, that no one of them ought to succeed his father, as Samuel succeeded Eli the high- priest, when he himself was not the son of a priest ; but however he was of the sons of Aaron, that is, of his posterity.' — Retractationum lib. ii. torn. i. f. 13. Here Augustine teaches very definitely that the high-priest and his fellow-priests had one and the same anointing. That wherein a high-priest differed from another priest was not by P 66 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. III. § 1 succession, as the honour might be conferred by inferiors or equals; that in fact priests often made the high-priest. To carry out the analogy, then, between the two sets of orders, the Jewish and the Christian, the bishop would not be superior to the presbyter by succession, but by some other means ; and in fact this is what Augustine and many of the Fathers, as we shall have occasion to notice, teach. Augustine has carried out the analogy, if we take him to be the author of the following remark : ' For what is a bishop but the first presbyter, that is, a chief-priest ? ' (33. 21.) Nicolas de Lyra, a Koman Catholic commentator, has quoted in his commentary on Lev. viii. the above remarks of Augustine on the consecration of a high-priest, and confirms them by adding the following note ; — * It is asked, how were high-priests to be consecrated afterwards ? Some say, by putting on of the pontifical robes after the death of a pre- decessor, nor was anything else required, as appears respecting Eleazar, Numb. XX. Others say he was consecrated by the ordinary priests, as the Pope is by those inferior to himself.' According to Augustine and this Eoman Catholic author of the fourteenth century, these Anglicans obtain no help from the Jewish orders. The Papists, however, it would seem, have some analogy in their manner of promoting the Pope. It should be noticed that the Eoman Catholic view of apostolical succession is essentially different from that of these Anglicans. The Ro- manists believe the apostleship not to be transmissible from one to another, but derived by office. (See Chap. IV. 246, 247.) 12. Gregory Nazianzen speaks of the consecration of the high-priest and the other priests as being one and the same, though he represents Aaron as being first. (25. 8.) And speaking of his own consecration by Basil, he represents it as if he had been installed a Jewish high-priest. (Z5- 2.) And we shall find when we come to our chapter on ordination that in nearly all the ancient ordinals, as well as some in use in more modern times, in the consecration of a bishop the prayer and ceremonial are particularly characterised by the rites prescribed in the Levitical law and practised in the installation of a Jewish high-priest. Chap. III. § 13. ONE OKDINATION OF THE TWO OKDEKS. 67 The ceremony of anointing the priests by Moses for ever separated them from all other Israelites, not excepting the Levites ; so that there was subsequently no need of any further consecration, either for themselves or their posterity: any anointing subsequently used in reference to the installing of the high-priest was by inferiors or equals, and could add nothing to the original unction. 13. Origen notices the difference between the ordinary priests and the high-priests, but he finds the correspondence in the Christian Church, not in the Anglican distinction between a bishop and a presbyter, but between one duly qualified minister and another not so. (10. 1.) Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, regards Christians generally as answering to the Jewish priest- hood, and so interprets the Jewish orders. (37. 9, 10.) Like Origen, and nearly in his words, he interprets the difference between a first and a second priest of the Jews as finding its correspondence in the Church between a mere officially qualified minister and a spiritually qualified one. (37. 11.) Theodoret, on the other hand, regards the Jewish high-priest as representing the Lord Jesus, our High -priest, and the other priests as re- presenting all Christians. (39. 8.) Amalarius, an author of the eighth century, in a special treatise on the order of a priest (presbyter), and that of a high-priest (bishop), founds that distinction not on any apostolical precedent, or New Testament authority, but directly on the distinction as it existed in the Jewish priesthood. And as there was but one consecration or ordination, properly so called, of the Jewish priests, so he taught that there was but one ordination to the priesthood in the Christian Church. He states : — * According to the authority of the Fathers, that is to say, the Apostle Paul, Ambrose the Archbishop, and Jerome the Presbyter, the consecration for a bishop to sacrifice was made in the ordination of a presbyter.' (56. 9.) See also 56. 1-9. The author whom he calls Ambrose expressly states : — ' The ordination of a bishop and a presbyter is one and the same, for each is a priest, but the bishop is chief.' (31. 10.) F 2 68 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. III. § 14. Jerome says : — * Bishops should know that they are priests, not lords.' ' But we know this, that Aaron and his sons are the same as a bishop and pres- byters.' (29. 4, 5, 30.) Tertullian calls the presiding presbyter or bishop a chief- priest. (8. 1 1.) Lactantius, speaking of some who desired to be rulers, represents them as seeking to be chief-priests, literally the greatest of the priests. (15- 3.) The Fathers almost inva- riably assign the same position to the bishops in regard to their fellow-presbyters that the Scriptures and Jewish interpreters assign to the high-priest in regard to his fellow-priests. And hence, as will be seen from the Catena appended, in more pri- mitive times the chief presbyter almost always bore the title of high-priest. 14. It is manifest, then, that the high-priest was nothing beyond a primus inter pares, in regard to his fellow -priests, and the early Fathers generally claim no more for the bishop in regard to his fellow-presbyters. It is true that in the time of Jerome bishops claimed much more; and as some abused their power, he therefore, to humble the bishop and exalt the presbyter, referred to the case of Aaron and his sons. Jerome's allusions to the case of Aaron and his sons will be best understood by con- sidering them in connection with their contexts. See 29. 4, 5, and compare 29. 30, the part quoted by Dr. Wordsworth as given at sect. 1 of this chapter, with the preceding part of that epistle to Evagrius, and the conclusion will be inevitable that Dr. Wordsworth has made a great mistake in quoting it to support his notions of what a Christian bishop is, or should be, in the Church in regard to his power and authority in comparison with a presbyter. Dean Hook states : — ' It has been well remarked that Christ Jesus has taken more abun- dant care to ascertain the succession of pastors in His Church than ever was taken in relation to the Aaronical priesthood.' — Succession. Ch. Diet. It has already been shown in a previous chapter that these Anglicans admit that the succession is not at all revealed in Scripture, or very obscurely so. How could the Dean have the assurance to state, ^It has well been remarked,' &c. ? If our Lord had taken such abundant care for this Anglican succession, how is Chap. III. § 15. SUCCESSION INTEEKUPTED. 69 it that these Anglicans cannot tell us where in His Word He has revealed it? and how in all the world did it come to pass that the early Fathers, as we have seen, did not know it ; but when the Church had attained to some position of pomp and power in the world, we find them running to the Levitical law for Christian orders, and having adopted- them in the Church, vaguely, but conveniently ascribing them to ' apostolical tradition,' and when they consecrated or installed a bishop, they robed him, put upon him a mitre, and filled his hands, &c., as if they were installing a veritable Jewish high-priest, and in their early ordinations have little or no reference to any New Testament precedent ? This is an interesting question for the acute Anglo-catholics to answer. 15. Another point of analogy between the high-priest and the bishop of these Anglo-catholics is wanting in regard to the im- portance of an uninterrupted succession, and the consequences dependent upon it. Both Dean Hook and Dr. Wordsworth claim an uninterrupted succession of bishops for our Church, and without such succes- sion they conclude that there can be no true Church and no valid sacraments. Hence those churches admitted not to have this succession are branded as schisms, and the members of the same are regarded as being without any revealed means of salva- tion. According to the law of Moses, the succession of the Jewish high-priest should have been a lineal and uninterrupted one. But it is notorious that in fact it was not so. Without referring to a multitude of authorities on this point. Dr. Hammond, used as a link of the Tractarian Catena Patrum on apostolical succes- sion, will be sufficient : — ' At this time, the land being under the Roman emperor, the suc- cession of the high-priests was now changed, the one lineal descendant in the family of Aaron, which was to continue for life, being not per- mitted to succeed, but some other, whom he pleased, named to that office by the Roman procurator every year, or renewed as often as he pleased. To which purpose is that of Theophylact : "They who were at that time high-priests of the Jews invaded that dignity, bought it, and so destroyed the law," which prescribed a succession in the family of Aaron. . . . For 't is manifest, that at this time the Roman preefect did, ad libitum, when he would, and that sometimes once a year, put in whom he pleased into the pontificate, to officiate in Aaron's office, 70 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. III. §§ 16, 17. instead of the lineal descendant from him. And that is it of which Josephus so frequently makes mention.' — Hammond on Luke iii. 2. 16. It is needless to remark, that in consequence of this un- , doubted departure from the law of Moses, the Jewish Church was not destroyed, nor its ordinances rendered invalid. Dean Hook and others should console themselves with the thought, that if their supposed fact of the succession should be a fiction — and a thousand to one but that it is so — yet the Church is a Church, and the sacraments valid notwithstanding ; that is, if we carry out the analogy which is supposed to exist by these Anglo-catholics between the Jewish and the Christian orders. But Dean Hook, great in puerilities, is often very small in matters of supreme importance; and, according to his own argument, it almost amounts to an absolute certainty that, although he belongs to a very ancient community called a church, with equally ancient ordinances, yet, for want of the uninterrupted succession, this said community is only a church in name, and its ordinances of mere human authority ; and, in consequence hereof, we, like other schismatics, must be left to the uncovenanted mercies of Grod. He states : — * The line in which the ministry of the Church is handed on from age to age; the corporate hneage of the Christian clergy, just as in the Jewish Church there was a family lineage. .... Those are said to be in apostolical succession who have been sent to labour in the Lord's vineyard by bishops who were consecrated by those who, in their turn, were consecrated by others, and these by others, until the derived authority is traced to the apostles, and through them to the great Head of the Church. The apostolical succession of the ministry is essential to the right administration of the Holy Sacraments. The clergy of the Church of England can trace their connection with the apostles, by links not one of which is wanting, from the times of St. Paul and St. Peter to our own.' — Apostolical Succession. * And as the validity of the ministry depended on the legitimacy of its derivation (by an " uninterrupted succession ") from the apostles, &c Without this {uninterrupted succession), all distinction between a clergyman and a layman is utterly vain, for no security exists that Heaven will ratify the acts of an illegally constituted minister on earth. Without it, ordination confers none but humanly derived powers.' — Succession, Apostolical. Ch. Diet. 17. On the Dean's hypothesis, it is almost certain that the Church to which he belongs is simply of human appointment. Chap. III. §§ 18, 19. THE MINISTKY NOT A PEIESTHOOD. 71 with sacraments and ordinances originating from the same source, being absolutely without any authority, or promised blessing from Christ. On the Dean's hypothesis, every Church has long since been banished from the earth, if ever there was one after the time of the apostles, constituted after the Dean's fashion. 18. The reader should note well that Clement, the most dis- tinguished of all the apostolical Fathers, does not give the slightest ground for us to suppose that he regarded the orders of the Old Testament as at all analogous to those of the New ; and that although Jerome and other Fathers regarded the one set of orders as, in some measure, analogous to the other, yet the way in which they speak of the appointment of the high- priest, and the position he held, precludes his representing, in any proper sense, the bishop of these Anglo-catholics, who must have a succession independent of his fellow-presbyters, derived from another distinct and higher order; whereas, according to Grregory Nazianzen, Jerome, Augustine, and other Fathers, it was not the case with the high-priest in contrast with his fellow-priests. The interrupted succession of the Jewish high-priest did not invalidate or destroy the ordinances of the Jewish Church ; and supposing a similar succession to be revealed in the New Testament, we are not to conclude that its interruption, judging from the analogy of the Jewish Church, would render null and void the ordinances of the Christian Church. 19. Before concluding this chapter, it will be suitable to notice what the Fathers generally have taught respecting the Christian priesthood. In our research for information on the subject of this book, we have no recollection of noticing any attempt on their part to justify from Scripture their very common practice of designating the Christian ministry a priest- hood, and the several ranks or orders of it as high-priests, priests, and Levites. We know that there is no foundation for this in the Holy Scriptures ; and, notwithstanding the marvel- lous facility with which the Fathers generally can accommodate the Scriptures to suit their convenience, they do not appear to have done so in this instance. They give ample proof from 72 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEES ? Chap. III. § 20. Scripture for the priesthood of the Christian laity, whether men, women, or children ; but none, so far as we have seen, for what they call the priesthood of the clergy as distinct from the laity. These Anglicans of our Church are very zealous for what they consider the priesthood of the bishop or presbyter, in contradis- tinction to the laity ; that a presbyter has a sacrifice to offer, and is a sacrificer in a sense which they are not. Dean Hook maintains this in his Church Dictionary. It is true the distinc- tion held by him is exceedingly attenuated ; still, however, it may be sufficient for those who take the Dean as their in- structor, to induce them to believe that he, and every priest or presbyter in our Church, is a sacrificer in a sense that a bap- tised layman is not. 20. As Dr. Wordsworth has given his young student an explicit account of the priesthood and its sacrifices, as generally held by these Anglicans, he shall represent them : — * Q. But it is asked, since the Church cannot exist without a priest- hood (S. Hieron. adv. Lucif. c. 8. " Ecclesia non est quae non habet sacerdotes''^\ nor a priesthood without a sacrifice, can it be said that there is any sacrifice in the Church of England ; and if not, has she a true priesthood, and is she a true Church ? ' In answer to this question, we are informed that the Church of England has the following sacrifices : ^ a sacrificium primitivum, a sacrificium eucharisticum, a sacrificium votivuTn, a sacrificium eommemorativum, a sacrificium reprcesentativuTrh, a sacrificium impetrativum, and sacrificium applicativum.^ (Part II. ch. vi. pp. 215, 216.) Truly a goodly, and withal a perfect number, just seven, and neither more nor less ! All these so-called sacri- fices, as explained by Dr. Wordsworth, Christian laymen have the same scriptural right to ofier as any order of clergy; and but for one single reference of his, it might have been concluded that that was his meaning. But in proof that * a Church cannot exist without a priesthood,^ we are referred to Jerome : ' There is no Church which has not priests.' In our edition it is ' has not a priest.' Jerome is referring to Hilary the deacon, who, he said, could not prepare the Eucharist, not having bishops and presbyters. And he goes on to say, « A deacon cannot ordain a clergyman. But there is no Church which has not a priest Chap. III. § 21. ALL CHEISTIANS PRIESTS. 73 (sacerdotemy By the term priest, Jerome means that every Church should have at least a bishop or a presbyter, but has no reference to a sacrificing priest. 21. In the same treatise from which Dr. Wordsworth made the above extract, Jerome represents every baptised person as having a priesthood, and quotes Scripture in proof of it : — ' Let him lay aside the priesthood of a layman, that is baptism. . . . For it is written, " he hath made us a kingdom and priests unto his Father." And again, "A holy nation, a royal priesthood." (29. 18, 19.) "A chosen race, royal and priestly, which properly belongs to Chris- tians who are anointed with spiritual oil ; concerning whom it is written, * God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.' !' (29. 45.) " All who have been baptised into Christ are a priestly and royal race." ' (29. 49.) Justin Martyr represents all those who have put away their sins as high-priests of Grod, as Grod Himself testifies, saying : — * That in every place among the Gentiles they offer sacrifices pure and well pleasing to Him. But God accepts not sacrifices from any ex- cept through His priests ; God has therefore beforehand declared that all who through this name offer those sacrifices which Jesus, who is the Christ, commanded to be offered, that is to say, in the Eucharist of the bread and of the cup, which are offered in every part of the world by us Christians.' (S. 6, 7.) Irenseus says, ' All righteous men hold the priestly order,' &c. (6- 10.) Tertullian is most express on the priesthood of the laity. He says, ' Are not we laymen priests ? It is written, "He hath made us a kingdom, and prieststo G-od and His Father."' (8. 16.) Cyprian teaches that the people are as much sacrificers as the priests : — ' When we come together into one place with the brethren, and cele- brate divine sacrifices with the priest of God (" cum Dei sacerdote ").' — De oraf. Dom. p. 100. He also states, — ' Christians become partners as well of the anointing (of Christ) as of the name, and are called Christians from Christ . . . ordained of God the priests of holiness.' (11. 41.) Yictorinus maintains that the entire Church are priests of G-od. (Z6.) Ambrose states, ' All the sons of the Church are priests, for we are anointed to be a holy priesthood.' (30-4.) Again, in a work commonly attributed to him, he regards all the 74 WHOSE ABE THE FATHERS ? Chap. III. § 22. elect of God as priests, because they are members of the High- priest. (30. 15, 17.) Hilary the deacon says, ' Is not our faith a heavenly altar on which we offer our prayers daily ? ' (31- 14.) Augustine says : — * Every Christian is sanctified, that he may understand that he is not only the participator of priestly and royal dignity,' &c. (33. 17.) * Scarcely any one of the faithful doubts that the priesthood of the Jews was a figure of the royal priesthood to come, which is in the Church, to which priesthood all are consecrated who belong to the body of Christ.* (33. 18.) ' But as we all are called Christians on account of our mysti- cal chrism, so also all are priests, since they are the members of One Priest.' (33. 22, 23.) Chrysostom states : — * In old times these three sorts were anointed ; but we have not now one of these dignities, but all three pre-eminently. For we are both to enjoy a kingdom and are made priests by offering our bodies for a sacri- fice, for He saith, " present your members a living sacrifice acceptable to God." ' (34. 38.) Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, regards the literal Jewish priesthood as having its correspondence or fulfilment in the spiri- tual priesthood of all Christians. (37. 12.) Eemigius states : — * In the New Testament aU the faithful are anointed, not so much with visible oil as invisible grace, that is to say, with the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the imposition of hands, and they become kings of souls and priests of peoples, to sanctify those, according to which Peter says, " ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood." ' (46. 5.) The testimony of Bede is very express upon this point. He ' Peter instructs us that we ourselves are a holy priesthood, . . . that he caUs every Church a holy priesthood, that which under the law the house of Aaron had in office and in name ; because doubtless we are aU members of the High Priest.' (55. 10.) * No one of the saints who is spiritual is without the office of the priesthood, since he becomes a mem- ber of the Eternal Priest.' (55. 11.) * But as we are all called Christians by reason of the mystical chrism, so we are all priests, we are members of One Priest.' (55. 12.) 22. In proof that the presbyter offers a sacrifice in the Lord's Supper which the people do not, Dr. Wordsworth has adduced the testimony of Archbishop Laud : — ' In the Eucharist we offer up to God three sacrifices ; one by the priest only, that is the commemorative sacrifice of Christ's death, repre- sented ia. bread broken and wine poured.' — Ibid. p. 216. Chap. III. § 23. THE CHUECH A PKIESTHOOD. 75 He has also made, in his jaotes on Hebrews viii. 4, a quotation from Theodore t, which at first sight seems to confirm this view. The passage is given in 39. 25, 26. It is true, he says, * The priests of the New Testament perform the mystical service (Lord's Supper). For the Lord Himself commanded us, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me ; " and this we do, in order that by contem- plation we may call to mind the figure of the sufferings of Christ which He underwent for us, and may stir up our love.' Now, who are to call to mind these sufferings of Christ ? And when he says, ' and may stir up our love,' whom does he mean ? Plainly in both cases not exclusively the ministers, but the laity of both sexes. For the blessed command, ^ Do this in remembrance of me,' applies alike to all believers. But else- where Theodoret has so spoken upon this point that we cannot mistake his meaning : — * For He calls the Church His body, and by this Church the priest- hood is discharged as a man, but He receives those things which are offered as God. The Church offers the symbols of His body and blood,' &c. (39. 8, 9.) Chrysostom confirms this view of the case : ' The offering (sacra- ment of the Lord's Supper) is the same, whether a common man or Paul or Peter ojffer it.' (34:- 49.) He also teaches that the voice of the laity in no slight degree accoutres those that are ordained : — ' But there are occasions in which there is no difference at all between the priest and those under him ; for instance, when we partake of the awful mysteries,' &c. (34. 40.) The opinions of these Fathers will be found more fully expressed in the Catena in the several places from which the extracts have been made, and to which references have been given. 23. Bishop Jewel, in rebuking the elder cousins of these Anglicans, in their assumptions of a priesthood peculiar to themselves, has by anticipation done the same thing to all who may hold similar notions ; and as the rebuke is singularly appli- cable in the present case, we shall conclude this point by refer- ring to him. (See 73. 20-22.) 76 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS? Chap. IV. § 1. CHAPTER IV. THE ANGLICAN TEACHING ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS BOOK STATED, AS GIVEN BY DR. WORDSWORTH AND MR. PERCEVAL, AND THE PRINCIPAL EVIDENCE THEY HAVE ADDUCED FROM VARIOUS FATHERS GIVEN. AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEADING FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX CENTURIES IN RELATION TO THEIR TESTIMONY ON THE CHURCH, AND ESPECIALLY ON ITS MINISTRY, IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY STAND IN THE FIRST PART OF THE CATENA PATRUM, TOGETHER WITH THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED FROM THEM BY THE ABOVE-NAMED AIJTHORS AND DR. PUSEY AND OTHERS. 1. That the teaching of these Anglicans on the subject of our book may not appear to a disadvantage in being broken up into scattered fragments, it has been determined to give at the beginning of this chapter some of the principal arguments and chief evidence adduced by Dr. Wordsworth in favour of the doctrine of his school ; and nearly the whole of the evidence as adduced direct from the Fathers, for the same purpose, by Mr. Perceval. The book ' Theophilus Anglicanus ; or. Instruction for the Young Student,' from which we shall give extracts relating to this Anglican teaching, is of considerable importance, arising from the fact that it has been, and we believe is now, used in St. Bees' College, and other places where young men are trained for the Christian ministry. The main evidence adduced by Mr. Perceval in his book entitled ^An Apology for the Doctrine of Apostolical Succession,' will be given, and treated after the same manner. The chief importance of this book is that it was written at the request of Dean Hook, and year after year it is referred to by him as an authority on the subject on which it treats. Dr. Wordsworth : — * Q. Whom do bishops succeed and represent 1 ^A. The holy apostles. Chap. IV. §§ 2-9. PATRISTIC DOCTEINE OF SUCCESSION. 77 ' S. Iren. iii. 3. " Habemus enumare eos qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi, et successores eorum usque ad nos." 2. ' Tertullian, Praescr. Hgeret. 32. " Edant (sc. hseretici) origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum ita^er suc- cessiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris habuerit auctorem et antecessor em." 3. ' S. Cyprian., Ep. 66. " Episcopi sunt praepositi qui apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunly 4. ' S. HiERON., Ep. ad. Evag. " Omnes episcopi apostolorum succes- sores sunt.'" Ad Marcellam, Ep. 5. " Apud nos apostolorum Episcopi locum tenent." 5. ' S. Aug. in Ps. xliv. " P aires missi sunt apostoli, pro apostolis jilii nati sunt ecclesiae, constituti sunt episcopi." 6. ' Epiphan., Hseres. 79. eS, 'laKioj3ov kuI ruiv irpoEipri^EvuJV 'AttootoXwk KaTEffTadr](Tav ^m^o^at ETriaicoTTiov Koi TrpEcrf^vripiov. 7. * Q. But does not St. Jerome (S. Hieron. in Tit. i. Ep. Ixxxv. ad Evagrium) say that, even in the apostolic times, the churches were governedhj several ipvesbyters, who were also called episcopi, " antequam instinctu diaboli studia in r eligione Jierent, et diceretur in populisj ego sum ApollOj ego sum Cephce ; postquam autem unusquisque eos quos bap- tizaverat suos esse putabat non Christi, turn in toto orbe decretum est ut UNUS de presbyteris electus superponeretur cceteris, ad quern omnis cura ecclesice pertineret, et schismatum semina toller entur " ? 8. ' A. Yes, he does ; but in another place (De Scriptoribus Ecclesi- asticis. " Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini, — post passionem Domini statimab apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus." InLucif. c. 4. " Ecclesise salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate consistit, cui si non exsors quaedam et eminens detur potestas, tot in Ecclesia efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes. Inde venit ut sine Chrismate et episcopi jussione neque presbyter neque diaconus habeat jus baptizandi.^'' InEvagr. Ixxxv. " Quid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat ? " See also sect. 4 above), he says that bishops are the ordained successors of the apostles; that St. James was Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the ascension of Christ ; that episcopacy is an apo- stolic ordinance ; that presbyters cannot ordain ; that the safety of the Church consists in the dignity of its bishop ; and his assertion, just quoted, does, when examined, tend rather to confirm the doctrine of the apostolic and divine institution of episcopacy. 9. ' Q. You say that they (bishops) were not apostles ; was then their power apostolic ? ' A. Yes ; their office was similar to, and in the place of, that of the apostles. ' Q. How do you show this ? ^ A. St. Paul tells Titus that he had left him in Crete, that he might perfect the things which he (St. Paul himself) had left incomplete. ' S. Hieron. ad Tit. c. i. " Eeliquit Titum Cretse, ut rudimenta nascen- tis ecclesiae confirmaret, ' ut ea quce deerant corrigeres.^ Omne autem quod corrigitur imperfectum est. Et in Grseco praepositionis adjectio qua scribitur e-mdiopduja-riQ non id ipsum sonat quod diopdwayg corrigeres, sed 78 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. §§ 10-12. super eorrigeres ; ut quae a me correcta sunt nedimi ad plenam veri lineam retracta a te corrigantur et normam ajqualitatis accipianty 10. * Q. What additional proof is there of the Divine institution of episcopacy from ancient practice ? * A. There is a strong confirmation of it in the fact that not only Catholics, but also heretics and schismatics, differing from the Church and from each other in many other respects, all agreed in recognising the necessity of episcopal government, with one single exception, that of Aerius (of Sebastia, in Pontus), in the fourth century, who, on that special account, as well as for other reasons, is placed among heretics by the Fathers of the Church, and whose doctrine on that point was condemned as sacrilegious. ' S. Aug. de Hgeres. i. 33. " Aerius dicebat Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni." (Epiphan. de Hsereticis, 75.) — Theoph. Aug. chap. x. pp. 87, 91, 95, 98. These extracts from the Fathers will be found translated and considered in various parts of this chapter. Hon. and Kev. A. P. Perceval : — 11. * I proceed, therefore, to cite the witnesses from Scripture and ecclesiastical antiquity in support of the episcopal scheme ; that is, that our Lord Jesus Christ, before His bodily departure from the world, and from the Church which He had chosen out of it, did, for the well- being and good government of this His spiritual kingdom, and for the work of the ministry, grant a commission of regency, which He placed in the hands of one class of His ministers, the chief pastors of His Church, designing it to be a perpetual commission until His own return. That this commission, which He left in the hands of the chief pastors, has ever since continued, and must continue till the world's end, in their hands, they only being competent to exercise it who have been admitted to the order of chief pastors by those who were chief pastors before them. . . . .For positive proof of the same, let the following extracts suffice — a few out of the many with which it would be easy to crowd these pages, if it were desirable to make a display.' Here follows an extract from Clement of Eome, which has been quoted and considered in the preceding chapter. 12. ' Ignatius, the friend and disciple of St. John, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 107. *' The bishops appointed to the utmost bounds of the earth are the mind of Jesus Christ." " I think you happy who are so joined to your bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father ; that so all things may agree in unity." {Epistle to the Church at Ephesus.) " I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord. Your bishop presiding in the place of God ; your presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles ; and your deacons, most dear to me, being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." " Do nothing without your bishop and presbyters." " He that does anything without Chap. IV. §§ 13-17. APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION OF ELDERS. 79 bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, is not pure in conscience." " Attend to the bishop, to the presbytery, and to the deacons." "Do nothing with- out the bishop." " As many as are of Jesus Christ are also with their bishop." " FoUow your bishop, as Jesus Christ (followed) the Father ; and the presbytery, as the apostles : as for the deacons, reverence them as the command of G-od. Let no man do anything of what belongs to the Church without the bishop. Let that Eucharist be looked upon as firm and right which is offered either by the bishop or by him to whom the bishop has given his consent. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be ; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catho- lic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop, neither to baptise, nor to celebrate the holy communion ; but, whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, that so whatever is done may be secure and well done." 13. ' Ieen^us, ordained by Polycarp the disciple of St. John, Bishop of Lyons, a.d. 178. " Those elders in the Church are to be obeyed who have a succession from the apostles, as we have shown [in a former place he had given in the instance of the bishops of Rome the succession irom St, Peter], who together with the succession- have received a certain true gift, [or gift of truth], according to the decree of the Father ; but the rest who shun the chief succession, and are gathered together in any place, are to be suspected as heretics and persons of bad opinions ; or as schismatics and conceited persons, pleasing themselves ; or, again, as hypocrites, doing this for the sake of gain and vain glory, and all these have fallen from the truth." — Woi^k against Heresies, book iv. *' The doctrine of the apostles is true knowledge ; and the ancient state of the Church and the character of the body of Christ, is according to the succession of bishops, to whom, in every place, they delivered the Church."— /J/df. 14. ' Clement, Presbyter of Alexandria, a.d. 194. " In the Church, the orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons are, I think, imitations of the angelic glory." — Stromata, bookvi. 15. ' Tertullian, supposed by many to have been a layman of the Church of Carthage, in Africa, a.d. 200. " Let the heretics set forth the origin of their churches ; let them turn over the order of their bishops, so descending by succession from the beginning, that he who was the first bishop had one of the apostles, or of the apostolical men who was in full communion with the apostles, for his author and predecessor. For in this manner the apostolical churches bring down their registers ; as the Church of Smyrna had Polycarp placed over them by John ; as the Church of Rome had Clement ordained by Peter ; as the other churches also set forth those who were made bishops over them by the apostles." — Of Heretical Prescriptions, C. 32. IG. ' Origen, catechist of the Church of Alexandria, in Egypt, a.d. 230. " Shall I not be subject to my bishop, who is ordained of God to be my Father? Shall I not be subject to the presbyter, who, by the Divine condescension, is placed over me? " — 20thHomili/ on St. Matthew. 17. * Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, a.d. 250. " This, brother, is and ought to be our principal labour and study, to the utmost of our power, 80 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS? Chap. IV. §§ 18-22. to take care that the unity may still obtain which was delivered by our Lord and by His apostles to us, their successors." {Epistle to Cornelius, Bishop of Borne.) " From thence [from our Lord's appointment of St. Peter], through the course of times and successions, the ordination of bishops, and the frame of the Church, is transmitted, so that the Church is built upon the bishops, and all her affairs are ordered by the chief rulers ; and, therefore, seeing this is God's appointment, I must needs wonder at the audacious daring of some who have chosen to write to me, as if in the name of a church, whereas a church is only constituted in the bishop, clergy, and faithful Christians." — Epistle to the Lapsed, 18. ' FiRMiLiAN, Bishop of Csesarea, in Cappadocia, a.d. 250. " The power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they founded, and to the bishops who succeeded to the apostles by a vicarious ordination." — Epistle to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. 19. '■ Clarus a Muscula, Bishop in the province of Carthage, A.D. 250. " The sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest, sending His apostles, and to them alone committing the power given Him by His Father; to whom we [bishops] have succeeded, "governing the Church of our Lord with the same power." — In the Council of Carthage. 20. 'I will not tire my reader's patience by pursuing the list of indi- vidual witnesses. I will only desire him to observe, that, among the few I have cited, we have witnesses, not from one church or one country, only, but from Europe, Asia, and Africa, the only quarters of the globe then known ; from France, from Italy, from Cappadocia, from Asia Minor, from Egypt, from Carthage.' — Apology for the Doctrine of Apostolical Succession, chap. vii. pp. 88-96. 21. Having thus given at length the doctrines advocated by Dr. Wordsworth and Mr. Perceval respectively, and the au- thorities which they have adduced in their support, we shall now examine in detail the testimony of the Fathers of the first six centuries on the doctrines in question, and we undertake to show that they do not teach what Dr. Wordsworth, Mr. Perceval, and others of these Anglo-catholics maintain they do. Clemens Eomanus. 22. Jerome speaks thus of this ancient Father : — ' Clement, of whom the apostle Paul, writing to the Philippians, says, " with Clement also, and with other my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life," was the fourth Roman bishop after Peter. If indeed Linus was the second, and Anacletus the third. Many of the Latins, however, think that Clement was second after the apostle Peter. He wrote a very useful epistle from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, which in some places is read pubUcly.' — Cat. Scrip. Eccles. torn. i. p. 272. Chap. IV. §§ 23, 24. EPISCOPATE OF PEESBYTEES. 8 J Of him Eusebius thus writes : — * Of this Clement there is one epistle extant, acknowledged as genuine, of considerable length and great merit, which he wrote in the name of the Church at Eome, to that of Corinth, at the time when there was a dissension in the latter. This we know to have been publicly read for common benefit, in most of the churches, both in former times and in our own ; and that at the time mentioned a sedition did take place at Corinth, is abundantly attested by Hegesippus.' — Lib. iii. cap. xvi. p. 165. 23. The testimony of Clement on the subject under discussion is of singular value, and next in importance to inspired authority. His testimony relating to Jewish and Christian orders has already been considered in Chap. III. 4. We have now to examine what he has recorded relating to presbyters and their office. This will be found at the commencement of the Catena 1. If, as these Anglo-catholics state, there can be no Church, no sacraments, and no salvation, without a bishop who possesses the powers and authority they ascribe to him, how is it that we can learn nothing of such a person from this long and almost canonical epistle of Clement, in which, from the occasion he has to speak of the Church and its rulers, he must have spoken of such a person if there had been one ? So far is he from supposing that a Church and its presbyters are under the absolute control of a bishop, that he seems to speak as if the presbyters, who are described as having an episcopate, were under the control of the lay members of the Church. He, instead of im- pressing upon the minds of the Corinthians that their presbyters obtained their authority from the apostles through the bishop, and that they were responsible to him alone as a ruler of the Church, addresses them thus, and, after the style of St. Paul, introduces himself as if he were one of the laity among them: — ' For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from their episcopate (or bishopric) who holily and without blame fulfil the duties of it. Blessed are those presbyters who having finished their course before these times, have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolu- tion, for they have no fear, lest anyone should turn them out of their place which is now appointed for them. But we see how you have put out some, who lived reputably among you, from the ministry which by their innocency they had adorned.' (1. 6.) 24. Clement, no doubt, regarded the office of a presbyter as 82 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. §| 25, 26. a divine appointment; but then he describes, as we have seen, the Christian orders as being two only — those of bishops and deacons. Like the New Testament writers, and most of the Fathers, he treated the office of bishop and presbyter as being substantially one and the same. We have given all the evidence contained in Clement's epistle in any way relating to the clerical office. This will be found at the beginning of the Catena, and from which it will be seen that Clement was an utter stranger to these Anglican assumptions respecting bishops. Hermas. 25. Our next Father is Hermas. The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Eomans, chap. xvi. 14, salutes a person of this name. But he is not believed to have been the author of the book, although it has often been ascribed to him. Nevertheless it is a very ancient document, and a piece of very legitimate evidence on the subject under discussion. In the time of Euffinus it was considered to be an apocryphal part of the New Testament, and as such it was read in the churches. (See 32. 3.) Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome give a similar account of it. Like Clement, this pseudo-Hermas considered bishop and presbyter as different titles for the same office. He speaks of elders as presiding over the Church at Kome. (2. 2.) He also represents a plurality of persons, whether bishops or elders, as presiding over the Church of Kome, and as loving the chief seats. (2- 4.) He, in his time, knew only of two orders in the Church : bishops or elders as governors of churches, and deacons as governors of ministries, and as protecting the poor and widows. (2. 9.) All the evidence relating to clerical orders contained in the writings of this person will be found in 2. Ignatius. 26. The next Father that comes under our notice is Ignatius, respecting whose writings there is extreme uncertainty. Dr. Wordsworth claims seven of the fifteen epistles ascribed to Ignatius as authentic and uninterpolated, and has quoted from ( Chap. IV. § 27. PRESBYTERS IN THE PLACE OF APOSTLES. 83 them some of the strongest passages in favour of what he con- siders the -peculiar office of a bishop. Instead, then, of wearying the reader with a dissertation to prove that nearly all the writings ascribed to Ignatius are either spurious or interpolated, especially what he has stated respecting bishops, it has been determined to accept seven of the epistles, as given both in the Shorter and Longer Recensions, as if they were genuine, and accept the testimony for what it is worth. Perhaps, in justice to this bishop and most noted martyr, we ought to state that we do not believe that he could have been so wanting in reve- rence to Almighty Grod and His blessed Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, as almost to confound a mortal, called a bishop, with these Ineffable Persons. Had this pseudo-Ignatius been con- tent to have claimed for his bishop what he has done for his presbyters, viz., the place of the apostles, and the honour due to them, he would have saved himself from profanity, and would have much better served these Anglo-catholics. 27. If the three epistles which have come down to us in Syriac can be relied upon as genuine, of which there is little if any doubt, then we have evidence from early antiquity in favour of the bishop being in some manner distinct from, and superior to, the presbyter. The whole of the evidence relating to this point, contained in the three genuine epistles, is given in 3a 1, 4, 7. Whatever passages have any relation to clerical orders in the seven epistles, whether of the Longer or Shorter Recensions, whether more or less interpolated, are given in Cat. 3. and are commended to the candid attention of the reader. The claims urged by these Anglo-catholics in behalf of their bishop is not whether he is in the place of Almighty Grod, or is to be honoured as Jesus Christ, but whether he belongs to an order of men who are exclusively the successors of the apostles, having their place, power, and authority in the Church. Neither Ignatius, nor pseudo-Ignatius ever claim this for the bishop, but pseudo-Ignatius does assign presbyters the place of the apostles. ^ The bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles.' (3. 23, 24.) ^ Be subject to the presby- tery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ.' (3. 33, 34.) * Let all reverence a 2 84 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. §§ 28, 29. .... the presbyters as tlie council of God, and college of apostles.' (3. 35, 36.) * All follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles.' (3. 49, 50.) 28. Bingham says : — * Ignatius, whose writings, as a learned man (Bishop Pearson) ob- serves, speak as much for the honour of the presbyters as they do for the superiority of episcopacy, no ancient author having given so many great and noble characters of the presbytery as he does.' (91. 9.) That presbyters may have the place of apostles is not utterly incredible, but that bishops are superior to apostles, and have a place above them, and, therefore, superior to presbyters on that account, is incredible. If this pseudo-Ignatius can be of any service to these Anglo-catholics, this must be the line of argument, which, if they can receive, might give rise to an in- teresting question, viz., which of the two things is the more incredible — the doctrine to be believed, or the evidence on which they would rest it ? 29. We shall consider the testimony of pseudo-Ignatius, as given by Mr. Perceval, and quoted at sec. 12 of this chapter. Dean Hook stated what he considers to be the three orders of the Christian ministry, both in the times of the apostles and immediately subsequent thereto, as given at Chap. II. 2. But Mr. Perceval, by giving with approval the teaching of pseudo- Ignatius on the three orders, contradicts the Dean. Mr. Perceval quotes the following : — * Your bishops presiding in the place of God : your presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles; and your deacons, most dear to me, being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.' Here, be it observed, the jpreshyters have the place of the apostles ; and, as we have seen, this author uniformly assigns them that position, and never assigns it to the bishop. The three orders then, as given by pseudo-Ignatius and as adopted by Mr. Perceval, and apparently approved by Dean Hook, stand thus: 1st Order — bishop, formerly God; 2nd Order — presbyter or elder, formerly apostles ; 3rd Order, deacon. But as we have noticed, the Dean places the first order as succeeding apostles, thus: * 1st Order — bishop, formerly apostle.' The Dean, however, cannot believe both theories, and Chap. IV. § 30. BISHOP IN THE PLACE OF GOD. 85 he and these other Anglicans must adopt one, and of necessity reject the other. No father, so far as we have seen, has held that the bishop is in the place of Grod, beside Ignatius, except an unknown author under the name of Jerome. (Z9. 40.) But nearly all the Fathers do, with him, though in a some- what modified sense, assign the place of the apostles to the presbyters. 30. Here may be noticed the very questionable use Dr. Wordsworth has made of his pseudo-Ignatius. It occurs in the 9th chapter of his Theophilus Anglicanus : — * That there are these three orders in the Church, and that a religious community is not dull/ and fullf/ a church without them, is evident " from Scripture and ancient authors ; " especially from the writings of St. Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, and bishop of Antioch, and martyr.' — p. 86. In this sentence we do not for a moment question the state- ment as given from the preface of the Ordinal, but more of this in a subsequent chapter, but we do question the application of the extract from the pseudo-Ignatius as a case in point, which is as follows : ' Without these a church is not called.' Now, if we enquire into the nature of these three orders, and the kind of church to which they appear to have been essential, we shall find that there is scarcely any resemblance between the orders of the church of this pseudo-Ignatius and the kind of orders Dr. Wordsworth claims for the Church of England, and that there is the greatest possible difference between the churches. Dr. Wordsworth, as we have seen, maintains that a bishop succeeds and represents the holy apostles ; that presbyters do not do so, but are of a lower order and under the control of bishops. But the three orders of this Ignatius, without which a church is said not to be called, are essentially different ; for in this case, pres- byters are said to succeed and represent the holy apostles, though it is true the bishop is represented as being above them. The words to which Dr. Wordsworth refers are : — ' Let all reverence the bishop, as Jesus Christ being son of the Father, but the presbyters as the college of the apostles : without these a church is not called.' (3. 35.) According to the uniform teaching of pseudo-Ignatius, presby- 86 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§ 31-33. ters have the place of the apostles, and the bishop a higher place than the apostles. These two pseudo-Ignatian orders cannot surely be of any avail to these Anglicans. It is strange they should refer to them as if they were, for such a practice can only tend to deceive the unlearned reader. 31. Then as to this Ignatian church, the Church of the New Testament and that of the first two centuries were of a congre- gational character, if not absolutely so. To accept with ap- proval the extract as quoted by Dr. Wordsworth from this Ignatius, and to regard it as of any worth, actually tends to unchurch our own Church. Every congregation of our Church in which the Lord's Supper is administered without the three orders is condemned by the statement of pseudo-Ignatius. He defines a Church or Christ- ian assembly as having but ' one temple,' ' one house of prayer,' and *into which all came together,' and as having * one cup,' ' one Eucharist,' ' one altar,' and ' one bishop, with presbyters and deacons.' * Without these (orders) a church is not called, nor is there a gathering of saints, nor any assembly of religious persons.' (3. 27, 28, 36, 44, 45, 49, 50.) 32. The early Fathers cannot be rightly understood without we fully appreciate the style in which they speak of the visible Church, which is altogether different from that of modern times, and especially that of these Anglicans. Their style, however, is that of Holy Scripture. Barrow says : — ' The word church is ambiguous, having both in Holy Scripture and common use divers senses, somewhat different.' And after quoting a long list of texts from the New Testament, where the church is for the most part of a congregational cha- racter, he states : — * According to which notions Saint Cyprian saith, that there is a church where there is a people united to a priest, and a flock adhering to their shepherd ; and so Ignatius saith without the orders of clergy a church is not called.' — Treatise concerning the Unity of the Church, p. 2. 33. Clement of Eome writes thus : — * The Church of God which sojoumeth at Eome, to the Church of God which sojourneth at Corinth.' (I. 1.) Chap. IV. § 34. EARLY CHURCHES CONGREGATIONAL. 87 Pseudo-Ignatius writes after the same manner : — - ' Now as concerning tlie Church which is in Antioch of Syria' (the Church of which Ignatius was the presiding presbyter or bishop) ' It will become you, as a Church of God, &c.' ' The other neighbouring Churches have sent them, — some bishops, some presbyters and deacons.' — Ad Philadel. cap. x. p. 106. In the same epistle to the Philadelphians he says : — * But come altogether into the same place, with an undivided heart.' — Cap. vi. p. 104. 34. It would appear as if both in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian that the faithful were gathered together in small com- munities, each community having a primate of presbyters or a bishop, who usually baptised and presided at the Lord's table. We shall begin first with Tertullian. He says : — ' We come together in a meeting and congregation as before God, . . . The most approved elders preside over us.' (8. 1,2.) The language here is rather equivocal. Does Tertullian mean to say that more than one approved elder presided over a single congregation, or does he mean by approved elders the primates of several synods of presbyters, viz. the bishops of that part of the universal Church on whose behalf he was writing a defence ? It is probable the latter was his meaning, and if so, we obtain nothing directly in support of our point. But the extract, taken with this view of it, in connection with another, shows that Tertullian as well as pseudo-Ignatius held that there were as many approved elders, or bishops, as eucharists, and no more eucharists than bishops ; for in another part of his writings he says : — ' We do in the Church testify under the hand of a chief minister that we renounce the devil and his pomp and his angels The sacra- ment of the Eucharist, commanded by the Lord at the time of supper, and to all, we receive even at our meetings before day-break, and from the hands of no others than the heads of the Chiurch.' (8. 3.) The translation used in the two extracts from Tertullian is the one approved by these Anglicans, and from which we under- stand, that in both cases primates of presbyters are denoted, and not simply presbyters. And from which we conclude that in 88 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. § 35. this early period of the Church its members were gathered into very small communities, so that one Lord's table, or one place where they celebrated the Lord's Supper, was sufficient for each community, which had one primate of presbyters who presided on the occasion, and also baptised all the candidates for baptism. An ancient author, under the name of Dionisius the Areopagite, gives us an account of the ancient rite of baptism. The entire congregation assisted in the ceremony, and the bishop, or chief- priest as he calls him, performed the chief part of the sacrament, being assisted by his fellow-priests. (Z4:. 1.) Dean Hook states very truly that * From the time of the apostles, the office of public teaching in the Church, and of administering the sacraments, was always performed by the bishop, unless in cases of great necessity.' — Presbyter^ Ch. Die. 35. Cyprian speaks in the same style of the visible Church as Tertullian does, which may be seen from the extracts of his writings as given in the Catena. In Africa alone there were nearly seven hundred episcopal sees or seats, as appears from a list given of them, usually published with Cyprian's writings. The faithful, over whom Grregory Thaumaturgus (the wonder- worker) was bishop, according to the account given by Basil, consisted only of seventeen souls. (Z3« 6.) Even after the Council of Sardica had decreed that it should * not be lawful to place a bishop in a village .... for in such places there is no need to set a bishop ; lest the name and authority of bishops be brought into contempt,' we find in the time of Augustine that there were 466 bishoprics in North Africa alone. Sozomen says, that in some ' nations, a bishop is appointed even over a village, as I myself observed (about a.d. 440) in Arabia and in Cyprus.' (Lib. vii. cap. 19, p. 734.) Burn in his * Ecclesiastical Law ' represents our cathedrals in ancient times as being parish churches. He says : — * While the bishops thTis lived amongst their clergy, residing with them in their proper seats or cathedral churches, the stated services, or public offices of religion, were performed only in those single choirs to which the people of each whole diocese resorted, especially at the more solemn times and seasons of devotion.' — Appropriation, vol. i. p. 60. Chap. IV. §§ 36, 37. PEESBYTERS SUCCESSORS OF APOSTLES. 89 This will account for the language of Hooker when he says : — ' Many things there are in the state of bishops, which times have changed ; many a parsonage at this day is larger than some ancient bishoprics.' — B. vii. 2. 36. We conclude our remarks on the writings of pseudo- Ignatius by observing that there is entire silence in them on the doctrine of apostolic succession as held by these Anglicans. He nowhere informs us that the bishop obtains his commission from Christ through the apostles in an uninterrupted succession ; nor does he anywhere intimate through what source the bishop obtains his extraordinary power, nor have we the remotest hint how he was appointed. This Ignatius gives his bishop an authority the apostles themselves never claimed, while at the same time he assigns presbyters the place of the apostles. According to him presbyters, and presbyters only, chronologically considered, succeeded the apostles. The common opinion of the Fathers, viz. that St. Peter had a primacy over the other apostles, and that in this respect he represented bishops, and the other apostles of whom he was the leader represented presbyters, certainly receives some counten- ance from the writings of this Ignatius. He says : — * What is the presbytery, but a sacred congregation, counsellors of the bishop, and sitting together with him ?' (3. 39.) POLYCAEP. 37. The next and last of the Apostolic Fathers from whom any testimony can be obtained on the subject of clerical orders, is Polycarp. He, in the same style as Clement and Ignatius, thus addresses the Philippians : — ' Polycarp, and the Presbyters who are with him, to the Church of God which sojourneth at Philippi,' &c. He exhorts them to be subject to the presbyters, and the pres- byters to be compassionate and merciful to all. (See 4.) This is all that can be obtained from Polycarp. Where at this time was the bishop of Philippi, that ideal person possessed of such power and entrusted with such absolute authority as pictured in the imagination of these Anglicans ? Verily when St. Paul 90 WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. §§ 38, 39. wrote to the Church there, as we have seen, there was no such person, nor when Poly carp wrote to them. If there were a presiding bishop at all he must be found among the presbyters, not of another but of the same order. Is it conceivable that Clement, Hermas, and Polycarp could have had any idea of the doctrine of apostolic succession as held by some persons in these modern times, and yet not give a particle of evidence of the same ; of a doctrine too which not only involves the well-being of a Church, but its very existence ? or that at the very time when they were addressing themselves to the different orders of the clergy, they should so express themselves as to afford posi» tive evidence against the doctrine in question ? These Fathers knew no more of this doctrine than they did of Dean Hook's dictionary which contains it. Justin Maktyr. 38. Justin, while he distinctly alludes to what at a subsequent time w^ere called clerical orders, only names two, those of presi- dents or rulers, and deacons. He refers to these in an interest- ing account which he gives of public Christian worship in church assembled. He speaks very definitely of Christian baptism, of the pious behaviour of the brethren, and that, after one part of Christian worship was concluded, the reading of Holy Scripture and a sermon or homily on the same, the elements of the Lord's Supper were brought to the president of the brethren, and after having given thanks, in which all united, they celebrated the holy communion. We are also informed that persons called deacons were employed in distributing the elements to those present. (5- 2, 3.) The account of public worship and the ministers taking leading part therein, are so circumstantially given by Justin to Antoninus Pius, that had he possessed only a fraction of the notions of these Anglicans respecting a bishop, he could not have passed him by, in the way which he has done. 39. Dr. Pusey is struck with his ominous silence on this point, and apologises for him thus : — * There is no mention of bishops, or of the constitution of the Christian Society, or of the distinction of clergy and laity. We know indeed from Chap. IV. §§ 40, 41. VARIOUS KINDS OF SUCCESSION. 91 other sources what the Christians of this age believed on these subjects. And while S. Justin says nothing to contravene what we learn from them, it is idle to argue from his silence.' — Preface to the Works of Justitiy p. V. Library of the Fathers.) Idle or not idle, we do argue from his silence, which is all the more significant from the fact that Clement of Kome, Hermas of the same place, and Polycarp, are equally silent respecting this Anglican theory of Christian orders, but like his predecessors above named he distinctly speaks of two orders, presidents and deacons. (5- 2, 3.) Like the other Fathers, Justin represents the holy apostles as not being succeeded by any particular class of men, but rather as continued to us by their writings ; for he speaks of their voices as having filled the whole world. (5. 4.) The reader will notice how he regards all Christians as priests, 5. 6, 7. All that can be collected from the writings of Justin will be found in 5. 1-7. iRENiEUS. 40. This father stands first on the list as quoted by Dr. \Yordsworth in favour of his teaching on apostolical succession. But, before we examine any of these isolated scraps of Grreek and Latin, as placed at the beginning of this chapter, it will be necessary to give the reader a distinct account of the purpose for which Dr. Wordsworth has introduced them to his 'young student.' The extracts, taken as they stand in connection with the other parts of his book, are well adapted to initiate and confirm the confiding pupil in this modern Anglican doctrine concerning the Church and its ministry. 41 . It is important to the devout and well-instructed member of the Holy Catholic Church, to know that he is personally interested in several kinds of succession. There is a succession or transmis- sion of what the apostles taught and instituted in the Christian Church. There is, in this sense the succession of divine truth, transmitted from the apostles in the imperishable record of Holy Scripture. There is the succession of divine ordinances, the preaching of the Word, the administration of sacraments, and the 92 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEKS ? Chap. IV. §§ 42, 43. exercise of discipline, which have their warrant in the Holy Scrip- tures, and have been observed, with greater or less purity, from the apostolic age till now. There is the succession of the Church, the body of Christ, the society of the faithful, including all, in every age and country, who have been gathered into his fold ; and finally, there is a ministerial succession, or that stated ministry of the Church which will continue to the end of the world. These receive their message from the Word, their com- mission from Christ, their inward call from the Holy Spirit, their outward call from the Church. The succession, however, which Dr. Wordsworth wants to establish, is an exclusive, personal, uninterrupted succession of an order of men as distinct from presbyters or elders as pres- byters were from the inspired apostles who first ordained them, or from the deacons who were appointed to serve under them. This kind of succession is not that to which any of the Fathers refer; nor does it appear from any portion of their writings that they had any knowledge of this comparatively modern notion of apostolical succession. 42. The kind of succession held by Dr. Wordsworth, and these Anglo-catholics generally, is well described by Arch- bishop Whately : — * And they (these Anglo- catholics) make our membership of the Church of Christ, and our hopes of the gospel-salvation, depend on an exact adherence to every thing that is proved or believed, or even sus- pected to be an apostolical usage ; and on our possessing 'vhat they call apostolical succession ; that is, on our having a ministry whose descent can be traced up, through an unbroken and undoubted chain to the apostles themselves, through men regularly ordained by them or their successors, according to the exact forms originally appointed. And all Christians (so called) -vvho do not come under this description, are to be regarded either as outcasts from " the household of faith," or at best as in a condition " analogous to that of the Samaritans of old " who Avor- shipped on Mount Gerizim, or as in " an intermediate state between Christianity and Heathenism," and as " left to the uncovenanted mercies of God." ' — Kingdom of Christ. Essay ii. 17. 43. It is not to be doubted that there has been a succession of bishops and presbyters, and deacons and laity, from the time that some apostle or apostolic man laid the foundation of a Christian Church in this country. But this is not what these Chap. IV. § 44. TWO OEDERS IN THE EAELY CHUECH. 93 Anglicans mean by succession. There has been in these realms, from a very remote period, a succession of kings, with more or less interruption. But this is not the kind of succession which is held by these Anglicans. For this, in the strictest sense, is hereditary, whereas, in the succession of bishops, there is no hereditary title to the office ; for the series of bishops has not followed the line of any family, or class of Christians, but has been taken indiscriminately from the mass. If then none of these senses can be attributed to this Anglican mode of succes- sion, what does it really mean ? As far as its meaning can be obtained from the mist of confusion and the mazes of sophistry, it denotes an unbroken continuation of the commission first given to the apostles, accompanied with a certain exclusive spiritual aptitude contained in the transferred commission to discharge the office of an apostle, in modern times called a bishop ; and this aptitude, or spiritual quahfication, is supposed to be transmitted in unbroken continuity from one bishop to another, through the channel of a certain form called ordination. It will be found that the Fathers, though they occasionally use the terms equivalent to ' succession ' and ' successors,' have not given the remotest hint that by these terms they mean what these Anglicans mean by them. It should be noticed how Dr. Wordsworth, in the very short extracts he has quoted from the Fathers, given at the head of this chapter, has marked the terms in question. 44. Dean Hook has told us what were the three orders in the time of the apostles: — * 1, apostle ; 2, bishop, presbyter, or elder ; 3, deacon.' Afterwards,- when the apostles had left the world, he says, the orders of the church were designated thus : — ' 1st order, bishop; 2nd order, prcvsbyter ; 3rd order, deacon.' But about a hundred years after the apostles had left the world, according to the express teaching of Irenseus, there were but two orders. Those succeeding or coming after the apostles, and in any measure representing them, are promiscuously called presbyters and bishops ; and when we come to consider the testimony of Eusebius, we shall find that this was universally the case during the first and second centuries. 'The young student' might receive a very different impression from the 94? WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. § 45. isolated extract given from IrenaBus, and part of it italicised by Dr. Wordsworth (sec. 1. of this chapter). We shall here trans- late it, supplying in brackets a few words left out : — * We can reckon those who were appointed by the apostles, bishops, (in the churches), and their successors even to us.' (6. 4.) In this sentence there is not a syllable about any successors of the apostles, but of bishops whom the apostles constituted or appointed. But whatever is affirmed of succession, successions, and successors, in regard to bishops, is also affirmed of pres- byters : — * But when again we summon them to that tradition, which is from the apostles, and which is guarded in the churches by the succession of the presbyters^ they oppose tradition, saying that they have found the simple truth, that they are wiser not only than the presbyters, but even than the apostles.' (6. 3.) ' Wherefore we ought to obey the presbyters who are in the church who have the succession from the apostles, as we have shown, who with the succession of the episcopate, &c.' (6. 11.) ^As we have shown.' Where had he shown this? In a former book of his writing, of which the above sentence, as quoted by Dr. Wordsworth, forms a part, the whole of which will be found in 6. 4, where it will be seen that bishops are said to be successors of the apostles. Irenseus, in referring to the same thing again, said, * Presbyters who have their succession from the apostles, as we have shown,' &c. But he also informs us, that to these presbyters or bishops the apostles delivered their office of teaching. Mr. Palmer translates part of the sentence thus : * their own place of government.' (Vol. ii. p. 291.) Magisterium in patristic use almost always denotes lesson, teaching, instruction. Magister, the term from which it is derived, is used in the Latin translation of the Grreek of Irenseus as equivalent to hiMaKoXo^. (Lib. i. cap. 4, p. 38.) Cyprian, a bishop, said, when asking for the writings of Tertul- lion, a presbyter, ^ Give me my master.' He did not mean governor but teacher. And the term given in Latin is Magister, and in Greek htZdo-KoXos. — Cat Scrip. Eccle, Hierono., tom. i. p. 284. 45. Whatever the place or office was, it was alike delivered to presbyters as to bishops. It is extremely doubtful, whether in Chap. IV. §§ 46, 47- PATEISTIC USE OF SUCCESSION. 95 the mind of Irenaeiis there was any distinction between a bishop and a presbyter, unless we have some proof of it in the follow- ing instance, where he says — * Bishops and presbyters {episcopis et presbyteris) being called together at Miletus.' (6- 9.) Whether we call these ministers presbyters (Acts xx. 17) or bishops (ver. 28), they were all of one and the same order. If we admit that in the mind of Irenaeus any distinction did exist between these two, it is certain from the manner in which he has spoken of both, that he was ignorant of the distinction as taught by Dr. Wordsworth and other Anglo-catholics of the same school. Irenseus calls the rulers of the Church at Kome presbyters. (6. 16, 17.) 46. We have not, however, quite finished with Dr. Words- worth's extract. As quoted by him it would appear as if Irenseus referred to a succession or line of presbyters or bishops from the apostles to his time for its own sake. Now, had Dr. Wordsworth quoted the whole sentence, his * young student' would have seen the real object Irenaeus had in view in thus referring to succession. We shall restate the extract from Irenseus, with as much of the context as will make a sentence, placing the extract in question in brackets : — * Therefore that the tradition of the apostles was made evident in the whole world, there is the opportunity of seeing in every church, to every one who wishes to see the truth, (and we can reckon those who were appointed by the apostle bishops in the churches, and their suc- cessors, even to us), who neither taught, nor knew, any such things as these (heretics) madly prate about.' (6. 4.) We learn distinctly from this sentence the use made of suc- cession by Irenseus, in contrast with the use made of it by these Anglo-catholics ; a use, in fact, altogether different. 47. The extracts taken by Dr. Wordsworth from Tertullian and Epiphanius out of their writings in answer to heretics, as we shall see, make the very same use of succession. These Fathers did not place the validity of the Christian ministry upon the supposed uninterrupted succession of any class of men from the apostles, which, in fact, is a fanciful and comparatively modern notion, and was unknown to the Fathers of the first six centuries. Irenseus and Tertullian, who lived within two 96 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. § 48. centuries of the apostles, were in a better position than those who live in subsequent times, to describe the line of succession, though they differ from each other, and Epiphanius from both, in the order they give of the first Eoman bishops or presbyters, as Irenaeus sometimes calls them. These earl}^ Fathers believed they could look back over the bishops or presbyters of the most ancient churches, and could give the line of succession —what bishop or presb3^ter entered into the place of his predecessor, for this is what the Fathers for the most part mean by succession ; and not what these Anglicans mean by it, namely, that a suc- cessor succeeds to the office he holds through his ordainers, and is considered to be a successor to his ordainer, rather than to him whose vacant post he occupies. These Fathers then, looking along the line of presbyters, each one of whom entered into the office of his predecessor, until they came to the apostles ; and not finding any of the heresies of their times, they made use of this as a popular argument against heretics ; but it is easy to see that although this argument is something like that of certain Anglicans, yet it is far from being the same ; because the suc- cession they appealed to in the apostolic churches, was not a succession of men deriving a commission from the apostles through an unbroken line of ordainers, but a succession of pastors, each one entering into the vacated charge of his prede- cessor, and all maintaining the Christian doctrine ; and this fact of succession they used as an argument against the novel opinions of the heretics of their time. But certain Anglo- catholics lay the whole stress upon a succession of men receiving a commission from the apostles in an unbroken line, and suppose an indelible character fixed upon them, which neither heresy in doctrine, idolatry in worship, immorality in life, nor schism in practice, can efface. The Fathers, and Irenseus in particular, did not consider even their own kind of succession as a necessary mark of a true, or Catholic Church, they rather urged it as an argument of the truth of their doctrine. 48. Dr. Wordsworth, under a chapter headed ' Uninterrupted Succession of Holy Orders in the Church of England,' in his Instruction for the Young Student, quotes Irenaeus to serve his purpose after the following manner : — Chap. IV. §§ 49, 50. SUCCESSION OF PEESBYTEES. 97 * We ought to obey those who have the succession from the apostles, who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received the sure gift of truth, according to the Father's good pleasure.' (P. 208.) Who are ' those whom we ought to obey ? ' The young student would, of course, take the antecedent to be bishops, but herein he would be deceived, for it is presbyters. 49. Mr. Perceval has quoted Irenaeus (sect. 13) much after the same fashion, which we sTiall again give, placing in italics the words he has omitted. ' Those elders in the church are to be obeyed who have a succession from the apostles, as we have shown (in a former place he had given, in the instance of the bishops of Rome, the succession from St. Peter), who, together with the succession of the episcopate {or bishopric^ have re- ceived a certain true gift, according to the decree of the Father.' (6. 11.) Did Mr. Perceval think it would sound strange to certain Anglicans for an ancient Father to speak of elders^ or presbyters, having an episcopate, or bishopric, from the apostles, and did he therefore leave it out ? This passage undoubtedl}^ teaches that presbyters are successors to the apostles, and that they have a bishopric ; and Mr. Perceval refers his readers to the part where Irenseus affirms the same things of bishops, as we have already done. (Compare 6. 11 with sects. 3-8.) 50. That Irenseus did not attach the same meaning to the term succession which these Anglicans do is certain from the manner in which he applies it to the church; thus he says, ' that succession of the church which is from the apostles.' (6- 13.) By which he means a line, or list, of believers from his day up to the time of the apostles. A succession of bishops or presbyters from the apostles means no more than that there has been a list, or, as Tertullian calls it, an ordo, of such persons, chronologically considered, from the apostles. Hence he says : — * We should adhere indeed to those who, as we have said before, keep the doctrine of the apostles and the order of the presbytership {preshy~ terii or dine).'' (6. 12, and sect. 8.) He also speaks of presbyters being — * elated with the pride of the principal seat, &c. From all such we should keep at a distance.' (6. 12.) If the reader will consult the whole passage, as given in the H 98 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. §§ 51-53. Catena, he will notice that there were two kinds of presbyters, or bishops, who were successors of the apostles ; and that such as were not sound in doctrine and holy in life were to be rejected as nothing worth. If we treat some of the popes of Rome after this fashion, what becomes of Pean Hook's boasted uninter- rupted succession ? 51. The second extract quoted by Mr. Perceval from Irenseus, given at the beginning of this chapter, sect. 13, cannot be mis- understood when considered in connection with its context, as given in 6- 14, and with the general teaching of Irenseus. He is arguing against heretics on the ground that the churches he there describes never held nor taught any of the heresies of his time. It should be especially noticed that in the fourth century, when Arianism had taken possession of nearly all the apostolical churches, this argument was abandoned. (See 34> 22, 23.) We have given all, or nearly all, the evidence of Irenseus on the ministry of the Christian Church, and we recommend the reader to examine it for himself; but he will look in vain for this Anglican doctrine of apostolical succession. We have not the remotest hint in his writings of an episcopal comfimission from an apostle either immediately or by successive transmis- sion through either bishops or presbyters. Theophilus. 52. This earliest Christian commentator on Scripture so speaks of the apostles and their doctrine as plainly to teach that the twelve had no successors to their apostleship, and that their authority was not handed on through any class of men, but recorded in the canonical Scriptures, so that, if devout men desired infallible guidance, according to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, they ' ought to flee to the doctrine of the apostles.' (7. 1,2.) Teetullian. 53. Tertullian is a most important witness on the subject of this book. He speaks of a church in the most ancient style. * We come together,' he saj^s, * in a meeting and congregation as Chap. IV. § 54. INSTITUTION OF CLEEICAL OEDEES. 99 before Grod.' ' The most approved elders preside over us.' (8. 1, 2.) It is probable, as in the time of Cyprian, one of these elders presided in the congregation, and in reference to his fellow-presbyters was a jprimus inter 'pares. He distinctly admits that all disciples are, in their own right, priests, and he teaches that the ministerial office, as it existed in his day, was originated by the church : — ' The authority of the church constituted the difference between order (clergy) and the people.' (8. 16.) ' Laymen have also the right (of baptis- ing), for that which is equally received may equally be given, unless the name of disciples denote at once bishops, or priests, or deacons.' (8. 11.) It is not necessary for us to accept the teaching of this black presbyter or layman on this point. He was indeed a low church- man. He speaks of a bishop and defines his position by repre- senting him as a chief priest. But the office this bishop holds he represents as being for the honour of the church, not as any right or power descending in uninterrupted succession from the apostles ; and the prerogatives of the bishop and obedience to him are not placed on the authority of law, but on the simple ground of expediency, and the Apostle Paul is quoted to that effect. (8. 11.) With Tertullian a bishop was no necessary mark of a true or Catholic Church ; or, if it were, the following lan- guage as used by him is utterly unaccountable : — ' If these things be so, it becometh forthwith manifest that the doc- trine which agreeth with these apostolic churches, the wombs and originals of the faith, must be accounted true, as without doubt con- taining that which the churches have received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, &c. We have communion with the apostolic churches, because we have no doctrine differing from them. This is the evidence of truth.' (8. 6.) 54. It will be seen in the Catena Patrum, on the doctrine of apostolical succession, as published in the Tracts for the Times, what importance they attach to the bishop having the keys of St. Peter, by which is generally meant his apostolic authority. According to the teaching of Tertullian, the keys of St. Peter were left to the laity of the church, and we shall find that Augustine teaches the same thing. Tertulliaus words are : — ' He left them to the church, which keys everyone here, being in- terrogated, and making a good confession, shall carry with him.' (8. 15.) H 2 100 WHOSE ABE THE FATHEKS? Chap. IV. § 55. Tertullian makes a very important distinction between what he calls the teaching of an apostle and his power ; the latter, he maintains, was not transferable, and holds that the power to bind and loose was not communicated to any successor. His teaching on this point is much the same as that of Bishop Horsley. (Com- pare 8. 18, 19, with 94. 1-3.) Tertullian, and Cyprian for the most part after him, considered that certain sins after baptism could not be pardoned, or at least that there was no one in the church that had power or authority to accept or treat sue sinners as if they were pardoned. The leading pastors of Carthage and those of Kome were divided on this point. A bishop of Eome, however, especially held and taught that persons after baptism, even though they had committed sins which brought them into condemnation, yet on their repentance might be pardoned, and accordingly accepted such, and pro- nounced them absolved, &c. contrary to the authorities of the African churches. On this account Tertullian called him, ironically, no doubt, ' the highest pontiff,' ' the bishop of bishops, &c.' (8» 17.) But as yet there was no such person in the church. Fifty years afterwards, Cyprian, by far the most influential bishop of those times, publicly disclaimed any such title. (13. 2.) With- out admitting that Tertullian was right in his opinion respecting sinners not being absolved after baptism, the arguments he uses in support of it do bear very strongly against the assumptions of these Anglicans in regard to priestly power ; as the reader cannot fail to notice who considers with care the whole extract. (8- 17-19.) 55, We shall now translate and consider the extract as made by Dr. Wordsworth, and as given at the beginning of this chap- ter. (Sect. 2.) * Let them (heretics) make known " the roll of their bishops so coming down in succession from the beginning, that their first bishop had for his author and predecessor some one of the apostles, or of apostolic men." ' Dr. Wordsworth refers to the succession taught by Tertullian for one thing, Tertullian himself for another, and different, thing. Tertullian, so far from believing that succession, what- ever meaning may be attached to it, is essential to a church's V. §§ 56, 57. DOCTEINE THE MAEK OF A CHUKCH. 101 being true or Catholic (the very doctrine of these Anglo- catholics), maintains that a church may be not the less apos- tolical without it. He says : — ' Although churches can bring forward as their founder no one of the apostles or of apostolical men, as being of much later date, and indeed being founded daily, nevertheless, since they agree in the same faith, are by reason of their consanguinity in doctrine counted not the less apostolical.'' This quotation is a continuation of the paragraph of which the extract, as given above by Dr. Wordsworth, forms a part, as may be seen by referring to 8. 7, 8, 9. In the time of Tertullian, living, as he did, in the second century, there were many churches that could, or thought they could, trace their origin through a ministerial succession of bishops or presbyters even to the apos- tles' time. But suppose a church existed which could not trace its origin after that manner : was it therefore in the mind of Tertullian no church, without sacraments, and without salvation? No such thing ; this sable presbyter lived long before such an alien doctrine was invented. Such a church, by reason of agree- ing in the same faith, and ' by reason of its consanguinity in doctrine, was counted not the less apostolical.' 6Q, But Dr. Wordsworth, as in the case of Irenseus so in that of Tertullian, has stopped in the middle of a sentence, which we shall here add, * so he were one that continued steadfast with the apostles,^ Unless there was steadfastness in the apostles' doc- trine, for this, as we shall see, is what Tertullian means, it would be of no avail to be one in the line of those who had extended from that time up to the apostles. Have the links of that chain, by which Dr. Wordsworth and his brethren hold so fast, * con- tinued steadfast with the apostles,' in faith and practice ? If not, most certainly he and his brethren cannot get any support for his chain in Irenaeus and Tertullian ; the very extracts he has quoted, when given with the context, ruin many of the links, and therefore break the chain. 57. The words of Tertullian relating to succession appear very precious to these Anglicans. Mr. Perceval has quoted them with a little more of the context. But to translate j^ct^'^ of a passage, and end it in the middle of a sentence, when by so doing an important point is kept from view, is anything but 102 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 57. satisfactory. We shall quote the extract, and that part of it not properly translated will be given in italics, and the portion of the sentence omitted will be placed in brackets. * Let the heretics set forth the origin of their churches ; let them turn over the order of their bishops, so descending by succession fro\n the beginning that he who was the first bishop had one of the apostles, or of the apostolic men who was in full communion with the apostles, for his author and predecessor. For in this manner the apostolical churches bring down their registers ; as the church of Smyrna had Polycarp placed over them by John; as the church of Rome had Clement ordained by Peter ; as other churches also set forth those who were made bishops over them by the apostles, [they have as trans- mitters of the apostolic seed.] (See 8. 7, where there is another translation of the same pas- sage.) In the above extract the part left out by Dr. Wordsworth is almost rendered without point by the translation given by Mr. Perceval, and had he not concluded the extract by leaving off in the middle of a sentence, but had given it entire, there would have been a key to unlock the truth of the whole of the extract. ^They (the churches) have as transmitters (those ap- pointed to the episcopate, presbyters, or bishops) of the apos- tolic seed. What is meant by the apostolic seecZ? The apostolic doctrine or teaching. But Tertullian shall be his own com- mentator. In the same treatise he says : — * The word of God is compared unto seed. (Cap. xxxi. p. 210.) The apostles .... preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations, and forthwith founded churches in every city, from whence the other churches thence forward borrowed the tradition of the faith (the faith handed down) and the seeds of doctrine, and are daily bor- rowing them, that they may become churches.' (8. 4.) Did these bishops of Tertullian, these successors of the apostles, transmit ' the same rights and authority ' the apostles had ? No such thing. Tertullian, as we have seen, denies this. These bishops were not in any sense fellow-proprietors with the apos- tles in their power and authority, but were ministers, and in a subordinate ministerial manner handed down the apostolic doc- trine. The apostolic men of Tertullian must be persons who at least hold ' the faith once delivered to the saints.' If then a church suspected of heresy wish to prove themselves orthodox it would not avail merely to have had for their first bishop one Chap. IV. § 58. APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE ESSENTIAL. 103 who had as his authority and predecessor one of the apostles or apostolic men, but he himself must be ' one that continued stead- fast with the apostles.' Mr. Perceval translates it thus, 'who was in full communion with the apostles,' which is a convenient paraphrase and not a translation. The original is ' qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraviV It would appear Tertullian was alluding to Acts ii. 42, which Jerome in his Latin Vulgate has rendered thus, ' Erant perseverantes in doctrinam apostolorum,' which in our version is translated, * They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine.' It is quite certain that this is what Tertul- lian means. He says : — * We have communion with the apostolic churches, because we have no doctrine differiug from them.' (8. 6.) ' But why are heretics aliens and enemies to the apostles, if not from the difference of doctrine.' (Cap. xxxvii. p. 212.) '■ They (heretics) are in no way apostoHcal, by reason of the difference of the doctrine which they teach.' (8. 9.) Tertullian certainly teaches in the extract, and in the para- graph of which it forms part (8- 7-9), a succession of sound doctrines and a succession of men* who ministerially brought it down to his times, but he also teaches that any church having the doctrine of the apostles without such a ministerial succes- sion ivas not the less apostolical on that account, 58. It is very humiliating to think that we should have men in our Church who deal so largely in the counterfeit coin of the papists, coin too which has been proved to be counterfeit by Bishop Jewel, the illustrious and most able defender of our Church against the papists, and by Fulke, the defender of the Church's version of Holy Scripture against the attacks of the same parties. (See 73- 14, 19, and 75. 9, 10.) In the one case it will be only necessary to substitute, in the place of the name M. llarding, either Wilberforce, Hook, Perceval, Words- worth, or any other name of the same schooL In the other case, in the place of the term Papists, supply Puseyites or any other name which denotes the same thing ; and what was written nearly 300 years ago to defend our Church against papists will now be found most apposite to defend it against their imitators, who now in this 19th century audaciously claim to be true representatives of the Church. 104 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§ 59, 60. As we have not by any means exhausted the evidence of Tertullian, as contained in the extracts given from his writings, we especially request the reader to study that portion of the Catena for himself. Clemens Alexandrinus. 59. Clement of Alexandria is the next witness to be examined. Mr. Perceval has adduced him as an authority on his side. ' In the church, the orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, are, I think, imitations of the angelic glory.' (Sect. 14.) Well, here are three orders, but what of that ? The question is, not whether episcopalianism or presbyterianism is more in accordance with antiquity. It is not whether the Fathers held the episcopal form of church government, but whether they held the scheme of episcopacy as taught by certain Anglicans, Mr. Perceval quotes the Fathers with the intent to prove that they do, and it is desirable to keep him to his intentions as recorded in his preamble to his quotations from the Fathei-s. (Sect. 11. of this chap.) He, with a view, no doubt, not to hamper himself by using inconvenient terms, has given up the nomenclature of Holy Scripture and antiquity, and has adopted a private one of his own to represent a class of men whom he believes to be the only successors of the apostles. Of course by these ^ chief pastors ' we must understand a class of men as distinct from, and superior to, presbyters or elders as these are from deacons, and that this class alone represents the apostles. Clement knew of no such class of men, least of all that this class had a ' commission of regency.' The context, in connection with the extract in ques- tion, is decidedly hostile to any such notion. Clement follows these three orders to a happier world, and where, if the first was not lost on the way, it must be found in the second order. * For these, the apostle says, shall be taken up in the clouds ; and first, as deacons, attend, and then, according to the process, or next station of glory, be admitted into the presbytery.' (9. 4.) 60. In another part of his book he describes the orders on earth as being two only. ' In most things there are two offices, one superior, the other subordi- Chap. IV. § 61. PETEE PRIMATE OF APOSTLES. 105 nate. It is equally so as to the Church ; the presbyters preserve the better form ; the deacons the, subordinate. Both these ministrations angels perform to God, in the dispensation of terrene affairs.' (9. 5.) Clement does not contradict himself; he gives the key by which both statements may be reconciled. * And though upon earth he (presbyter) be not honoured with sitting in the first throne yet he shall sit on those four-and-twenty thrones judging the people.' (9. 4.) The chief presbyter, or bishop, sat on the first throne, but the presbyters sat on the second thrones, but these different thrones did not represent two actually different orders of men, but sub- stantially one and the same order. Clement, in describing the Christian orders, adopts the general style of the Fathers, and speaks of the presbyters as the Fathers often speak of the apostles. Almost all the Fathers represent St. Peter as ' the head,' ' the first,' * the prince,' ' the primate,' ' the leader,' of the other apos- tles, and consider him to have had the first seat or throne among them. From this circumstance some infer that St. Feter was of a superior order to the other apostles, the papists, for instance, and on this assumption the papacy rests. But it is manifest from the writings of the Fathers that they entertained no such notion ; if we make an exception of Cyprian, who held some in- comprehensible opinions regarding St. Peter, we may safely say there is not the semblance of proof of it. That the Fathers re- garded the apostles, including St. Paul, as of one and the same order, notwithstanding the way in which they sometimes speak of St. Peter, is sufficiently plain from the general evidence con- tained in the first part of the Catena Patrum. 61. Clement, although only a presbyter, applies to himself the title of 'leader' in the Church (9. 1.), which makes it certain he did not consider that there was any essential difference be- tween a bishop and a presbyter. This will account for him and contemporary Fathers applying the terms bishop and presbyter commonly to one and the same person. (9. 7.) Clement main- tained that deceit might be practised in the promotion of a good cause (9- 6), which also Chrysostom (34- 2, 3) and other Fathers were not slow to imitate. If these Anglicans had stated that in the defence of their views they acted on this principle in the 106 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEKS? Chap. IV. §§ 62, 63. absence of a better, it would have enabled us to account for a good deal in their writings which otherwise must be left in secret. Origen. 62. Another witness adduced by Mr. Perceval is Origen : but if the testimony of Clement damages the case of Mr. Perceval much, Origen, Clement's neighbour, will be found to damage it more. * Shall I not be subject to my bishop, who is ordained of God to be my father ? Shall I not be subject to the presbyter, who, by the Divine condescension, is placed over me ? ' (Sect. 16 of this chap.) Judging from this extract, this learned catechist pays almost equal honours to bishop and presbyter, and it would appear not to have been without its reward, for, while he yet was but a catechist, bishops invited him to preach publicly in the church, and condescended to be his hearers. Eusebius says : — * There (Caesarea) Origen was requested by the bishops in that parish to interpret publicly in the church, although he had not yet been ordained to the presbytery or presbytership. This also might be shown from what was written to Demetrius respecting him, by Alexan- der, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, Bishop of Caesarea, who de- fended him in the following manner : " He (Demetrius) has added to his letter that this was never before seen or done, that laymen should deliver discourses in the presence of the bishops. I know not how it happens that he is here evidently so far from the truth. For, indeed, wheresoever there are found those qualified to benefit the brethren, these are exhorted by the holy bishops to address the people. Thus at Laranda, Euelpis was exhorted by Neon, and at Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus, and at Synada, Theodore by Atticus, our blessed brethren." ' — ^Lib. vi. cap. xix. pp. 424, 425. Subsequently Origen was ordained presbyter, and Eusebius says : — ' The most distinguished bishops of Palestine, and those of Ctesarea and Jerusalem, judging Origen worthy of the Jl?^st and highest honour (ri/c aviOTciTio TijjLijg) they laid hands on him for the presbytery.' — Lib. vi. cap. viii. p. 407. 63. Let it be noted well how Origen speaks of himself and others in that office. ' The Holy Spirit was given to the Church, which the apostles having first received conferred it on those who had rightly believed : of whom we being the successor Sj and partaking of the same grace and chief priest- Chap. IV. §§ 64-66. BISHOPS AND PRESBYTEES ONE ORDER. 107 hood and doctrine, and being reckoned guardians of the Church, have not slept at our post, or withheld right instruction.' (10. 12.) Origen, like most of the Fathers, held that presbyters were as much successors of the apostles as any other class of men, and it is certain that in his mind those who were called bishops were not the only successors of the apostles, if as bishops they were successors at all. 64. It may be seen from the evidence contained in 10. that in his time bishops and presbyters must have been substantially of one and the same order. He thus speaks of deacons — * going about to obtain the chief seats of those who are called pres- byters. The bishops and presbyters of the people who have been entrusted with the chief seats.' (10. 9.) It would seem he makes no distinction between the seats of bishops and presbyters. It is not necessary to make him con- tradict Clement ; no doubt the legs of the chair of the bishop were rather longer than those of the chairs of presbyters, though Origen has not thought it of sufficient importance to tell us so. He does speak of some who intrigued to be called bishops, but for the encouragement of holy and learned presbyters who have the qualifications of a bishop, he says that they may be bishops before Grod, although they have not reached that degree by ordi- nation of men. Origen regarded the priesthood of a bishop and a presbyter as being one and the same. (10- 2.) Q5, Origen has given us a very elaborate exposition of St. Peter and the rock. (10- 3-7.) His own exposition of the passage, and the expositions of others to which he refers, but which he does not appear to admit, are alike against the assiimptions of these Anglicans. * The rock is every disciple of Christ, from whom they drank, who drank of the Spiritual Eock that followed them, and on every such rock every ecclesiastical word is built, and the system of life instituted ac- cordingly ; and in every such perfect man, having the combination of words, and works, and thoughts, perfecting holiness, the Church built by God is found.' (10. 3.) 66. Lest anyone should come to the conclusion that the whole Church is built upon Peter alone, he asks how it was in regard to all the other apostles, and goes on to state that our 108 WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 67. Lord gave the Holy Spirit to all his apostles. From this gift of the Holy Grhost he argues that all believers generally will be taught to say : — ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God .... and if anyone say this to Him, the revelation being made not by flesh and blood, but by the Father which is in heaven, that will follow which, the letter of the Gospel declares, was said to Peter : for His Spirit teaches him that whosoever becomes such is the same as Peter.'' (10. 4.) Origen, referring to another interpretation, says : — ' But since there are some who interpret this passage of the episco- pacy, as being Peter, and teach that by the keys of the kingdom of heaven, received from the Saviour, those things which are bound by them, that is, condemned, are bound in heaven, &c.' (10. 7.) That Peter represented bishops, we shall find was a very com- mon opinion of the Fathers ; that, as he was believed to have a sort of primacy over the rest of the apostles, so in regard to those who came after the apostles, in each college or synod of presbyters, there was a primate, or primus inter pares. But, contrary to Koman Catholics, and their would-be brethren, these Anglicans, Origen teaches that, if such a bishop should be * bound with the cords of his sins, he binds and looses in vain.' (10. 7.) If the succession, as held by Mr. Perceval and his patron, is a fact, and, as such, one of almost infinite moment, how is it that this most learned and most illustrious Greek Father has so ex- pressed himself on the subject of clerical orders as to make it certain that he knew nothing of it ? Cypkian. 67. The next Father to be considered is Cyprian, who, of all patristic witnesses is the most important on the subject under discussion, arising from the fact that he, of all other Fathers before him, has spoken most explicitly of a certain distinction between a bishop and a presbyter, as being of Divine authority. He appears to have attached very little importance to the human tradition of his day. Discarding that, he appeals to Divine tradition, which is a title he frequently gives to the ca- nonical Scriptures. The peculiar use he has made of our Lord's Chap. IV. §§ 68-70. CYPRIAN PRIMATE OF PRESBYTERS. 109 address to Peter has favoured the papists with plausible grounds on which to rest all the claims of the pope as the only personal successor of St. Peter, as the vicar, and only vicar, of Christ and the supreme head of the universal Church. Puseyites accept Cyprian as their chief authority, to whom they appeal for their principles and practices respecting the office of the bishop. 68. Thus Dr. Pusey says : — ' The epistles of St. Cyprian are the more deeply interesting to its in that he, who has been called "the ideal of a Christian bishop," has been almost involuntarily chosen as the model of our Church. We seem to have felt how much we owe to God through him, as mitigating to us the difficulties of a position as yet unavoidable, and justifying our ad- herence to it ... . He has been honoured, almost, as it were, as the apostle of our Church. His writings present the theory of the episco- pate, which bears out our position on one side and the other ; with an intense feeling of the responsibility of bishops to their Lord, he claimed for each the right of acting with no human responsibihty, and disclaimed for himself, as primate, the right of controlling others. Consulted by others, in his own province, he puts off from himself any right of judgment, and with humility responds to the humility which applies to him.' — Preface to the Epistles of Cyprian^ p. xvii. Library of the Fathers. 69. If anyone should infer from the above language that Cyprian was a primate of a certain number of bishops of a given province after the manner of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Archbishop of York, we just notice in passing that such a person would be deceived. It seems as if Dr. Pusey would make Cyprian a bishop, or primate of bishops, against his own protestations in regard both to himself and to any other bishop. Cyprian taught that a bishop was a primate of presbyters, and that St. Peter was a primate of apostles (sects. 96 and 97 of this chap.), but he did not hold that there was any human primate of bishops. In fact, had he done so, it would have destroyed his own argument respecting the office of Peter, or rendered it absurd ; it would have been putting Peter over Peter. 70. Again Dr. Pusey says, and we give it as part of the argu- ment on the side of these Anglicans : — ' Episcopal authority, apart from the doctrine of the mystical unity of the Church, would be liable to be secular, arbitrary, despotic ; in con- nection with it, it derives its qualities from Him of whom it is, and is essentially spiritual, parental, self-sacrificing. The bishop, as conceived 110 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§ 71, 72. by St. Cyprian, though set over the Church, is yet in and of her; not, like a secular power, external to those it rules, nor, again, deriving authority from it, yet " set in her" (1 Cor. xii. 28. Ep. 48, fin.— 11. 23), the visible representative of the invisible Head ; the joint, compacting the members together, yet one with the Chui'ch, as the Church with him ; on the one hand, deriving his authority by vicarious succession (Eps. 33, 45, 6G, 69, 75.— 11. 15, 22, 31, 35. 12. 2) from the apostles, " chosen," " ordained," " ruled," " inspired," " strengthened," " pro- tected," by Christ (Ep. 48, fin. — 11. 23); on the other, by the unity of the Spirit which holds together invisibly each part of the Church and its whole, " in the Church, as the Chiu-ch in the bishop." (Ep. 66, 7. — 11. 32.) The bishop, independent in authority, was one organic whole with the Church. It belonged, then, to the oneness of the Church that whatever was done should emanate from her oneness and love, as the result of a concordant will, not be accepted only by a cold unpartici- pating obedience. The maxim, accordingly, of St. Ignatius for the people, " to do nothing without the bishop," finds in St. Cyprian the counterpart for the bishop, " do nothing without the presbyters and the concurrence of the people, " in his well-known words, " from the beginning of my episcopate, I resolved to do nothing of my own private judgment without your advice and the concurrence of the people." If possible, he abated from his right (Ep. 14, 5. — 11. 11), in order to gain the more loving concurrence to what he saw to be right. In the abstract he asserted his right to exercise alone the authority committed to him of God : held it back (Ep. 35. — 11. 17) while he might ; when necessary, he exercised it. (Ep. 34. — 11. 16.) But in proportion as he felt the intensity of the episcopal authority, from which, until compelled by the anxiety of the people, he had shrunk, he was tender in wielding that whose weight he knew. He reverenced his ovm authority, and His Majesty " Who maketh bishops " (11. 32), and could not use lightly what could not fall lightly, powers given him " to edification, and not destruction." ' — Preface, &c., pp. xiv. xv. 71. Dr. Pusey has made a goodly claim for a bishop in the person of Cyprian, which, as we shall see, Cyprian never made for himself. Dr. Pusey, however, has referred us for proofs of his statements to the epistles of Cyprian. The parts referred to are contained in the Catena, to which references have been given as above, all of which will be considered in due course. Extracts have already been given from Dr. Wordsworth and Mr. Perceval at the commencement of this chapter, which, in connection with those of Dr. Pusey, will now be discussed. 72. Dr. Wordsworth states that bishops succeed and represent the holy apostles. He means, of course, bishops such as we now have, and bishops only : and by the holy apostles he means the twelve, and not the seventy. In proof of his statement he gives Chap. IV. § 73. RULEES SUCCESSORS OF THE SEVENTY. 1 1 1 one extract from Cyprian, which, translated, stands thus : * Bishops are rulers who by a vicarious ordination are successors of the apostles.' (For the context of the extract see 11. 31.) Dr. Wordsworth, by inserting the term * bishops ' in the above extract, deprives the statement of half its truth. Had the whole truth been stated for the ' young student,' without giving the context, it would have been stated thus : * Bishops and presby- ters are rulers who by a vicarious ordination are successors of the seventy apostles.' It is enough to state here that Cyprian uses the term ruler {pi^cepositus) in his writings as common to bishops and presbyters. Proof of it will be given shortly. If Cyprian had possessed these modern Anglican theories respect- ing a bishop, he never would have used a term inclusive of presbyters, and he never would have claimed bishops such as he himself was to be successors of the seventy disciples, or apostles, as they were called by nearly all the Fathers. We refer the reader to Ch. II. 14-20, where the subject has been fully con- sidered. 73. The reader must note well the statement of Dr. Pusey, namely, that the bishop derives his authority by vicarious suc- cession from the apostles. In proof of this we are referred to the passage we have just considered. Firmilian also is referred to (12. 2) where he uses the phrase ' vicarious ordination,' but as he echoes, as Dr. Pusey says, the maxims of Cyprian, we may leave him for the present. But Cyprian does not use the phrase ' vicarious succession,^ but ' vicarious m^dination ; ' the distinction is a most important one. In the mind of Cyprian it is plain, as we shall show, that rulers, whether called bishops or presbyters, succeeded, that is, came after, or took the office of, the seventy disciples, or that part of the office of the twelve apostles which was common to them and to the seventy, and which was to be perpetuated in others. But he does not say that these rulers received the authority they had by a vicarious succession ; they did not, to use Dean Hook's phraseology, receive — * a perfect and unbroken transmission of the original ministerial com- mission from the apostles to their successors by the progressive and perpetual conveyance of their powers from one race of bishops to another.' 112 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§ 74, 75. 74. But what does Cyprian mean by the term ordination (ordinatio) ? Not what we mean by it. He uses it in the sense of appointment, in which the laity took an essential and fundamental part. If bishops and presbyters succeed the seventy disciples by a vicarious ordination, as he says they do, then they are sent as if Christ had sent them. The ordainers, or persons who appoint, choose, send, or elect them, act in the place of Christ, and those thus ordained have the same credentials as if Christ himself had sent them. 75. It is of great importance that we have a distinct concep- tion of what Cyprian means by the phrase ' vicarious ordination,' as contrasted with the phrase * vicarious succession,' which Dr. Pusey substitutes for it. According to the theory of succession as propounded by these Anglicans, and as already considered in Ch. I. 31-47, and sect. 40 of this chapter, a vicarious succession must be somewhat as follows. The apostleship was conferred by God Almighty on His Son the Lord Jesus Christ; He then became Vicar to Almighty Grod. As God conferred the apostle- ship on Christ so Christ conferred it upon the eleven disciples, and these became vicars to Christ. These eleven disciples conferred the apostleship on others, and these others became their vicars. For instance, suppose Peter ever was at Kome, and, what is still more unlikely, that he was resident bishop there, and (to follow one out of the half dozen conflicting lines of succession as given of the early bishops or presbyters of Eome, that of Irenseus) suppose St. Peter confers the apostleship on Linus, and he becomes vicar to St. Peter, Anacletus becomes vicar to Linus, Clement to Anacletus, and so on, down to the present pope of Kome, who must perhaps, if in any sense at all, be a remote vicar of Christ, or, more strictly speaking, of God Almighty, for these Anglicans make Christ a kind of apostolic vicar among the bishops. But the question arises, how could these vicarious suc- cessors receive the apostolical succession from their 'antecessors,' as Cyprian and his master Tertullian call them ? These Angli- cans admit that men spiritually dead can effectually confer the apostolical commission which they are supposed to possess, but so far as we have seen, they have never maintained that men dead as to their bodies as well as respecting their moral nature Chap. IV. §§ 76, 77. BISHOP A VICARIOUS SUCCESSOR. 113 could confer the apostolical commission. How then did these vicarious successors get the supposed apostolical commission ? 76. It is certain that Cyprian by the term succession meant in common language what we mean by it : not a person suc- ceeding to a mysterious incomprehensible influence originally emanating from Grod the Father, and through Christ the Son, thence to the holy apostles, thence to their successors down through an unbroken series of links, good, bad, and indifferent, and some admitted to be consecrated monsters, but integral links in the same chain. If such a chain is of the strength of its weakest or worst link, what an awful thing for bishops who claim to suc- ceed by vicarious succession to the same power and authority which the apostles possessed, for deans who occupy the vacated literal chair of an ancient bishop, and who sit in his place primi inter pares among their fellow-presbyters ; for doctors of divinity, royal professors, and reputed biblical scholars, to hang the eternal destinies of man, redeemed by the blood of Christ, upon such a chain ! For, according to the accurately adjusted and published theology of these Anglicans, if this said chain is faulty, we have no orders, no Church, no Sacraments, and consequently no re- vealed means of salvation. With all the foibles and faults and remarkable superstition of good Cyprian, for whom every allow- ance should be made, as he was converted late in life from the grossest heathenism, he did not hold, certainly did not teach, this Anglican theory, of succession. 77. He speaks of one bishop going before another, and calls him an antecessor, and one bishop coming after another, and calls him a successor. Thus in an epistle to Stephen, Bishop of Eome, he says : — * For the gloriotis honour of our antecessors, the blessed martyrs Cornelius and Lucius, must be upheld ; whose memory, tiince we honour, much more ought you, dearest brother, to honour and uphold it, by your weight and authority, who have been made their vicar and suc- cessor (qui vicarius et successor eorum factus es).' — Epis. 68, p. 293. The question is, by what means, according to the teaching of Cyprian, did Stephen become a vicarious successor to Lucius ? The answer is, by a vicarious ordination, or appointment. He, by the will of Christ, was made bishop. His ordainers, or I 114 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§ 78, 79 those who appointed him, having complied with certain recog- nised rules in such cases, might, in effect, be considered as acting in the place of Christ, and of those thus sent Cyprian says, *who by a vicarious ordination are successors of the apostles, " He that heareth you, heareth me, &c." ' (Luke x. 16.— 11. 31.) 78. We shall have occasion to notice that the principal actors in the appointment of Christian rulers in the time of Cyprian were the laity. It is not supposable, then, that they could confer any divine commission, or episcopal grace, as it is called, on those whom they appointed. It was considered that the office was ordained by Christ, but the human medium by which the candidate was appointed to the office was not sup- posed to convey any intrinsic qualification for the office, or, to use the language of Dean Hook, it did not confer * a perfect and unbroken transmission of the original ministerial commission.' Whence, then, did these Christian rulers receive the peculiar, spiritual, qualification of their office ? From Him who ap- pointed the office, but not necessarily through any human medium whatever. These Anglicans trace their so-called unin- terrupted succession through the popes of Rome. But the authentic teaching and practice even of the Church of Rome gives no ground for the teaching of these Anglicans. When the pope dies there is an interregnum of the apostolical suc- cessor, though, they maintain, the office remains. None of the bishops of the Romish Church profess to hold the office, or pretend to confer it How, then, does the new pope become what they call the apostolical successor ? If he gets anything at all in a spiritual point of view% it is by what we may term, according to Romish practice, a vicarious ordination or election. The cardinals who elect the pope, and are the principal human medium in promoting him to his office are not supposed to have the apostolical office; they cannot, therefore, directly confer what they do not possess. 79. Whence, then, does the pope receive the peculiar endow- ments supposed to be requisite to constitute him a successor to St. Peter ? Not through any human medium of any kind, but direct from Him who is supposed to have instituted the office. Thus writes a Roman Catholic authority : — Chap. IV. §80. SUCCESSION OF THE POPE. 11.5 * When a bishop, a prince, or a judge, is no more, we say, neverthe- less, that the see, the throne, the tribunal, still exists ; because the attributes of the vacant dignity remain stable, although no person is at present in possession of them ; so, likewise, at the death of the sovereign pontiff, the apostolic see still exists, inasmuch as the prerogatives of supremacy are ever in full rigour, according to the institution of Jesus Christ.' — The Apostolical Succession Explained^ ^c. by a Priest of the Order of Charity, pp. 102, 103. Again the same author states : — ' The Eoman pontiff succeeds therefore to the apostles in apostleship, because he possesses jurisdiction over the whole world and over all Christians, not by concession from any mortal, but by office, as occu- pying St. Peter's chair.' — Ibid. p. 32. If in the place of these cardinals we had had the laity and the clergy, we should have had an exact illustration of the form of a Cyprianic ordination both in theory and in practice. These cardinal bishops and deacons, however, are innovators upon the early practice of the Christian Church in the promotion of bishops, and in all probability are the offspring of those pocket- proud deacons of Eome who wished to have an undue share in the ordination of presbyters, and who were snubbed by the eloquence of Jerome and Augustine. (See Z9. 24-30, 33- 20, 21.) 80. What we have now to consider is, to whom was intrusted the right of appointing the rulers of the Church in the time of Cyprian ? A little above, the names of two Eoman bishops occur as quoted from Cyprian, Cornelius and Lucius, of whom he speaks in the most approving terms, as he also does of their antecessor and his colleague Fabian. Of the promotion of this person to be Bishop of Eome we have a full account recorded by the Church historian Eusebius, which is given in 16. 3. Dr. Pusey, in the extract we have already given, states that ' the bishop, as conceived by Cyprian, derives his authority by vicarious succession [ordination] from the apostles, chosen, or- dained by Christ.' Be it so, and let us regard Fabian, the worthy Bishop of Eome, and also a martyr, as a case in point. But who were the vicarious ordainers ? Manifestly all the brethren, including presbyters, and any bishops who might be present on the occasion. In this case the laity were the chief ordainers. Ordination, in the sense we now use the term, is not alluded to by Eusebius in regard to the promotion of Fabian. lis WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 81 ' Upon this,' he says, ' the whole body exclaimed with all eagerness, and with one voice, as if moved by the one Spirit of God, that he was worthy ; and, without delay they took and placed him upon the throne of the bishop.' (16. 8.) Eusebius does not give a syllable about any ordination in our sense of the term, and we shall look in vain in all the writings of the early Fathers for any statement to the effect that the apostolical commission is conferred after this modern Anglican theory. We have reason, however, to believe, that the election of Fabian as a layman to be a bishop, was completed by prayer and the laying on of hands. After the martyrdom of Fabian the see of Eome was vacant for upwards of a year. How the presbyters of Eome speak of constituting another in his place, and the part he would have to take among them in moderating the affairs of the Church, may be seen in 11. 14. 81. But as C^^prian informs us that rulers (prcepositi) of the Church are ordained by a vicarious ordination, we must especially examine what he means by the term ordination. An episcopal ordination, or consecration in which is supposed to be conferred the apostolical commission by those who have previously re- ceived it by succession from the apostles, as held by these Angli- cans, is not so much as alluded to or named by Cyprian. Nor, as far as we have examined, do they even attempt to quote anything in proof of their opinion from his writings. Dr. Pusey has, in his preface to Cyprian's epistles, referred his readers to such parts of them as might best aid this modern Anglican theory of episcopal ordination, but we find no reference to any passage that teaches it. The nearest approach to anything of the kind is a passage to which he refers, and which is given in 11. 22 ; but that most certainly does not touch the question. In 11. 24, Cyprian gives an account of the making of Cornelius a bishop. The making is effected by a large majority of the clergy, the whole of the people being present, together with a college of priests (16 bishops), and the thing was so orderly and legiti- mately done that Cyprian says, * Cornelius was made bishop by the sanction of God and His Christ.' This is called the or- dination of Cornelius. That thing which is of such paramount importance in the estimation of these Anglicans in the ordina- Chap. IV. §§ 82, 83. SUFFEAGES OF THE LAITY. 117 tion of a bishop does not appear to be noticed, although Cyprian is stating all he possibly can to convince Antonianus that Cornelius was the legitimate bishop of Eome, and notNovatian, his rival. 82. In the time of Cyprian, a bishop could not have a valid ordination without the suffrages of the people ; this was regarded as essential, and Cyprian, as we shall see, held it to be of Divine authority. With him what might be considered the Divine part in the constitution of a bishop was the election by the people. In his opinion, vox populi, vox Dei, Writing to his people, he says : — * Certain presbyters, mindful of their old conspiracy, and retaining their ancient venom against my episcopate, yea, rather against your suffrage and the sanction of God.' (11. 20.) His meaning is, that their suffrage intimated the Divine will ; and referring to the voluntary excommunication of these pres- byters, he says : — ' They have from their own consciences passed sentence upon them- selves, in accordance with your Divine suffrages.^ (11. 20.) 83. In this very epistle, addressed to the whole of the laity, he emphatically declares that they made him bishop, * the priest whom you made.^ (11. 21.) By priest he includes his rank as a bishop. He was promoted to that degree soon after he was baptised, without being made either deacon or presbyter ; this appears to be the opinion of Pontus, his deacon, who wrote his life. * By the judgment of God and the good will of the people, he was chosen for the office of the priesthood, and the rank of the episcopate, while yet a neophyte, and, as was considered, a novice.' — Cypriani Vita, p. 2. Whenever Cyprian refers to his own promotion, the part the people took in the affair is that on which he lays the greatest stress. Hence he says, the people * themselves have the power of chosing worthy priests, and rejecting the unworthy.' (11. 34.) He distinctly maintains that this power * has been derived from Divine authority,'' that such a practice was 'received from Divine tradition and apostolic ohsei^anceJ 118 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 84. * This too,' lie says, ' was done among you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, so that by the suffrages of the whole brotherhood, and by the judgment of the bishops who had met together in their presence, and who had written to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were laid on him in the room of Basilides.' (H. 34.) It should be noticed that, when Cyprian alludes to his own promotion to be bishop, he never includes the clergy ; the fact is that five out of the eight presbyters were against him. In re- ferring to the like promotion of Cornelius, he includes the clergy, because a majority of them were in his favour. The bishop, or bishops, would lay hands on the elected bishop, and by solemn prayer consecrate him to his office. But this was by no means the chief part in the appointment of a bishop, as is plain from the writings of Cyprian. Thus, in the above case, the laying on of hands appears as of secondary importance in the constituting of a bishop. 84. In peculiar circumstances, which it will be well to con- sider, Cyprian wrote another letter to the Bishop of Eome. Privatus, Bishop of Lambesa, in Numidia, came to Carthage for the settlement of his grievances, but not meeting with a favour- able reception, he acted a very bold part and ordained Fortunatus, one of the five presbyters who were enemies of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in opposition to him. Fortunatus was no sooner ordained than he sent his agents to Eome with notice of it, to see if he could obtain a brotherly recognition by the bishop there. Felicissimus, an old enemy of Cyprian, headed this embassy ; whom the Bishop of Eome hap- pened to know, and at once rejected him. He and his party, being repulsed, informed the Bishop of Eome that Fortunatus had been ordained in the presence of twenty-five bishops, and so threatened the bishop that he began to stagger ; he wrote to Cyprian respecting this affair, and the extracts which are given in 11. 25-28 are taken from the letter which Cyprian sent in reply. He says : — * No one, after the Divine sanction, after the suffrages of the people, after the consent of our fellow-bishops, would make himself a judge, not of a bishop, but of God.' (11. 26.) It would seem from such a statement that, in the estimation Chap. IV. §85. ELECTION OF CYPRIAN. 119 of C3^prian, his fellow-bishops occupied but a very secondary part in constituting him a bishop ; the people, in this as in other instances, were the parties that more especially intimated the Divine sanction. There is not the remotest hint that bishops can confer Divine authority, yet Cyprian believed he had that authority. He regarded the means by which he had been made bishop, more especially the election of the people, an affair of Divine Providence, and quotes a text accordingly : — * " Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing ? and one of them does not fall on the ground without the will of your Father." (Matt. x. 29.) When he saith that not even the least things are done without the will of God, does anyone think that the highest and chief things are done in the Clmrch of God without either God's knowledge or permission, and that priests, that is, his stewards, are not ordained by his decision?' (11. 27.) 85. Another very important letter is that to Florentinus, or Pupianus, a bishop, it would seem, of Africa, and a confessor in the Decian persecution, who had taken part with Novatian, the rival bishop to Cornelius, Bishop of Eome. Florentinus wrote his mind to Cyprian upon the subject of that quarrel, and, in terms of contempt, signified to him that he held him as un- worthy of his station and dignity in the Church. He wanted to have a scruple removed : how any who communicated with Cyprian could reasonably be considered to communicate with the Church ; accusing him also of the schism which the claims of Novatian to the episcopate at Rome had occasioned. To all which Cyprian returns an answer of great severity. Extracts from that letter are given in 11. 30-33. The claims which Cyprian puts forth for his episcopate are fully given, but the reader will notice the entire absence of such as are peculiar to these Anglo-catholics. Again he quotes his favourite text respecting the two sparrows, to justify his position as an affair of Divine Providence, and to show that the manner in which he had been constituted bishop was a distinct intimation of the Divine sanction (11> 30) ; in fact, what he calls a ' vicarious ordination.' Now, this was the occasion, of all others, when Cyprian might be expected to state the grounds of his authority for being a bishop ; and this most distinguished Christian of his age has 120 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 86. done so. But it would be interesting to think how very different a letter he would have written if he had had such a man as Dean Hook, or Dr. Pusey, for his secretary or chaplain, or if such a bishop as the one of Oxford had been his kind assisting neigh- bour. We may be sure, however, that Cyprian, having been originally by profession a rhetorician, and being a man of great attainments, did the best that could be done in his own defence ; and had he possessed the modern argument in its most developed stage in favour of a bishop in contradistinction to a presbyter, having a * regency in the place of Christ,' or ^ being sovereign and supreme over his own portion of the flock of Christ, and the presbyters,' and had he urged it in that early age, when in such like matters they were more influenced by facts than theories, he would have been laughed at for his folly; or, if a more serious view had been taken of the case, his fellow-presby- ters, as he called them, would probably have sent him about his business for usurping a right which, whatever it was, equally belonged to each member of the presbytery, without whom, or a majority of them, he could do nothing of importance. In ac- cordance with the practice of the age in which he lived, he has recourse to revelations and dreams to convince Florentinus, and at the same time to alarm him ; a method of reasoning about as conclusive as if he had put forth the extraordinary modern claims of these Anglo-catholics, (ll- 33.) 86. Let a competent but impartial reader make himself ac- quainted with the writings of Cyprian, or even with the evidence as given in C. 11. and he will be prepared to admit that the human medium through which Cyprian believed he received his episcopate was his own Church, principally the laity, and not bishops ; though these, according to the custom of the times, partly borrowed, as we shall see when we come to the chapter on ordination, from the installation of a chief-priest, and the making of an elder or presbyter among the Jews, solemnly took an impressive part in completing his appointment. Had Cyprian, like these Anglicans, believed that the bishops who consecrated him conferred- on him a ' Divine commission,' ' a commission of a regency in the place of Christ,' &c. &c. it would have been a very inconvenient doctrine for him. For his rival Chap. IV. §§ 87, 88. PEIMITIVE ELECTION OF BISHOPS. 121 Fortunatus had received all that bishops could give. Neverthe- less, Cyprian called him a false bishop, and made a practical use of his rhetoric to prove from Scripture that there could be but one bishop in one church-, that Fortunatus was incapable of performing any Church act, and that he and his presbyters, and all his adherents, were no better than vile apostates, or unclean heathens. 87. The place Cyprian assigns to the laity in the appoint- ment of bishops receives additional confirmation from the important testimony of Mason, an author not unacceptable to these Anglicans, as their preceptors, the Tractarians, have made use of him as a link in the chain of their Fathers on their doctrine of apostolical succession. In his treatise on The Con- secration of the Bishops in the Church of England, &c. under the heading *0f the Election of Bishops in the Primitive Church, before there were any Christian Princes,' he says : — * Let us begin with the election of ministers, concerning which we find three varieties in the New Testament. The first by lots ; the second by voices ; the third by the spirit of prophecy, Matthias was chosen by lots; the deacons by voices; Timothy and others by the spirit of prophecy. For as Chryrostom saith : " In those days the pastors were made by prophecy ; what is by prophecy ? by the Holy Ghost : as Saul was showed by prophecy when he lay hid among the stuff; as the Holy Ghost said, ' Separate unto me Paul and Barnabas,' so was Timothy chosen," {Chry. in 1 ad Tim. i. Horn. 5.) Theodoret : " Thou hast not thy calling from men, but thou receivedest that order by Divine revelation." {IVieod. in 1 ad Tim. i.) Oecumenius: " By reve- lation of the spirit Timothy was chosen of Paul to be a disciple, and ordained a bishop." {Oec. in 1 ad Tim. i.) This kind of election seemeth to be usual in the apostles' times, and to have continued so long as the gift of prophecy and discerning of spirits remained. Now of these three : the first and the third were by God himself; the second by all the faithful. This is all we find in Scripture ; yet here is no precept, but only example. Wherefore it seemeth that the Lord hath left this point as a thing indifferent to be ordered by the discretion of the Church, so all things be done honestly and in order. From the Scripture, if we come to the ages following, they referred it to the clergy and people.'— P. 158, ed. 1613. This is illustrated and confirmed by quetations from Cyprian, which have already been given. He also gives the testimony of other Fathers to the same thing. 88. Affect not to be shocked at this, ye Anglo-Catholics, for even 122 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 89. Hooker, whose fair fame as a true Churchman ye do grievously wrong by giving simple folk to understand, from the manner in which ye quote him, that he was a friend of yours, says : — ' Lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their states, let them continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of CUSTOM, whereby the Church (having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops) doth still uphold, maintain, and honour, them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be showed by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops,' (83. 13.) ' The whole Church visible being the true original subject of aU power.' (83. 15.) 89. This is the place to notice the chief human instru- mentality in nialcing of bishops in the time of Cyprian, and at the present day. Dr. Wordsworth states that — * no earthly power can make a bishop. Kings do not malce^ but only do place, bishops.' — Theoph. Ang. p. 321. And the proof he gives that in our Church the civil authorities do not make bishops is as follows : — ' The English ordinal is entitled " The Form and Manner of maJcingy &c. of bishops, &c." '^Ihid. p. 322. If a bishop or a presbyter is what he ought to be, he must be made of Grod. But by what human instrumentality does a man become a bishop in the sight of meu ? The answer of these Anglo-catholics is, that bishops alone can make bishops, and unless they are so made, they are not bishops before Grod, and, therefore, not rightly so before men. But will it be believed that this learned doctor, in quoting the ordinal in emphatic type for proof that bishops are made by others than kings, has referred to what cannot be found, namely, that bishops are there said to be made at all ? In proof of this, it is only necessary to give the general heading of the ordinal, and the three several headings of deacons, priests, and bishops, and the reader can judge for himself: — ' The form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating bishops, priests, and deacons.' * The form and manner of making of deacons.' ' The form and manner of ordering of priests.' ' The form of ordaining or consecrating of an archbishop.' Chap. IV. §§ 90, 91. MAKING OF BISHOPS. 123 The only ministers who are said to be made, in the ordinal, are the deacons. When it is considered that Dr. Wordsworth's Theophilus Anglicanus, or Instruction for the Young Student, is used in St. Bees College as a class-book for candidates for the Christian ministry, who have but two years for their studies, it seems like a cruel wrong to waste their precious time by making such a reference, and that the only one, for such a purpose. 90. Cyprian, in his epistle to Cornelius, Bishop of Eome, speaking of Novatus, then an excommunicated presbyter from his Church, says : — ' He it is who, without my permission or knowledge, of his own factiousness and ambition, made Felicissimus, his follower, a deacon.' In this case, Novatus was not only the chief instrument in getting this enemy of Cyprian appointed to the office of a deacon, but in all probability he ordained him. Cyprian goes on to say:— * He who here made a deacon against the Church, there (in Rome) made a bishop.' — Epis, 62 j p. 238. Novatus was the chief instrument in the appointment of Novatian as bishop in opposition to Cornelius, and Cyprian, taking a practical view of things, said that at Rome he made a bishop. In a letter written especially to his people, in which he speaks of their suffrages as being Divine (11- 20.), he says, * The priest whom you made with so great love and zeal.' (11. 21.) According to the style in which Cyprian speaks of making bishops, we should beyond a doubt say, and say most correctly, that Her Grracious Majesty, or Her Majesty's govern- ment, makes our bishops. What was the opinion of one of the reformers of our Church on this point, and of others who with him compiled our liturgy, made the offices, and framed the articles, may be seen in 61. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, more especially the last two sections. 91. From the fact that Cyprian attached so much importance to the share the people had in his ordination, he must, on principle, attach the same importance to their suffrages in the ordination of the clergy generally, and so we find he did. Dean Hook informs us that — 124 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. § 92. * to confer the grace of God by the imposition of human hands would clearly be blasphemous, except there existed a commission from God to do so, which commission, without the apostolical succession, cannot be proved, unless by miracle.' — Ch. Diet. Ordinal. Cyprian, however, believed tbat, before he could ordain evea a Scripture-reader, he must have a commission from the laity of his Church, which commission he could not dispense with except by miracle. (See 11. 18, 19.) Nothing less than Divine suffrages could, according to the teaching of Cyprian, supersede the necessity of those of the people in the ordination of the clergy. Passing over presbyter, deacon, and sub-deacon, we come to the order of Scripture-readers, of which class we have a particular account of the ordination of two. Cyprian had so little concep- tion of the enormous power with which he was entrusted, as standing in the place of Jesus Christ, according to the teaching of these Anglicans, that he appears to have believed that he got his power through his people, and that without their election he could not duly ordain even a Scripture-reader, and that, when he did ordain two without their election and sanction, he did it by the authority of a miracle, or a heavenly vision. He dis- pensed with the human suffrages of his people only on the ground that he had received Divine ones. (Ha 19.) The Church, by a vision, did that which it probably would have done in an ordinary way, and Cyprian represents one of these readers as being 'joined to the clergy, not by human suffrage, but by Divine favour.' And even after he had ordained these readers under the direct and immediate sanction of God, he submitted their ordination to his people for their approval and ratification. In doing this, Cyprian used a legal phrase in common use among the Eomans. When the prince or chief magistrate laid anything before tlie senate to have their approbation, and to enact it thence into a law, he was said, * Referre ad seyiatum,^ to refer it to the senate. In the casd of Cyprian, he referred these ordinations to the joresbyters, deacons, and to all the people. (See 11- 19.) 92. On a similar but previous occasion, Cyprian had, by the common advice of the whole Church, for the most part determined upon appointing two persons to be next in rank to the clergy, one Chap. IV. § 93. CYPRIAN NOT A PRIMATE OF BISHOPS. ] 25 to be a reader, the other to be a sub-deacon, but this had not been formally done. Cyprian completes this while in exile, and knowing the mind of his Church, he acted more upon the spirit than upon the letter of the rule, which, as laid down by himself, was a Divine law, namely, the consent of the people in such matters. ' I have done nothing new, then, in your absence ; only, what had been long since begun by the common advice of us all has, on an urgent occasion, been set forth or completed.' (11. 13.) 93. We now come to consider the extent of Cyprian's power as a bishop, and his mode of exercising it. Happily his writings give complete information on these points. It is necessary first, however, to have a definite conception of the Church of which Cyprian was bishop ; he is not unfrequently represented as though he were an archbishop, a primate of bishops of a considerable province. Gregory Nazianzen must have been in a position to know the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Cyprian, and although he has spoken of his prodigious influence, it is represented as of a moral and not of a judicial kind. In fact, Cyprian had no official jurisdiction over any Church but his own, and a primate of bishops, or of a province, was not then known. Barrow's testi- mony on this point is conclusive. * The truth is, all ecclesiastical presidencies and subordinations, or dependencies, of some bishops on others in administration of spiritual affairs were introduced merely by human ordinance, and established bv law or custom, upon prudential accounts, according to the exigency of things ; hence the prerogatives of other sees did proceed, and hereto whatever dignity, privilege, or authority, the pope with equity might at any time claim is to be imputed.' — Treatise of the Pope's Sup. p. 240. But this human arrangement did not exist in the time of Cyprian, as may be seen from what is here further added from Barrow : — * At first each Church was settled apart, under its own bishop and presbyters, so as independently and separately to manage its own con- cernments ; each was governed hy its own head, and had its own, laws. Every bishop, as a prince in his own church, did act freely, according to his will and discretion, with the advice of his ecclesiastical senate, and with the consent of his people (the which he did use to consult), with- out being controllable by any other, or accountable to any, further than his obligation to uphold the verity of Christian profession, and to 126 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 94. maintain fraternal communion in charity and peace with neighbouring churches, did require ; in which regard, if he were notably peccant, he was liable to be disclaimed by them as no good Christian, and rejected from communion, together with his church, if it did adhere to him in his misdemeanours. This may be collected from the remainders of state in the times of Saint Cyprian.' — Ihid. pp. 240, 241. Here Barrow, to confirm his remarks, refers to five different epistles of Cyprian, and gives the following extracts from some others : — ' All this business was to have been imparted to the people.' ' To order what was to be done according to your judgment, and the common advice of us all.' ' And the reason is more thoroughly to be examined, not only with my colleagues, but with the whole people.' * I dare not therefore prejudge, nor assume to myself alone, a matter which is common to all.' — Ihid. pp. 240, 241. 94.' Had Cyprian, exclusive of, and distinct from, the presbyters, « the same rights and authority ' of an apostle ? As a * chief pastor,' had there been granted to him * a commission of regency ' in the place of Christ ? Was he ' sovereign and supreme over the flock of Christ, as if there were none other but himself ? ' Dr. Pusey states that — * Cyprian asserted his right to exercise alone the authority committed to him by God ; held it back while he might ; when necessary, he exer- cised it.' Such are the claims of these Anglicans for their bishop in the nineteenth century. Let us now see what were the claims of the bishop of the Church at Carthage in the third century. Dr. Pusey claims for Cyprian an absolute authority ; but we have not the remotest proof that he ever claimed it for himself. Dr. Pusey, in his preface to the epistles of Cyprian, only refers to them for one instance in which Cyprian held back his autho- rity, and one other where he exercised it. But in both these instances the authority, whether exercised or restrained, was rather of influence than of power, and in no respect independent. The proof which Dr. Pusey adduces that he kept back his authority will be found in 11. 17. But in the translation to which he refers, instead of the words ' we shall take ' (agemus), these are the words, * I shall take.' Now, what were the steps to be taken, whether we take the singular I (Cyprian) or the Chap. IV. §95. THE UNITY OF THE PEIESTHOOD. 127 plural we (Cyprian and others)? On the authority of Bishop Fell, to whom Dr. Pusey refers with approval, these were the steps to be taken. ' Tell it unto the Church : but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.' Let us suppose, then, that Cyprian did tell it to the Church, and that these lapsed Christians neglected to hear it, and were excommunicated. Where in all this do we get the peculiar authority of a bishop ? Dr. Pusey must indeed be a very acute Anglo-catholic to find it. According to the teach- ing of Augustine, this was an affair of the laity as well as of the bishop and presbyters. (33- 44, 7'2.) But the question is, how would Cyprian have acted in such a case ? or how did he pro- pose to act in a similar case ? The instance to which Dr. Pusey refers us, where Cyprian is said to have exercised his authority, is a case in point. (11- 16.) Which ever of the two translations we adopt, we must come to the conclusion that Cyprian's autho- rity was very much circumscribed, and that he only could exer- cise it in conjunction with his fellow-presbyters and people, or at least a majority of them. 95. But this is a point which we must more fully investigate. Cyprian's own language accurately defines his position as a minister of Christ. * There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded by the word of the Lord on Peter. Another alteir cannot be set up, nor a new priesthood made, besides the one altar and one priest- hood.' (11. 21.) The term priesthood, as here used, cannot denote the exclusive office of a bishop distinct from that of the presbyters. It is true Cyprian called himself a priest, and he called the episcopate of the Bishop of Eome a priesthood (11- 22), and referring to the same thing elsewhere, he says : — * They set sail, &c. to Rome and to the chair of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood takes its rise.' (11. 27.) * Unity ' {unitas) here cannot be applied with propriety to one person, but to the bishop and his fellow-presbyters, as Cyprian calls them. But we need not be left in doubt upon this point, as Cyprian expressly represents certain presbyters of Eome as 128 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 95. being joined in the priesthood of the bishop, for, writing to con- gratulate Lucius, Bishop of Eome, successor to Cornelius, he states : — ' Who was its one bishop : which presbyters are joined with the bishop in priestly honour.'' (11. 29.) The bishop of Eome was at that time a jprimus inter jpares in regard to his fellow-presbyters. Cyprian was nothing more. In his epistle to Cornelius, Bishop of Eome, he speaks of 'the dignity and sanctity of the priestly office.' And alluding to those who sustained that office, he says, 'when the priests of God were sitting together.' (11- 22.) Here he included him- self, of course, though no doubt sitting on a higher seat. In the same epistle he also says, * Wherefore, dearest brother, when such things were written to me concerning you and your fellow-'pres- hyters sitting with you,'' (H> 22.) In another letter to the Bishop of Eome, he says, ' The very eminent clergy who there preside with you,'' (11> 28.) In the same letter he states ; — * What remains but that the Church give way to the Capitol, and the priests withdrawing and removing the altar of the Lord, the images and idols with their altars pass into the sacred and venerable consistory of the clergy, and a wider and fuller scope be afforded Novatian for declaim- ing against us, and reviling us.' (11. 28.) If the bishop of Eome at this time claimed what some of his successors have done, Cyprian could not have known of it, or how could he have ranked him among his fellow-priests or presbyters ? Cyprian, of course, would not claim for himself, as the bishop, or the presiding presbyter or priest, of the Church at Carthage, a higher position than the bishop, or presiding pres- byter, of the Church of Eome with its — * forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acoluthi, exorcists, readers, and janitors, in all fifty-two ; widows, with the afflicted and needy, more than fifteen-hmidred ; all which the good- ness and love of God doth support and nourish, the number of the people was very great.' — Eusebius, lib. vi. cap. xliii. pp. 468, 469. Pseudo-Ignatius asks : — ' What is the presbytery, but a sacred congregation, counsellors of the bishop, and sitting together, or presiding with him? ' (3. 39.) Chap. IV. §§ 96, 97. BISHOP PEIMATE OF PEESBYTERS. 129 96. It can be shown exactly that what an archbishop, or primate, is amongst the bishops now, such only was a bishop or presiding presbyter among the presbyters in the early Church. — Cyprian, in his letter to his son Magnus, in which he especially alludes to Novatian, the rival of Cornelius, Bishop of Eome, and such like men who assume themselves to be bishops, says : — \* And yet those men (Corah, Dathan, and Abiram) proceeded not quite so far as to make a schism, nor utterly to forsake the Church of God, nor to declare open war against his priests, as these dividers of the Church do, and who are rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, and constitute for themselves a chair, and assume the primacy (primatum).^ (11. 35.) Here primacy means, as Eigaltius says, ' the place of a bishop.' Augustine, speaking of wicked bishops, says : — * They were thought to have the primacy who were deceivers, rob- bers, usurers, enemies, drunkards, and others of the same kind, such as were in the Church in the time of Cyprian whom in his letters he bewails.' — De Baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. v. cap. xvi. torn. vii. f. 90, 91. Hilary, the Deacon, represents the presiding presbyter, or bishop, as having a primacy. (31- 9.) Jerome, or some ancient writer in his name, gives an account of the primate of presbyters, and the primate of bishops, thus : — ' Solely on account of the honour of the chief-priest (bishop) were the ordination of the clergy and the consecration of virgins, &c. reserved to him, lest the discipline of the Church, being claimed by the many, might disturb the peace of the priests and generate scandals. For this cause also the election of the bishop has latterly been referred to the metro- politan, and when the chief power is given to him that power is taken away from others, and now the chief- priests (bishops) begin to endure another priest (primate or archbishop), not of right, but of necessity.' (29. 34, 35.) 97. But the distinction between what Cyprian called a primate of presbyters and a presbyter is exactly the same as between Peter the primate of the apostles and an apostle. He speaks, as we have seen, of presbyters ' assuming the primacy ' of presby- ters, and describes Peter as having the primacy of the apostles ; his words are :- — • * For neither did Peter, whom our Lord chose, first assume anything to K 130 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 98. himself, so as to say that he had the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those (apostles) lately and newly come.' (11. 36.) Dodwell, a most zealous and extreme partisan in the defence of episcopacy, which he believed to be essential to the very being of a church, in his elaborate dissertations on Cyprian, states : — ' It suffices abundantly that Cyprian at the least obtained that pri- macy {primatwni) which he gave to Peter among the rest of the apostles, whom otherwise he acknowledged as equals.' — Diss. vii. 15, p. 46, Opera Cypriani. But Peter's primacy consisted in mere order or place, for Cyprian distinctly held the equality of all the apostles in honour and power. He says : — ' Certainly the other apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power.' (11, 3.) Cyprian says that ' Peter was chosen first.' He is represented as being first Matt. x. 2, and is named first in order Mark iii. 1 6, Luke vi. 14, John xxi. 2, and Acts i. 13. In general he acted as a 'primus inter pares in assemblies and public trans- actions. But this was such a precedency of mere order in the mind of Cyprian as not to make the other apostles either inferior in honour or power. The teaching of Cyprian, from the ten our of his writings, and, in this case, in the most exact form of speech, is that bishops ought to have (but it does not appear that they generally had in his day) the same place among their fellow- presbyters as Peter had among his fellow-apostles. 98. The testimony of Dean Hook respecting the way in which Cyprian and other early bishops exercised their power is worthy of our notice ; he says : — 'From the time of the apostles, the office of public teaching in the Church, and of administering the Sacraments, was always performed by the bishop, unless in cases of great necessity. The power of spiritual jurisdiction in each church, of regulating its affairs generally, and espe- cially its discipline, was shared by the bishop with the presbyters, who also instructed and admonished the people in private. The presbyters sat on seats, or thrones, at the east end of the church, and the bishop on a higher throne in the midst of them. In some churches they laid their hands with the bishop on the head of those who were ordained presbyters, and in others administered confirmation. The wealth and temporal power of bishops during the middle ages may have induced some of the ignorant to suppose that presbyters were exceedingly Chap. IV. § 99. THE HONOUK OF PRESBYTERS. 131 inferior to bishops ; but the Catholic Church, which sees with the eye of faith, as she acknowledges the same sacred dignity of the priesthood in every bishop, whether oppressed with extreme poverty, or whether invested with princely dignity and wealth, also views the greatness and the sanctity of the office of presbyter as little inferior to those even of the chief pastors who succeed the apostles ; and the Church has never flourished more, nor has the episcopate ever been held in truer reve- rence, than under the guidance of those apostolical prelates who, like St. Cyprian, resolved to do nothing without the consent of the Church, and who have sedulously avoided, even the appearance of " being lords over God's heritage."' — Ch. Die. Preshjters\ ed. 1842. 99. Before noticing more especially the testimony of the Dean respecting Cyprian's consulting his congregation, there are one or two other points to be noticed, and we hope the reader will note them well. He says, ' the Catholic Church views the great- ness and the sanctity of the office of presbyter as little inferior to those even of the chief pastors who succeed the apostles.' This is very true if confined to the churches of the first three centuries, and we hope to convince the Dean that, according to the general teaching of the Fathers, Cyprian not excepted, the presbyter is just as much a successor of apostles as a bishop is. This will account, of course, for the thrones of the presbyters being nearly as high as that of the bishop, but as now, so then, a president or chairman was placed a little higher, and in a more central position, not because he was of a superior order, but for the more convenient discharge of his functions as presi- dent or chairman. The Dean states very truly : — ' From the time of the apostles, the office of public teaching in the Church, and of administering the Sacraments, was always performed by the bishop ; unless in cases of great necessity.' In fact, in the early Church, till after the time of Cyprian, a bishop had no larger charge than that of a single congregation, which he ruled in conjunction with his presbyters, among whom he was a primus inter pares. The Dean regards Titus as a representative of a bishop, but by the accurate account which he has given of the bishops of the early Church he has left Titus without any successor, that is, without anyone exercising the same kind of jurisdiction, or to the same extent, for 250 years after the apostolic times. Titus, by the appointment of the Apostle Paul, acted much after the same manner as a bishop K 2 132 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 100. at the present day, and was directed to ' ordain (literally place or set) presbyters in every city ' — a plurality of presbyters in every city. Now, Crete, in ancient times, had its hundred cities (' hundred-citied isle '). It is not necessary to conclude that Titus placed in everyone of these so-called cities a plurality of presbyters. Let us suppose that Christians might be found in ten of them, and that in each of these Titus placed a plurality of presbyters. Bingham states : — ' The apostles, in first planting and establishing the Church, wherever they found a civil magistracy settled in any place, there they endea- voured to settle an ecclesiastical one, consisting of a senate or presbytery, a common council of presbyters, and one chief president above the rest, commonly called the Trpoeorwc, or the apostle, or bishop, or angel of the church; . . . according to this model, most probably, St. Paul di- rected Titus to ordain elders in Crete, 1V, which generally means a rock, is often metaphorically applied to Grod, but sometimes to creatures, and is rendered in the Greek Septuagint in the above texts by seven different words. It is rendered eleven times by the sacred term ^809, Grod ; once by hUaios, righteous ; thrice by cj)v\a^, keeper, guard ; twice by ^or]0b9, helper ; thrice by avTiXriirrcop, defender, helper, and once by /crtar^y. Creator, founder. In the four remaining texts the Hebrew term v?p, which always means a rock, is sometimes applied metaphorically to Grod, but never so applied to creatures, is rendered by four different Grreek words, TTsrpa, rock (2 Sam. xxii. 2) ; KpaiaLoacns, or KpaTaico/jua, strength (Ps. xxxi. 3); avriXr}TTT(op, defender, helper (Ps. xlii. 9), and hho^os, glorious (Is. xxxii. 2). It might have been supposed that in the Septuagint, in nearly all these texts, the term irsTpa, rock, would have occurred, whereas it only occurs once. The renderings in the Latin Vulgate are as diversified, and in meaning are precisely similar. Dr. Wordsworth states, as we have seen, ' as far as the word Eock is used in the Old Testa- ment as a foundation to build upon, it is used of Grod, and of Him alone.^ The simple fact is that it is not so used in any one of the above passages, nor is there any hint of any such meaning. P>om the rendering already given, both from the Grreek and the Latin, we should infer that xmder the metaphor of a rock God was a Protector, Eefuge, Shelter, and the pious Hebrews made their boast of such a Eock. But the Hebrew term >"1V, which is the one that chiefly occurs in the above texts, does not necessarily mean an immovable mass of stone, but sometimes small stones, or movable stones. ' Stones of the brooks.' (Job xxii. 24.) 'Eock of offence.' (Is. viii. 14.) The same Hebrew term is applied to creatures as well as to God. * Except their Eock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up ? For their rock is not as our Eock, . . . their rock in whom they trusted.' (Deut. xxxii. 30, 31, 37). God, of course, is the only Eock in which to trust, and to trust in any other would be sinful. There are those who believe that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Second Person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ ; and, if so, some of the above texts apply to Him. But the rock Dr. Wordsworth has to explain is not one said to be trusted in, but 166 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 132. built upon ; and we shall have occasion to notice that, when the Lord condescends to be spoken of in that capacity, it is as a stone or movable piece of rock,, such as might form a foundation, by being laid. In no one of the texts, as translated in the ancient Peshito-Syriac version, is there one term at all equivalent to the term iTsrpa, rock, though there is the same variety of renderings as in the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. 132. We now shall consider more especially the only text out of the twenty-five that is relevant for the purpose for which it was quoted, and which militates against Dr. Wordsworth's inter- pretation. ' Therefore, thus saith the Lord Grod, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner- stone, a sure foundation.' (Is. xxviii. 16.) As this text stands in the Hebrew original, and the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions, the term rock, as metaphorically applied to God, does not occur, but the term stone is here divinely applied to the Lord Jesns Christ. The examination of this term, as applied to Christ, both in the Psalms and the New Testament, wall form a key of interpretation to the term irsTpa, rock, or stone, on w^hich Christ would build his Church. In the ancient Syriac version this interesting text is thus translated, 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stone (keepho), a stone (keepho) chosen for the corner, precious, the head of the foundation wall.' In the Septuagint as follows, ' Behold, I lay for the foundations of Zion a costly stone {\i6ov iroXvrsXrji) elect, a chief cornerstone, precious, for its foundations.' This stone is again spoken of in Ps, cxviii. 22, ' The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner,' and is applied by the pen of inspiration to the Lord Jesus Christ, Matt. xxi. 42 ; Mark xii. 10 ; Luke xx. 17 ; Acts iv. 11; Eph. ii. 20, and 1 Peter ii. 7. Here our Lord condescends to be represented for the comfort and encourage- ment of His Church as a foundation stone that can be laid, but as the chief stone of the others placed in the same foundation. (Eph. ii. 20.) Dr. Wordsworth says : — * We may not say Petros (the name of Peter) never signifies a Eock in profane authors, but it never has that sense in the LXX. or the Greek New Testament ; and no one doubts that Petra (rock), there and elsewhere, signifies a Rock.' Chap. IV. § 132. EXPOSITION OF ' ROCK' 167 The statement here given respecting the interpretation of Peter, or petros, is conflicting, but very accurate so far as the LXX. and New Testament are concerned, for in the former the term never occurs, and in the latter only as Peter's name. But he is far from accurate when he says that ^no one doubts that petra there (LXX. and New Testament) signifies a rock.' On the contrary, we think it can be proved both from the LXX. and New Testament that petra never has that meaning when applied to the Lord Jesus Christ as a foundation to be built upon. But now for the proof. We read in Isaiah viii. 14, ' And he shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone fHeb. 15^, Grreek XlOos) of stumbling, and for a rock (Heb. "i-IV, Grreek irsrpa) of offence.' Here be it observed that the Hebrew term, which is frequently used as a title of God, as we have seen above, is here used as an equivalent, or sort of Hebrew parallel, to stone; and the term petra, or rock, is used after the same manner. Gesenius renders the latter part of the phrase thus, ' A stone or flint of offence.' The ancient Syriac version confirms this interpretation. 'And for a stone {keepho) of striking, and for ^ flint of stumbling.' In the Chaldee Targum, in the latter clause of the sentence, a term is used which denotes a stone, and exactly corresponds to the Syriac term keepho. But this text is quoted twice in the New Testament, and is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, in the epistle to the Eomans, ' Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone (Greek Xl6ov, Syriac keepho) and rock (Greek iriTpav, Syriac keepho) of offence.' (ix. 33.) But this quotation is made up of two passages of Scripture, although quoted as one. The first part is from Isaiah xxxiii. 16, which we noticed above. Again, in 1 Peter ii. 6, 7, ' Behold, I lay in Sion a chief cornerstone (Greek \l6ov, Syriac keepho), elect, precious : . . . the stone (Greek \l6ov) which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone (Greek XiOos, Syriac keepho) of stumbling, and a rock (Greek irirpa, Syriac keepho) of offence.' To the two passages joined together by the Apostle Paul, St. Peter added a third from Psalm cxviii. 22. In these three passages thus quoted from the Old Testament, we are sure that the Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as a foundation stone which may be I 168 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 133. laid, under different titles, but all denoting one and the same thing. Thus Psalm cxviii. 22, and as quoted in 1 Peter ii. 7. In Hebrew the title is 15^, stone ; in Greek, \i6os, stone ; in Syriac, keepho, stone ; and in the Chaldee Targum, child. * The builders despised the child who was among the children of Yissai, and deserved to be constituted king and ruler.' Isaiah viii. 14, and as quoted in Romans ix. 33, and 1 Peter ii. 6, the first titles are the same as the above, excepting in this case the Chaldee has a term denoting a stone. But the second title in these passages, which is, no doubt, the same in meaning as the first, is in Hebrew >"IV, rock, or flint ; in Grreek irhpa, rock, here a movable rock or stone ; in Syriac, in the Old Testament, fiint, in the New Testament, keepho, stone ; in Chaldee the same. Isaiah xxviii. 16, in Chaldee, is, ' Behold, I place in Zion a King, a mighty and powerful king.' The Syriac and Greek titles are given above. In all these passages it appears certain that the Greek term irirpa, which often means rock, ig applied to Christ in the sense of a foundation stone, or movable piece of rock, and that the most valuable version of Holy Scripture in existence, made at the close of the first, or beginning of the second, century, interprets it by keepho, the ordinary term for a stone. Jerome, on Isaiah xxviii. 16, says, * Upon this stone (lapidem), which by another name is called rock (petra), Christ built his Church.'— Tom. v. p. 119. 133. We thus learn, as we think, with certainty that, when the Lord Jesus Christ is spoken of in Divine condescension to men as a foundation to be built upon, it is not as an immovable rock, but as a foundation stone, yet in reality more immovable than the everlasting hills. We may derive considerable assistance from the Syriac version, which, probably, gives the vernacular words which were used in the interesting colloquy, and which shall be given in full. *He questioned his disciples and said, " What do men say concerning me that I, Bereh Denosho, am ?".... He said to them, " But who do ye yourselves say that I am ? " Simon Keepho answei'ed and said, " Thou art the Messiah, Bereh Daloho, the hving." Jesus answered and said to him, " Blessed art thou, Simon Bereh Deyauvo : ior flesh and blood hath not revealed (it) to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. Also I say to thee, that thou art Keepho : and upon this keepho I will CiiAP. IV. § 134. EXPOSITION OF ' EOCK.' 169 build my Cluirch, and the gates of sheol (that is, death) shall not triumph over it." ' — Matt. xvi. 13-18. It is certain from this that, in the mind of the Syriac trans- lator, he understood the rock to denote Peter. The circumstanc of regarding Trhpa, rock, as a sort of immovable mountain has frightened reverential minds from supposing our Lord could apply to Peter, human Peter, stumbling Peter (Matt. xvi. 22, 23), backsliding Peter (Matt. xxvi. 74), fallible Peter (Gal. ii. 1 1 ), a title peculiar to Jehovah, and, therefore, very naturally have supposed the title to belong to Christ only, who is Jehovah. Dr. Wordsworth has increased this fright by quoting twenty- four texts, as we have seen, to show that the term Kock is an especial title of Almighty Grod. The learued Dr. Lightfoot, who, although he regarded the term rock as applying to Christ, and not to Peter, yet considered the terra exactly in the sense we have explained it, that is, a foundation stone which might be laid. He says : — ' The words concerning the Eock, upon which the Church Avas to be Imilt, are evidently taken out of Esiiy xxviii. 16, which, the New Testament being interpreter in very many places, do most plainly speak of Christ. When, therefore, Peter, the first of all the disciples (from the very first beginning of the preaching of the Gospel), had pronounced most clearly of the person of Christ, and had declared the mystery of the incarnation, and confessed the Deity of Christ, the minds of the disciples are Avith good reason called back to those words of Esay, that they might learn to acknowledge who that stone was that was set in Sion for a foundation never to be shaken ; and whence it came to pass that that foundation remained so unshaken, namely, thence ; that he was not a creature, but God himself, the Son of God.' — On Matt. xvi. 18, vol. ii. p. 205. 134. If our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who might well be compared to an immovable mountain on which the universe might repose, graciously condescended to represent himself in accordance with ancient prophecy as a stone, or rock, that could be laid, and if His servants, whom he specially endowed and qualified by the Holy Spirit, represent Him as the chief cornerstone of a foundation of which there are other stones, though laid and kept in their place by Him, yet never- theless stones upon which the Church was built, we come to the conclusion that there would be nothing incongruous, or contrary. 170 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. § 134. to the teaching of Holy Scripture if we understood the term TTSTpaf rock, as applying to Peter, thus taking the passage in question in the sense which the Syriac version most certainly indicates, viz. ' Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church.' Here all is simple and plain. But if we take the interpretation Dr. Wordsworth so eagerly contends for, that is, ' Thou art Peter, and upon Myself I will build my Church ' (for this is the very exposition he gives), the language and argument appear unaccountable. The learned Lightfoot comes very near to what we think to be the simple truth. He says : — ' Thence, therefore, Peter took his surname, not that he should be argued to be that Rock ; but because he was so much to be employed in building a Church upon a Eock ; whether it Avere that Church that was to be gathered out of the Jews, of which he was the chief minister, or that of the Gentiles (concerning which the discourse here is principally of), imto which he made the first entrance by the Gospel.' — Wo7^ks, vol. ii. p. 205. We believe, with Dr. Lightfoot, that the Church is built on the Eock the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Cornerstone of the foundation, but as there are other stones in the foundation, who receive their strength and stability from the chief cornerstone, and on which the Church, on Divine authority, is said to be built, we believe that Christ employed His servant Peter as one of these stones ; and that, when He said, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' He did not immediately refer to Himself, but to His servant Peter. Peter and the other apostles and prophets rest on Christ, the sure foundation, the chief cornerstone, but in a subordinate sense the Church rests upon them. (See Augustine, 33. 50, 51.) Several other Fathers have given what we consider to be the right view of the text. Hilary, the Bishop, has done so in 19. 7. Basil has w^ell said, ' Peter is a rock through Christ the Eock, &c.' (23. 2.) He states that Peter * received the building of the Church upon himself.' (23.4.) But he also says: — ' The Church is built upon the foundations of the apostles and pro- phets. One of these mountains was Peter, upon which rock it had been promised that Christ would build his Church.' (23. 5.) This is exactly our exposition of the passage. Ambrose, or some other ancient Father, confirms this exposition. (30. 18.) Chap. IV. §§ 135, 136. CHEIST THE F0UNI5ATI0N. 171 1 35. It also appears to be the exact doctrine of Theodoret, and as Dr. Wordsworth has quoted from him what he desig- nates ' a remarkable passage, ' we shall do well to consider it. For the passage see 39. 15. 'This foundation was laid by Peter, or rather by our Lord himself.' Theodoret plainly teaches that onr Lord laid the foundation through Peter, and in this subordinate sense Theodoret represents the Church as built on Peter, though not Qn him exclusively. (See 39. 7.) On the words ' Being well planted for the joy of the whole earth ' (Ps. xlviii. 2, Sep. ver.), he says : — * He built this city for the joy of the whole earth well, beautifully, and firmly. For he built it, said the Divine apostle, " upon the founda- tion of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chiet cornerstone." And the Lord himself said to the blessed Peter, " And upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."' — Tom. i. 908. Other Fathers, beside Theodoret, express themselves after the same manner. Sedulius says : — ' The apostles are the foundation, or Christ is the foundation of the apostles. Christ is the foundation, who also is the chief cornerstone, joining and containing the two walls.' (41. 4.) Leo the Great states : — ' Since I (Christ) am the unassailable rock, I the cornerstone, I who make both one, I the foundation, beside which none other can be laid, yet thou art also a rock, because thou art firm by my virtue, as those things are proper to my power, may be common to thee by participation with me.' (44. 1.) Primacius states : — * Since we know that the Church has only one foundation, that is, Christ, we ought not to move that Church, which he here says the twelve have. For the apostles in Christ have deserved to be the foundations of the Church. ... As also here Ave ought to know that the apostles were called the twelve foundations, but on the one foundation Jesus Christ.' (51. 9.) 136. But to suppose Peter every now and then, or any of the apostles, required to be replaced in the foundation, by a parity of reasoning, so would the chief cornerstone Himself. But if so, how could this be the ' sure foundation ' ? How could it sustain the superstructure that is progressively rising upon 172 . WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS? Chap. IV. § 137. it? Now, Dr. AVordsworth does not deny that Peter was succeeded as an apostle. He contends that all the apostles were succeeded, and that each of our bishops holds an apostleship. He and these other Anglo-catholics, and Dr. Pusey in parti- cular, have no fault to find with the quality of the papal assumption, but with the quantity ; but we contend that the position assigned to apostles by our blessed Lord precludes the very idea of succession or renewal ; and this, as we have seen, is in accordance with the general teaching of the early Fathers. The foundation has been laid by Christ Himself, and laid once for all ; and its stability and duration depend on Him who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever — Jehovah. 137. We have to notice the extraordinary superstition and credulity of Cyprian, which Dr. Pusey looks upon as the result of inspiration, revelation, &c. As an instance of superwstition and credulity we refer to 11. 4, 5. If Cyprian had, during the whole course of his episcopate, such supernatural assistance as Dr. Pusey believes he had, it seems to us unaccountable how he should have deceived himself and eighty-seven bishops, with a multitude of presbyters, and the great bulk of the people whom they represented, on the subject of what was called heretical baptism. So unconscious was Augustine of any such claims of Cyprian that a considerable portion of his writings are employed in refuting him; and he states it as a fact that — * In the fuller council of the whole Christian world the rational custom (contrary to Cyprian and his friends) had been established.' (33. 41.) Perhaps Augustine and other African Fathers, not having had access to such a man as Dr. Pusey, had but scant knowledge of Cyprian ; they do not appear to have possessed the extraordi- nary information — ' That Christ, whose witness Cyprian was, bore witness to him after death ; that he was seen thrice since, in glory ; once, as one to whom it had been given to sit down on the throne of the Judge.' Dr. Pusey appears to believe this, for he goes on to say: — 'And people might well shrink from judging for themselves of his words, by whom living the Ploly Spirit spake, and who is now an assessor of their Judge.'— Pre/crce to Cyprian's Epistles^ p. xxii. Chap. IV. § 138. DONATISM OF CYPRIAK 173 Augustine, not possessed of this extraordinary information, and certainly not this still more extraordinary belief of it, held and taught many things contrary to Cyprian, who in his faith was a rabid Donatist, although he did not on that account voluntarily make a schism. (See 33. 36.) Had he done so, however, it would have been the legitimate consequence of his faith. 138. The Donatists did but act upon the principles laid down by that foolish council which Dr. Pusey says echoed the maxims of Cyprian. On this point we shall adduce the testimony of Vincentius, the Monk of Lerins, who died in the year 434. The reader must excuse his false logic on the laudable ground that he did not wish to bring good Cyprian into that hot place to which he consigned the Donatists ; he may, however, condemn him for want of true enlightened Christian charity for bringing the Donatists there at all. His extraordinary statement is ; — ' To conclude, what force had the council or decree of Africa ? By God's Providence, none ; but all was abolished, disannulled, abrogated, as dreams, as fables, as superfluous. And, O strange change of the world ! the authors of that opinion are judged to be Catholics, but the followers of the same heretics ; the masters discharged, and the scholars condemned ; the writers of those books shall be the children of the kingdom, but hell shall receive their maintainers. For who is so mad as to doubt but that that light of all saints, bishops, and martyrs, the most blessed Cyprian, with the rest of his companions, shall reign with Christ for ever ? And, contrariwise, who is so profane as to deny that the Donatists, and such other pests, which vaunt that they do practise rebaptisation by the authority of that council, shall burn for ever with the devil?' (40.2.) The truth, perhaps, belonged neither to Cyprian and his council nor to what was called the Catholic Church. Stephen, Bishop of Eome, Augustine himself, and what he called the Catholic Church, as we have seen, might be wrong in receivin^^- the baptism of those heretics who denied the divinity of Christ. Eespecting what Cyprian called the heresy of Novatian and his followers, the case was wholly different, for Novatian believed in the Trinity, and wrote a treatise upon it, from w^hich extracts'^ are given in our Catena. (14.) Cyprian appears to admit that he was sound in the faith. (See sect. 117 of this chap.) He did not believe Cyprian's moonshine or mystery respecting what he 174 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 139. called the unity of the Church. But Cyprian called him and his friends, in a mixture of metaphor and plain speech, ' heretics,' ' wounded,' * maimed,' * fallen,' ' criminals,' ' sacrilegious ; ' and, believing as he did, that such persons could not administer valid Sacraments, without which there could be no hope of salvation, we think he ought to have separated from Stephen, instead of Stephen separating from him. 139. But we will give a still more decided case. It would seem that some libellous reports had been circulated respecting Cyprian, which Pupianus, a bishop and martyr, partly believed, for Cyprian, in his letter to him, says : — 'I had thought, brother, that yon Avere now at length turned to repentance, for having rashly in times past either listened or given credit to things concerning me so abominable, so base, so execrable even to Gentiles. But even now I perceive by your letter that you still are the same as before, that you believe the same things of me, and persist in what you believed.' (11. 30.) But, supposing that these charges against Cyprian were just, then mark the consequences he deduces therefrom ; that — * So large a number of believers as have been summoned away under my rule should appear to have departed without hope of salvation and peace; and the multitude of new believers be adjudged to have attained no grace of baptism and of the Holy Spirit by my ministry, &c. &c. &c.' (11. 32.) The defective character of a bishop, in the opinion of Cyprian, might ruin the salvation of the Church over which he presided, ay, and every Church in communion with him ; yea, all the Churches throughout the whole world, for this inflated rhetorician goes on to state in the same epistle : — ' Lastly, why have not all the Churches throughout the world, who are joined with us in the bond of unity, fallen on this scruple ? Except, indeed, as you have written, all these, holding communion with me, have become polluted by my polluted mouth, and by the con- tagion of my communion have lost the hope of eternal life.' — Epist. (jd), p. 286. It was not without reason that Pupianus, in his letter to him, hinted *that priests should be humble.' (11. 31.) Dr. Pusey refers to Cyprian's answer as an instance of extraordinary humility. He says: — CH.VP. IV. § 140. AUGUSTINE'S ANSWER TO CYPRIAN. 17.5 ' And Cyprian was so humble as to be able, after the example of our blessed Lord, to speak of his own humility as " known very well and loved both by the brethren, and the very heathen." ' — Preface to Cyprians Epistles,'y. xv. Dr. Pusey refers to this very epistle in proof that Cyprian had divine revelations, namely, *that God would avenge dis- obedience to a bishop.' (Ibid. p. xxi.) The passage in question will be found in 11. 33. Dr. Pusey has a very extensive faith, but its quality or kind cannot be of a very high order, but suitable withal to the objects to which he directs it, and admirably adapted to lay hold on ' superstitious vanities.' 140. But we must not forget to give an answer to Cyprian's assumptions respecting the character of the minister affecting the validity of Sacraments, the being of a Church, and the salvation of immortal souls. The answer is well given by Augustine, which will be found in 33. 55-58, 77-79. Notwith- standing this. Dr. Pusey maintains that Cyprian's doctrine on heretical and schismatical baptism is the true doctrine, that it is the doctrine of the Grreek Church, and practically that of the Romish Church. But his own words shall be stated: — * Even in that question, in which he for the time failed, on heretical baptism, his measures seem most wonderfully adapted for obtaining unity. He overrules none, yet wins almost all ; and there is perhaps hardly any more remarkable memorial of the unperceived influence of one mind over others than the way in which the letter of Firmilian and the Council of Carthage echo his maxims and grounds of Scripture, so that the council seems by the mouths of many to be uttering the thoughts of one. And even here it should be observed that the question was of practice only, not of principles or doctrines ; for on the inefficacy of the Sacraments out of the Church St. Augustine con- curred with St. Cyprian, while controverting the practice derived from it. The practice itself, which St. Cyprian retained in the African Church, remained in the Eastern, and appears to be adopted, although unrecognised by the Eoman communion, among ourselves.' — Preface to Cyprian's Epistles, p. xii. To these remarks is appended a reference to a note on heretical baptism in a translation of a part of Tertullian's writings {Library of Fathers, p. 280), where we are further instructed as follows : — 176 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 141. ' On this question there were three views in the ancient Church ; first, that of the early African Church and of Asia Minor, in the time of Firmilian, which rejected all baptism out of the Church, schismatical as well as heretical ; second, that of the Greek Church generally, stated fully by St. Basil, which accepted schismatical, but rejected heretical, baptism; third, that first mentioned by Stephen, Bishop of Rome, who accepted all baptism, even of heretics, which had been given in the name of the Trinity. The second continues to be the rule of the Greek, the third (with some modifications) of the Latin, Church. (In both, it was pre-supposed that the minister had at one time received the commission to baptise ; the case of schismatical baptism, as it is found among us, not occurring).' After a considerable amount of patristic quotations and dis- cussion on the evidence adduced. Dr. Pusey, or a Puseyite, comes to this conclusion : — * The practice now adopted by the Scotch Church and our own, with regard to persons baptised by such as are not only in schism, but never received any commission to baptise (a case to which there is no parallel in the early Church), unites the advantages of the Latin and Greek practice ; of the Latin, in that it avoids the risk of real re -bap- tising, which the ancients regarded as a profanation of the sacred names ; of the Greek, in that it does what in us lies to provide that none of the blessings and grace of baptism be lost through our omission, and is an act of piety towards God, desiring that whatever may have hitherto been lacking be supplied.' — P. 297. 141. As far as our own Church is concerned, the statement is simply untrue. Our rubric and general practice in regard to heretics exactly corresponds to the theory and practice of Stephen, Bishop of Eome, whether correct or incorrect. The rubric is : — ' But if they which bring the infant to the Chui'ch do make such un- certain answers to the priest's questions as that it cannot appear that the child was baptised with water^ in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (which are essential parts of baptism), then let the priest baptise it, (fee. He shall use this form of words, If thou art not already baptised.'' If the moonshine of these Puseyites and some of these Anglicans turns out to be something more tangible and real, in what an awful predicament the Church of Scotland, all Presbyterians, all Nonconformists, must be placed ; for, however correct in doctrine, yet being reputed in schism, and, what is worse, not having any commission to baptise, according to this Chap. IV, §§ 142, 143. TESTIMONY OF FIRMILIAN. ]77 Cyprianic doctiine (which Dr. Pusey believes, and many of these Anglicans with him), they can have no hope of salvation. Verily, Puseyites must be ill at ease in a Church in which it is notorious that, according to their own teaching, archbishops, bishops, and a large number of presbyters have performed, and some are still performing, all the functions of their holy offices, and yet are themselves unbaptised and unregenerated. 142. It is notorious that in the early Church the validity of baptism and of orders stood or fell together. If baptism required to be repeated, so did orders. This is plain from the arguments of Jerome, in his dialogue on a sect called Luciferians. They admitted the baptism of Arians, but not their ordination. Jerome argued that, if they received the one, they ought to receive the other ; probably he would have received neither. (Z9. 18-20.) These Anglicans reject the baptism of heretics; why not, in all consistency, their ordinations ? But this, with their peculiar views of apostolical succession, would break the chain on which, in their own minds, the very being of a Church hangs. The fact is, one or two links (or, more correctly speak- ing, a double link) would have to be removed between Julius and Damasus. (See sects. 176-178.) It is assumed, as we have seen, that 'it was presupposed' schismatics *at one time received a commission to baptise ; the case of schismatical baptism, as it is now found among us, not occurring.' The learned Bingham, however, thought differently on this point, and maintained that the early Church received the baptism and ordination of those who had no authority to perform the rites. (91- 23.) FlRMILIAN. 143. In considering the testimony of Firmilian, we shall first call attention to the use some of these Anglicans have made of him, more especially Mr. Perceval and Dr. Pusey. The latter, as we have seen, refers to him for proof of a vicarious succes- sion. The passage shall be given as quoted by the former : — 'FipMiLiAN, Bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, a.d. 250. "The power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the chiirch( s which they founded, and to the bishops who succeeded to the apostles by a vicarious ordination." ' — Sect. 18, above. N 178 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 144. These Anglicans are most unfortunate in their quotations from the Fathers, as these ancient men either say too much or too little to serve the purpose for which they quote them. In this case too much is said. ' The power of remitting sins was given to the churches.' What Firmilian teaches here and elsewhere contrasts strangely with the assumptions both of Dr. Pusey and Mr. Perceval. Dr. Pusey, as we have seen, says : — ' The bishop, as conceived by St. Cyprian, is not like a secular power, external to those it rules, nor, again, deriving authority from it The bishop, independent in authority, &c.' — Sect. 70 of this chap. Mr. Perceval states : — ' Our Lord Jesus Christ did grant a commission of regency, which he placed in the hands of one class of his ministers, the chief pastors of his Church, &c.' — Sect. 11 of this chap. But here, it would seem, according to Firmilian, that the churches, exclusive of the bishops, have ' the power of remitting sins,' and are placed first in order. To borrow a word from Cyprian, Firmilian pays great deference to the ' majesty of the people.' Again he states, ' all power and grace is placed in the Church where the presbyters preside.' (12. 1.) Whatever distinction there might be in his time between a bishop and presbyter, Firmilian made none in name, and this appears to have been the practice of his contemporaries. The power and grace, whatever is meant by these terms, were not necessarily with the presbyters, but with the Church where they presided. If presbyters left the Church, or the Church ej^communicated them, they left their powers with the Church by whose authority and sanction it would seem they exercised them ; and if after this they performed any clerical acts, these were absolutely ignored, and persons who had received baptism from them were rebaptised on their conforming to the Church. Firmilian, of course, is not Cyprian, but, as Dr. Pusey says, he echoes his principles. Cyprian himself accepted this letter, and, for the benefit of the African and other churches, translated it out of Grreek into Latin. The teaching of Firmi- lian serves to illustrate and confirm the position Cyprian assigns to the ' majesty of the people.' 144. Verily, the bishops or presbyters in the time of Cyprian Chap. IV. § 145. PETER REPRESENTS THE CHURCH. 179 were neither independent of the people nor did they hold a 'regency in the place of Christ.' The people rather held this; certainly they had the power of depriving their priest of it, Cyprian and several of his brethren declaring that the ' people themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests or rejecting the unworthy.' And they held the people to whom they wrote responsible on the authority of the Word of Grod if they did not deprive their bishop of ' his authority,' if they did not take ' his regency ' from him. 145. But respecting the powers of the Church which both Cyprian and Firmilian held, ancient Father shall explain ancient Father, bishop interpret bishop ; that very catholic Father, the great Augustine, shall be our interpreter. The only successor to the keys of Peter, according to the teaching of Augustine, was the Church. "" ' So that Peter should figuratively represent the Church which is built upon this Rock, and which hath received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.' (33. 1.) 'Peter as bearing the representation of the Church.' (33. 11.) 'Peter sustains the person of this CathoHc Church, for unto this Church were the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given.' (33. 15.) ' Unto the Church have been given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.' (33. 13, 16.) 'If therefore they (the apostles) re- presented the Church, and this was said to them as if it were said to the Church itself, then the peace of the Church remits sins, and if the peace is alienated from the Church, it retains sins, not according to the will of man, but according to the will of God, and the prayers of holy scriptural men, who judge all things, but they themselves are judged of no man.' (33. 38.) ' For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy, &c.' (33. 54.) ' Peter denotes the body of the Church. If this was spoken (I will give unto thee the keys, &c.) only to Peter then the Church doth not this ; but if this thing is done in the Church also that what things are bound on earth are bound in Heaven, &c., because, when the Church excommunicates, the person is excommunicated in Heaven.' (33. 60, 61.) 'Of which Church the Apostle Peter, by reason of the primacy of his apostleship, is by a figurative generality the representative.' (33. 6Q.) ' The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ, did in Peter receive from him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven : that is, the power of binding and loosing sins. For that which in strictness of speech the Church is in Christ, the same, by significance, is Peter in the Rock ; in which significance the Rock means Christ, Peter the Church.' (33. 67.) ' Now, this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a N 2 180 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § U6. figure, that he should signify the ChUrch. For seeing that Christ is the Rock, Peter is the Christian people.' (33. 69.) ' Let us, looking at ourselves in him as members of the Church, distinguish what is of God, and what of ourselves. . . . Yet see this Peter, who was then our figure, now he trusts, now he totters, &c. In that one apostle, that is, Peter, in the order of the apostles first and chief, in w^hom the Church was figured, both sorts were to be represented, that is, both the strong and weak ; because the Church doth not exist without them both.' (33. 71.) 'So then God dwelleth in his holy temple, that is, in his holy faithful ones, in his Church ; by them doth Ho remit sins, because they are living temples.' (33. 77.) 'For the Church is the only dove that is modest and chaste, &c. ; and other things which are similarly spoken of it, Avhich can be understood of none but of the good, the saints, and the righteous ; that is to say, those in whom not only the operations of the gifts of God are found, which are common to the good and bad, but who have also the inward and supernatural grace of the Holy Spirit, to whom the Lord said, " Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall beretained." ' (33. 42.) 'Which house has also received the keys and the power of loosing and binding, if anyone despised this house Avhen" it reproved and corrected him, "Let him be to thee," he saith, "as a heathen man and a publican." ' (33. 44.) 146. This good and great Augustine did not confound the term Church with the bishops, as Dean Hook did twenty-six years ago when he made the cry in the presence of the Queen and published it throughout the land, ' Hear the Church, hear the Church ! ' It is most important to notice the distinction as taught by Firmilian, and illustrated and confirmed by Augustine, viz. the power and authority of the Church and the power and authority of the bishops; as this makes all the difference between the primitive churches, the churches of the Eeformation, and what are called the Latin and Grreek churches ; between right Anglo-catholics and those Anglo-catholics who are not so. Claude, in his Defence of the Reformation, has written so well on this part of Augustine's teaching, in answer to certain Roman catholics who indulged in a private opinion of their own, not authorised by their Church, but much resembling that of these Anglicans, that this shall be our apology for giving his testimony, which is all the more valuable as it contains that of a Roman catholic bishop, taken from a voluminous commentary of the same. * I cannot avoid taking notice here, by the way, of that ordinary error whereinto those of the Church of Rome fall who do not believe that immediate, absolute, and independent authority that the pope Chap. IV. § 146. THE TESTIMONY OF TOSTATUS. 181 ascribes to liimself over the whole Church, but who would that the power of the keys is given to the whole body of the hierarchy ; that is to say, to those pastors who are priests and bishops. [This is the exact opinion of these Anglo-catholics.] For to prove their opinion, they do not fail to set the sentiment of St. Augustine before us, which plainly, as Ave have seen, shows us that the keys were given to the whole Church ; from whence they draw two conclusions, the one against that great authority that the pope pretends to, and the other for the autho- rity of the bishops, which they would have to flow immediately from Jesus Christ. But of these two conclusions it is certain that the first is just and entirely conformable with the thoughts of that father, but it is not less certain that the second is not ; and that, at least, without going about to deceive ourselves willingly, or to cheat the world, we could not say that that Church, represented by St. Peter, to which God gave the power of the keys, which is exercised by the ministry of the ])astors, should be any other, according to St. Augustine, than the body of the truly faithful and righteous, in opposition to the worldly and the wicked who are mixed with them in the same external profession ; and this is in my judgment so clear and evident in the doctrine of that father that they must needs be ignorant of it who deny it. It is therefore a manifest illusion to go about to make use of those passages in favour of the bishops, for that Church is not the body of the hierarchy, but that of the truly faithful, whether they be laymen or pastors, and it is to those only that St. Augustine ascribes all the rights and all the actions of the ministry, as it may appear by what I have related, and by conse- quence it is to those that the lawful call of the pastors belongs, and not to the body or order of the hierarchy. For it would be absurd to derive that call from anything else than from that very Church which has received the power of the keys, and which is exercised in her name and her authority by her ministers. Tostatus, Bishop of Avila, seems to have acknowledged this truth, conformably to the principles of St. Augustine, for see after what manner he explains himself, in his Com- mentaries upon Numbers J upon the story of the man who was brought before the whole assembly of Israel because some had found him gathering of sticks upon the sabbath day, and put him in prison for it. First of all he says, " That, although the acts of jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the whole community, yet that jurisdiction belongs to the whole community in regard to its origin and efficacy, because the magistrates receive their jurisdiction from it." He adds afterwards, " That it is the same in the keys of the Church, that Jesus Christ gave them to the whole Church in the person of St. Peter, and that it is the Church that communicates them to the prelates, but which, notwith- standing, communicates them without depriving itself of them ; so that," says he, " the Church has them, and the prelates have them, but in a diiferent manner ; for the Church has them in respect of origin and virtue, and the prelates have them only in respect of use ; the Church has them virtually, because she can give them to a prelate by election, and she has them originally also. F^or the power of a prelate does not take its origin from itself, but from the Church, by means of 182 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. §§ 147-149. the election that it makes of him. The Church that chose him gives him that jurisdiction, but as for the Church, it receives it from nobody after its having once received it from Jesus Christ. The Church, there- fore, has the keys originally and virtually, and whenever she gives them to a prelate, she does not give them to him after the manner that she has them, to wit, originally and virtually, but she gives them to him only as to use." (Tostat. Abulens. in Numer. cap. xv. quest. 48 & 49.) ' — Vol. ii. pp. 253-255. Du Pin states that the ancient Fathers ' teach with an unanimous consent that the keys were given to the whole Church in the person of Peter.' 147. This view of the Church will account for Cyprian's attaching, as we have seen, such importance to the consent and election of the laity of his Church in comparison of the im- portance to the laying on of the hands of the bishops. The conception that the power he exercised as a bishop was received through the hierarchy never seems to have entered his mind. It is true, such a notion would have been inconvenient to Cyprian, especially if it had been general, for it would have admitted the apostolic power, as it is called, of his rival bishop, as also that of Novatian, the rival bishop of Cornelius, Bishop of Eome. And those who, like these Anglicans, hold the suc- cession are obliged to acknowledge that such like men have the succession, otherwise the chain of succession by which they hold must have been obviously broken in many of its links. 148. But one sentence or so respecting what Firmilian says on bishops succeeding the apostles by a ' vicarious ordination.' Cyprian was the great oracle of the age, and his influence was felt, according to Gregory Nazianzen, throughout the world. His teaching respecting the baptism of heretics pervaded one- half of the Christian Churches then in existence. We may presume then, until we have proof to the contrary, that Firmi- lian meant exactly the same thing as Cyprian, who used the very same words, which have already been explained. The identity of language between the two may be accounted for on the ground that, as Rigaltius says, Firmilian wrote his epistle in Greek, and it was translated by Cyprian into Latin, as may be gathered from the style, which is Cyprianic. 149. Firmilian says, * That we elders and rulers meet every Chap, IV. § 150. THE POWEK OF PEESBYTERS. 183 year to set in order the things entrusted to our charge.' (12. 1.) By these terms it is thought are meant bishops and presbyters ; others think the latter term is an explanation of the former, and that one term only was used in the original, which was equiva- lent to a term which meant presbyters. ' The power and grace is placed in the Church, where the presbyters (majores natu) preside.' It is thought that in all probability Firmilian, in the original, used the Grreek term TrpsaffvTspos (presbyter), but as that term in Africa then denoted the second degree of ministers only, Cyprian rendered it by a term which, in the Italic or old Latin version, included the first, or in fact represented both, and made no distinction between them. Cyprian uses the term in question in the following instance : — ' That a presbyter {niajorem natu) is not to be rashly accused. In the first to Timothy, " Against a presbyter (jnajoreiii natu) receive not an accusation." (1 Tim. v. 19.)' — Ad Quinnum, lib. iii. cap. 7G, p. 62. See also 29. 37, where the term occurs. In the Latin Vulgate it also occurs: 'And all the estate of the presbyters' (viajores natu). — Acts xxii. 5. Firmilian states that these pres- byters {majores natu) ' possess the power of baptising, and of laying on of hands, and of ordaining.' It is probable, however, that in these small independent churches the 'pri7)ius inter 'pares in each senate of presbyters performed all the baptising, con- firming, and ordaining, as a general rule. So says Dean Hook. Cyprian appears to have done so when he was at home. Accord- ing to Firmilian, all the presbyters alike had the power of ordination. Nor have these Anglicans given a particle of proof from any source whatever to the contrary. But suppose Firmilian in any degree possessed the notions these Anglicans would ascribe to him, how can they account for the hopeless confusion into which he has thrown both bishops and presbyters by confounding one with another ? 150. It is certain Firmilian did not believe that orders were indelible in the persons who held them. (See 12. 2.) How different the teaching of these ancient times from that of the Komanists and these Anglicans, who, to have their own supposed succession in safe keeping, are obliged to maintain that the persons through whom they think it comes have their orders so 184 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§ 151, 15 2 indelible that neither immorality of life, heresy in doctrine, nor schism in practice, can impair their power to pass on the mysterious something. So, however, did not think Firmilian and Cyprian, and their brother bishops and presbyters. These bishops of the third century have recorded sad proofs of the antichristian spirit in which they indulged, one toward another ; such men, for instance, as Stephen, Cyprian, and Firmilian, amongst whom there ought to have been no difference of feeling, as on all main points in religion they were agreed. (See 12. 2.) The Council of Carthage. 151. The next and last extract which Mr. Perceval has given from the Fathers is from an obscure African bishop : — ' Clarus a Muscula, bishop in the province of Carthage, a.d. 250. " The sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ is manifest, sending his apostles, and to them alone committing the power given him by His Father ; to whom we [bishops] have succeeded, governing the Church of our Lord with the same power." ' — Sect. 19, above. It is difficult to know v^ hat is here meant by * the province of Carthage.' As Gregory Nazianzen says, Cyprian was bishop of the Carthaginians, and had great influence, but he was not officially the primate of a province, nor of any number of bishops. This is plain, as we have seen on the authority of Barrow, and from the fact that it nowhere appears in Cyprian's writings. The bishops assembled came from three Eoman provinces, and Clarus was of the province of Numidia. (13. 1.) 152. The object of this council was to determine whether the baptisms of Novatian and his adherents, and such like, were to be regarded as valid. Each of eighty-seven bishops gives his opinion to the effect that they are not. It will be observed how Clarus, in the part omitted by Mr. Perceval, states that Novatian and his presbyters, whom he terms heretics, ' have no power out of the Church, &c.' (13- 3.) Be it remembered, Novatian had all the power recognised bishops could communicate; if the hierarchy, independent of the laity, could give him power, he assuredly had it. But then, contrary to the Romanists and these Anglicans, this council of bishops, with the presbyters, ruled CHA.P. IV. §§ 153, 154. CYPRIAN'S COUNCIL REJECTED. 185 that Novatian had no such power, and it was on the ground that he had not the approval of the laity of the Church, which j as we have already seen from the teaching of Cyprian, as confirmed and illustrated by Augustine, must be obtained through the laity, and not merely the hierarchy. 153. The canons which these African bishops made respecting the baptism by heretics were exploded subsequently by the Christian Church. This was not the first nor the last time that a council of bishops, though, according to the opinion of these Anglicans, each bishop possessed such extraordinary powers and such a peculiar presence of Christ with him, made an egregious blunder. Augustine's seven books De Baptismo contra Donatistas relate to this controversy, in which an answer is given to the famous letter of Cyprian to Jubaianus, and the opinion of each of the eighty- six bishops of the council is stated, with a distinct answer to each. Extracts from these books of Augustine will be found in 33. 36-45, which have been selected as bearing on the subject of this book. It will be seen how in the extract made by Mr. Perceval he has inserted the term 'bishops.' Presbyters were present (13. 1), and as, according to the unquestionable teaching of Cyprian, they are successors of apostles, Mr. Perceval ought to have in- cluded them ; in that case rulers {prcepositi) would have been the term to have inserted. This very term is used by Nemi- sianus, the fifth speaker : — * Baptism which heretics and schismatics give is not true baptism, as is everywhere declared in Holy Scripture. Since their rulers them- selves are false Christs and false prophets.' — Cypriani Opera, p. 159. Sedalus, who is the eighteenth speaker, says : — ' Just as much as the water, which is consecrated in the Church by the prayer of the priest, washeth away sins, so much does it add to them when it is fouled and polluted by the mouth of heretics, which spreads its infection like a canker.' — P. 161. Felix, the twenty-sixth speaker, says, ' It is most certain, my NeuQYdXAe fellow-jpriests^ &c.' — P. 162. It is all but certain that Clarus did not intend to exclude the presbyters from being successors of apostles ; at all events, we have no proof that he did exclude them. 154. Here is another interesting question for an acute Anglo- 186 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEKS? Chap. IV. §§ 155, 156. catholic. Novatian had received all that recognised bishops could communicate of the apostolic office, as it is called. If, then, he had this, and the promised presence of Christ, by virtue of his office, how could this large council of bishops and presbyters, &c. regard him as a ' false Christ,' a ^ false prophet,' and his baptism as no baptism, but pollution ? It cannot be said that they were right in thus calling Novatian a ' false Christ ; ' but it cannot be said they were wrong when, believinof him to be such a character, thev denied that he either had power or grace, and simply ignored his office as a bishop. 155. Clarus is well answered by Augustine, whom if Mr. Perceval had consulted, he, probably, would never have made the extract. After stating the opinion of Clarus in full, he answers in the interrogative style, thus : — ' We answer, and have impious menslayers {impii homicidce) never succeeded {successerunt) the apostles ? Wherefore do they baptise ? Is it because they are not outside (the Church)? But they are out- side from the rock (the true Church), to which the Lord hath given the keys, where He hath said He Himself would build his Church.' — De Baptismo con. Vonatistas, liber vii. cap. 42, torn. vi. f. 100. The general argument of Augustine in answer to the bishops of this African council, and especially the letter of Cyprian to Jubaianus, is that the sacraments administered by heretics, and schismatics, and unclean persons in the Church, but not of the Eock, or true Church, to whom Christ has given power, were of the same avail as those administered by such like characters outside the Church, and that, if the latter administration must be discarded, so must, the former. 156. Having finished with Mr. Perceval's quotations from the Fathers, this is the place to notice a portion of his perora- tion : — * Among the few I have cited, we have witnesses, not from one Church or one country only, but from Europe, Asia, and Africa, the only quarters of the globe then known, from France, from Italy, from Cap- padocia, from Asia Minor, from Egypt, from Carthage, &c.' — P. 196. It must be borne in mind what was said in the preamble to the quotations : — Chap. IV. §§ 157, 158. NOVATIAN AND LACTANTIUS. 187 ' That the Lord Jesua Christ did grant a commission of regency, which he placed in the hands of one class of His ministers, the chief pastors of His Church, designing it to be a perpetual commission until If the peroration is compared with the preamble, and both with the kind of evidence adduced from the Fathers, after so much travail, it cannot be said with Horace, ' Nascetur ridiculus musJ Not even the tail of this little creature appears in the shape of a logical proof on which the doctrine of apostolical succession, as maintained by Dean Hook and his authority, Mr. Perceval, might hang. NOVATIAN. 157. Having heard so much from Cyprian of Novatian the ifcheretic, it might seem out of place to quote him as Novatian the orthodox. Not believing, with Dr. Pusey, that Cyprian was inspired, we reject his slander, and regard Novatian as ortho- dox, and have adduced him as a witness. (14. 1, 2.) As his testimony has been already quoted, as far as it goes, in Chap. I. it is only necessary here to remark, if the use and application of Matt, xxviii. 20, and John xx, 22, 23, to support apostolical succession, as held by these Anglicans, were the same in the time of Novatian (a.d. 251), it would be an interesting enquiry to know how it was that this Roman presbyter, and all the early Fathers whose writings have come down to us, were ignorant of them. We hope the acutest of the acute Anglo- catholics will undertake this task, and, having accounted for their ignorance, will also reconcile that ignorance with this Anglican assumption, viz. that apostolical succession, as founded on those two texts, is a fact. LACTANTIUS. 158. This most Ciceronian of all the early Fathers has not used his rounded periods and classic grace to extol the distinc- tive position and sovereign rule of the bishop. His pilence is eloquent against the novelties of these Anglicans. The only passages out of the whole of his writings, which occupy an 188 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 159- octavo volume of upwards of nine hundred pages, in any way relating to the subject under discussion are given. (15. 1-4.) This very eloquent Father used his gifts of utterance, not to extol and magnify a mere human instrumentality, in the character of a clerical sacerdotalism, as some later Fathers did, and as these Anglicans now do, but to extol and exalt the inherent force and saving efficacy of divine truth, as attested by its effects upon the most desperate characters. (15. 1.) He speaks, most definitely of the commission given to the apostles, and of their laying the foundations of the Church everywhere ; but instead of telling us, as these Anglicans do, that the holy apostles handed on their mission to others, as it had been handed on to them from Christ, he says their ^preaching being written has remained a memorial' (15- 2), plainly showing, like the rest of the early Fathers, that the twelve in their* authority are only succeeded by their writings. He does, however, speak of one presbyter being a sort of primate in regard to his fellow-presbyters ; but then, instead of deriving this distinction from the New Testament, he fetches it from the Old, and calls this leading presbyter a high-priest, and expresses it in the very Latin words used by Jerome in repre- senting the Jewish high -priest. Lactantius shows also how this Christian high-priest was promoted, viz. by the common suffrages of the faithful. (15. 3.) With him the government by bishops was no necessary mark of a Church of Christ. He says :— * The only Catholic Church, therefore, is that which retains true worship.' * That is the true Church wherein is confession and re- pentance, which wholesomely cures the sins and wounds to which the frailty of the flesh is subject.' (15. 4.) EUSEBIUS. 159. This most ancient and valuable Church historian, but withal superstitious, and prone to fables, in the quotations he has given from the writei-s of the first and second centuries, makes it plain that there was no very marked distinction between a presbyter and bishop at that time. Hence, in an CiiAP. IV. §§ 160, 161. TESTIMONY OF EUSEBIUS. 189 extract from Philo, the government of the Church is repre- sented as consisting of two parts, that of the diaconate and the presidency of the episcopate. (See 16. 1.) In an extract from Papias, the apostles are called by the name of presbyters. (16. 2), and in two other extracts from Irenseus which he makes, the successors to those who came after the apostles are called presbyters. These extracts are given in 6. 16, 17. 160. Certain martyrs or confessors of the Church at Lyons had given a particular account of the sufferings and death of many steadfast martyrs, among whom was Photinus, the very aged bishop or presbyter of Lyons. To this account Eusebius adds also what they said respecting Irenseus, who had succeeded Photinus in the episcopate, in the following words : ' We would certainly commend him (Irenseus) among the first as a jpreshyter of the Church, the station which he holds.' (Book v. chap. iv. p. 322.) In the time of Eusebius, episcopacy had become fully developed, and when he used his own words, he used language conformable to the times, but when he quoted from older records, and gave the exact words, we find language employed which w^as more in accordance with the earlier stage of Church government. The fact that the Clements of Eome and Alex- andria, Poly carp, Hermas, Philo, Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Firmilian, confound, as they do, the bishop with the presbyter, shows beyond a doubt that they could not have conceived of a bishop after the manner of these Anglicans. One or two of these Fathers have made a slight distinction, but had they regarded the bishop as a person on whom the salvation of the Church depends, how could they so generally rank him among his inferiors? 161. Eusebius, in his account of the election of one of the bishops of Eome, has omitted to state that he was consecrated ; from which some infer that that ceremony never took place. This, probably, is an incorrect inference ; but if Eusebius had entertained Dean Hook's notion of the transfer of a commission first given by God to Christ, then by Christ to the apostles, and by them handed on to others, and so coming down through a hierarchy of bishops, the omission is unaccountable. ' Upon this the whole body exclaimed, with all eagerness and with 190 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. §§ 162, 163. one voice, as if moved by the one Spirit of God, that he was worthy; and without delay they took and placed him upon the throne of the Bishop.' (16.3.) Athanasius. 162. The titles bestowed upon this illustrious Father by his brethren who personally knew him surpass any that were ever bestowed upon any of the bishops of the exalted city of Eome, nearly equalling those bestowed by the Fathers on St. Peter. Gregory Nazianzen describes him as ' that most holy man, the eye of the world, the chief priest of priests, the leader of the confession' (^o/jLoXoyias KaOrj'yTjTrjv), — Oratio xxiii. vol. 1. 417. Ruffinus, in his Church History^ calls him Pontifex Maximus, Tom. i. p. 246. 163. We shall first examine the evidence adduced from Athanasius in favour of these Anglican notions, and secondly deduce such evidence from him as will prove how dissimilar his teaching on Church matters is to theirs. Dr. Wordsworth indirectly quotes Athanasius through Arch- bishop Potter to prove that none can confer holy orders except bishops. The passage is as follows : — ' The opinion of the primitive Church in this matter will be put beyond dispute if we compare the judgment concerning Ischyras, who was ordained by one Coluthus, a mere presbyter^ with that about the presbyters ordained by Meletius, a schismatical bishop. The latter, having been ordained by one who had the episcopal character, were received as presbyters without being re- ordained, whereas Ischyras, having received his orders from one who had not the power to give them, was reckoned a mere layman.' — Theo. Ang. p. 102. Then Dr. Wordsworth remarks : — * Hence the Church of England has decreed in her Ordinal, '* that no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon, in her communion, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he hath had episcopal consecration or ordination." ' — Ibid. pp. 102, 103. This last extract well illustrates the former. It was deter- mined in the year 1661 that no one should exercise the ministerial office in the Church of England but such as had been ordained by a bishop. But this is no proof that ordina- tion by presbyters is invalid ; for during one hundred and ten years previous to the above date the English Church admitted Chap. IV. §§ 164. EXCLUSIVE BIGHTS OF BISHOPS. 191 persons who had received no other than presbyterian ordination to the office of the holy ministry in the Church. The case is precisely analogous to the arrangement made in the third or fourth century, viz. that no ordinations should be considered as canonical but those performed by bishops ; but this determined nothing as to previous ordinations, nor could such an ecclesias- tical arrangement deprive the presbyters of any inherent right they possessed, though it might keep their power in abeyance. No doubt every Christian Church, duly formed, had its plurality of presbyters, with a first presbyter, or primate of them, who publicly taught in the Church, administered the sacraments, and, no doubt, was the chief functionary in ordinations, yet assisted therein by his fellow-presbyters. But whatever power the primate possessed as a presbyter, the same power was com- mon to his fellow-presbyters ; and the circumstance of his being placed the first among equals was a matter of decent and necessary arrangement. But we shall find, according to Jerome and other Fathers, that this first presbyter, by ecclesiastical rules, had, for the sake of his honour and influence, made over to him certain exclusive rights, and the right to ordain was one of them. This distinction, between a bishop and a presbyter, in the fourth century, had become so established and universal that it was considered heretical to affirm, as ^rius did, that there ought not to be such a distinction. 164. But the ordination of Ischyras, as noticed by Atha- nasius (17. 4), was defective in two points. Dr. Wordsworth has opened his eyes to see one defect ; but he appears to have closed them that he might not see the other. ' Athanasius,' says Ischyras, * was never ordained or elected by the Church.' The laity had had no part in his ordination. This, with Atha- nasius, was an essential defect, and he urges it against the man who had usurped his own place. (17. 6.) Now, it is not pretended that the part the people took in ordinations was a mere human arrangement. By Cyprian it was considered to be of divine appointment, and it was a mere ecclesiastical enactment that deprived them of their power. As a matter of history, however, it is notorious that they grossly abused their power, and perhaps, as matters then stood, were 192 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§ 165, 166. not deprived of it too soon. Now had Dr. Wordsworth im- 2:)artial]y considered the defects of the ordination of Ischyras, he might have made a strong and plausible argument in proof that all ordinations without the consent of the people over whom a candidate is ordained are invalid, that is, if the practice and doctrine of the early Church are binding on us, as Dr. Words- worth considers them to be. 165. There is another piece of evidence adduced by Arch- bishop Potter from Athanasius to prove ' that bishops (in the modern sense of the term) were of our Lord's appointment, and essential to the constitution of the Church.' But Dr. Words- worth, for satisfactory reasons, has not quoted this. What Athanasius himself has said on the point will be found 17» 7. Bingham and others are of opinion that Dracontius was not chosen to be a bishop at all in our sense of the term, but to be a sort of teaching presbyter, or, as Athanasius calls him, a ' village bishop.' 166. We shall now adduce such evidence from Athanasius as will prove how dissimilar his teaching on Church matters is to that of these Anglicans. This Father, with a few others, to use the style of these Anglicans, forsook the holy Catholic Church, and became a separatist and schismatic, and argued against this said Church just as Protestants do against the claims of the papacy, and as true churchmen and other enlightened Christians do against Dean Hook and the Bishop of Oxford. Lest the position of this illustrious defender and confessor of the faith should appear isolated, we shall anticipate the evidence of some Fathers yet to be examined, who were placed in similar circumstances, and who have borne exactly the same testimony. By referring to 17. 2, 5, 8, it will be seen that Athanasius was opposed to the universal visible Church, which at that time pretty generally had adopted the Arian heresy. The history of that period shows that it was not without sufficient ground that Athanasius considered himself and his few faithful brethren as being like Noah and his family, and those who for the most part formed the then visible Church to the sinful antediluvians. * It was therefore a thing worthy of praise that one man alone should Chap. IV. §§ 167, 168. CHAKACTEE OF ATHANASIUS. 193 boldly maintain right and justice against the opinion of the multittide. Go if you will, and be drowned with the multitude that perished in the deluge, but give me leave to save myself in the ark with that small number. Be consumed if you please with the inhabitants of Sodom, I shall not fail to go out of it with Lot.' (17. 8.) He denies that the Arian bishops were apostolical, and affirms that they were antichrists. (17. 2.) How Dean Hook's suc- cession could come through these, as it must if it has come at all, is a matter for grave enquiry. 167. The testimony of Hilary, a defender of the faith, second only to Athanasius, deserves our most serious attention, as given in 19. 2-4. It will be seen that this worthy bishop speaks of the ministers of the Church at that time as being forerunners of antichrist, and those who should have been of the holy Catholic Church as having — * Their peace, that is, the unity of impiety, of which they boast themselves, whilst they conduct themselves not as the bishops of Christ, but as the priests of antichrist. I exhort you that ye take heed of anti- christ, for the love of walls hath wickedly taken hold of you, and ye wickedly venerate the Church of God in roofs and buildings ; under these ye wickedly thrust the name of peace.' (19. 4.) 168. Grregory Nazianzen, soon after he retired from being Bishop of Constantinople, expressed himself to the same effect : — * Are you ignorant that the fe,ith, as miserable and forsaken as it is, is a thousand times more precious than impiety in splendour and abundance ? Is it so that you prefer the multitude of the Canaanites, before one Abraham, or the inhabitants of Sodom before one Lot ? &c.' (See 25. 10.) Many of the Churches at this time had in all probability a chronological succession of ministers which might be traced up to the apostles ; at all events, this was very generally believed at that time. And this Grregory distinguishes that kind of succes- sion from the succession of doctrine in a very marked manner when speaking of the succession of Athanasius. ' He was not less the successor of Mark in his piety than in his presi- dential seat ; in the latter, indeed, he was very far distant from him ; but in the former, he is found next after him ; which, in truth, is properly to be considered succession. For to hold the same doctrine is to be of the same throne ; but to hold an opposite doctrine is to be of an opposite throne. And the one has the name, but the other the reality, of succes- sion.' (25. 5.) 194^ WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. §§ 169, 170. It will be seen from these extracts, and others about to be made, in what estimation the most illustrious, learned, and faithful servants of Christ of the fourth century held a mere personal succession, that, though many could boast that they sat in the chair or seat of the apostles, yet, notwithstanding, were regarded as of antichrist, and as being sons of the devil. Sodomites, &c. &c. 169. We now pass on to Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and it will be found that he, like those other worthy brethren, pre- ferred truth to multitudes, and that he justified the faithful few in leaving what was termed the Holy Catholic Church. He ' That Jesus Christ alone is He from whom we ought never to separate ourselves . . . That, above all things, the faith of a Church ought to be regarded, that we ought to hold it there, if Jesus dwells there ; but if a people should be found there who are violators of the faith, or that a heretical pastor has polluted the habitation, we ought to separate our- selves from every Church that rejects the true faith, and does not preserve the fundamentals of the apostles' preaching, wdthout fear lest its communion should brand us with some note of perfidiousness.' (30. 5.) 170. "We now come to certain homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew, commonly attributed to Chrysostom, where we shall find that heresy had taken so firm a hold of the professing Church generally, and the aspect of things had so changed, that the Church could be only known by the Scriptures. Whereas formerly it was thought to be known in many different ways. For this testimony of Chrysostom, or some other ancient writer under his name, the reader must especially refer to 34. 21-23. See also the testimony of Jerome. (29. 55.) He also says : — ' Then was the condemnation of the Nicene faith proclaimed. The whole world groaned and wondered that it had become Arian. There- fore some, to remain in its communion (that of the Nicene faith), began to write letters to those confessors who rejoiced under the name of Athanasius.' — Adversus Lucifer, torn. ii. p. 143. Again Jerome states : — * At that time the heresy of the Arians and Eunomians possessed the entire East, except Pope (papa) Athanasius and Paulinus.' — Ad. Pain, adver. Errores Joannis Iliero. torn. ii. p. 163. ' Arianism broke out into a flame, which devoured the whole world.' (29. 66.) Chap. IV. §§ 171-173. A CHUKCH KNOWN BY THE SCEIPTUEES. 195 171. Hilary states : — ' I do not speak strange things, nor write what I do not know. I have heai-d and seen the vices, not of the laity merely, but of the bishops, for, with the exception of Eleusius and a few with him, the greater part of the ten provinces of Asia, in the midst of whom he is placed, do not truly know God.' — De Synodis advei\ Arianos, p. 133. 172. Grregory, an ancient presbyter, in his life of Grregory Nazianzen, says : — * In those times the Church was oppressed by the Arian heresy ; many bishops were banished and vexed by torments and calumnies a thousand ways ; many presbyters, many numerous flocks, were brought down to the utmost misery, exposed to the injuries of the weather, as no more having any house of prayer where they might meet. That heresy had almost filled all the earth, and it triumphed, being upheld by the power of the emperor; so that good men had not so much as the justice of the laws against the wicked. And because the pastors, or, to say better, the concealed wolves, under the appearance of pastors, had the liberty of driving the orthodox out of the Churches, Avho alone were worthy to serve Jesus Christ, the Sovereign Bishop, it happened that some over- come with fear, others deceived by fair words, others gained by money, others surprised through their own simplicity, embraced that heresy, and opened their bosoms and gave their communion to their adver- saries.' — Life of Gregory Nazianzen ; Works, torn. i. p. 10. 173. It must be especially noticed how these leading authors of the true Christian Church, in the defence and justification of their leaving the visible Church, omit all arguments peculiar to these Anglicans, attach no importance to succession, whatever meaning that term may have ; they were content to abide by the Scriptures, and the Scriptures only, as a mark of the Church. A question might be asked. What became of Dean Hook's succession during the general apostacy of the Church ? In the workshop of Eome this succession has been manufactured into an indestructible thing, which nothing can destroy, and cer- tainly no amount of heresy. But the Dean holds by the chair of the popes of Eome, and a friend of these Anglicans might say that, although the Church had become very generally heretical at that time, yet the Church of the Komans was an exception. It is true we find Jerome writing to the Bishop of Home during the prevalency of this heresy in the East to this effect. o 2 196 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 1 74 . ' Now the sun of righteousness is arisen in the West (Churches of tlie West), but in the East (Churches of the East), that Lucifer (heresy) which had set has placed his throne above the heavens (generally prevails). ,...!, following no chief except Christ, am united in communion with your blessedness (that of Damasus, Bishop of Rome), that is, the chair of Peter. Upon that rock, I know that the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the lamb out of this house (partake of the Lord's Supper) is profane.' (29. 12, 13.) As it happens, this Bishop Damasus was orthodox, but in what light would Jerome regard the two bishops of Eome who rivalled each other and immediately preceded Damasus, and both condemned Athanasius and supported the heretics ? 174. Before entering upon this point, we must turn aside for a moment to notice what an elder cousin of tliese Anglicans has made of this patronising of the Bishop of Eome by Jerome. If the reader will turn to 2i9. 13-16, he will find the passage in question both in a literal translation and the original, and in a parallel column a translation by Dr. W^iseman. The pas- sage thus detached from the context, and prefaced in the manner it is by that clever but wily son of Eome, the unlearned reader, or any reader without further information would verily conclude that Jerome, by far the most learned of all the Fathers, was a staunch supporter of the supremacy of the popes of Eome, and in the judgment of charity, not entertaining the thought that a Eomish archbishop, cardinal, and D.D. &c. &c. could deliberately misrepresent this learned presbyter, would be de- ceived. It is plain Jerome patronises Damasus, not because he was the Bishop of Eome, but because he was orthodox. (See sects. 126, 127, above.) One of the two Arian bishops immedi- ately preceding Damasus, he charges with subscribing to the Arians. His words are : — ' In this, Fortunatianus is held detestable, because he first solicited and overpowered, and compelled Liberius, Bishop of Rome, when un- dergoing exile for the faith, to subscribe to heretics.' — Cat. Script. Eccles. tom. i. p. 297. It is needless to say he would not have patronised this bishop as a supporter of heresy. Dr. Wiseman makes Jerome say that ' whoever gathers not with it,^ that is, with the house, according to the false context which he has given. (29. 14.) But Jerome himself says, ' with thee ' (29. 17), plainly meaning Chap. IV. §§ 175, 176. JEEOME AND DxVMASUS. ]97 Damasus personally, and not his office. He could not have gathered with Liberius, whilst he subscribed to heretics, not- withstanding his beiug a supposed successor of St. Peter ; but would have discarded him, as we shall see he did other heretics. He gathered with Damasus because he was orthodox. This may be learnt from Jerome when he says, 'Now the sun of righteousness is arisen in the West, but in the East that Lucifer which had set has placed his throne above the heavens.' (£9. 12.) But why does he speak of the sun of righteousness having arisen in the West, that is, at Eome ? For this reason it had set in the two heretical bishops immediately preceding Damasus, whose characters will be noticed presently. On the other hand, Lucifer, the wicked one, which had set in the East, now had his throne placed above the heavens. Heresy generally pre- vailed there; under these circumstances Jerome supported Damasus. 175. At the time he wrote this letter to Damasus there was another person claiming to be bishop of Eome, of the name of Ursicinus, whose election and defence involved murder and bloodshed. It will be observed how Jerome discards him, as also certain well-known heretics : — * I know nothing of Vitalis, I despise Melitius, I have no acquaintance with Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you scattereth ; that is, whoever is not of Christ is of antichrist. . . . Should Ursicinus be joined with thy blessedness, should Auxentius be associated with Am- brose, let that be far from the Eoman faith.' (29. 16, 17.) In effect, this letter was intended to support Damasus, put down his rival, and condemn the opposing heretics of the day. Damasus was in a position to value the good opinion of such a fellow-presbyter as Jerome (for so Damasus calls him). Sub- sequent to this he became his assistant at Eome, and, as we shall see, his counsellor and guide in matters of learning, theology, and biblical interpretation. Verily, Dr. Wiseman must have presumed very largely upon the general ignorance of the writings of Jerome, or he would not have dared so far to impose upon his readers by perverting this part of Jerome's letter to Damasus. 176. But to come back to our point. It will be seen how Athanasius, Ambrose, Hilary, Gregory, Jerome, and Chry- 198 WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 177 sostom, left on record a noble precedent, which proved of immense value to our protestant forefathers, and which they turned to the best account. These illustrious defenders of the faith in the fourth century absolutely abandoned a succes- sion of men as being any necessary mark of a true church ; they held a succession of doctrine which must be known only by the canonical Scriptures. But Dean Hook and his brethren receive a succession of persons commencing from St. Peter or St. Paul as essential to the very existence of a church, and the validity of the sacraments. The links on which the Dean and his brethren believe our Church hangs include at least the first forty bishops of Eome with whom, as well as all subsequent ones, these credulous men believe Christ to have been spiritually present. But two of these links denied the Divinity of our blessed Lord, and all such, as we have seen, were condemned as antichristian, &c. &c. by Athanasius and his noble brethren who stood by him. The names of these two bishops are Liberius and Felix. Liberius was banished rather than deny the catholic faith. During his banishment, Ruffinus says : — * In his place, Felix, his deacon, is elected by heretics {cib hcereticis suhrogatur).'' — His. Ec. fib. i. cap. xxi. torn. i. 209. Athanasius styled him — * A monster, raised to the see of Kome by the malice cf antichrist, one worthy of those who raised him, and in every respect well qualified for the execution of their wicked designs.' — Ad. Solit. 177. This heretic, and antipope, is honoured by the Church of Rome as a saint, and his festival is kept on the 29th of July, as may be seen on reference to the calendar of the Missal. Liberius, the other bishop, sick of exile, and longing to come back to Rome, to effect his return, signed the condemnation of Athanasius, and received as catholic the confession or symbol of Sirmium. Mason proves from authentic sources that Liberius was an Arian heretic, as may be seen in his volume on The Consecration of Bishops, &c. b. ii. chap. vii. p. 75. Bishop Jewel establishes the same thing by the most authentic testi- mony,'as is recorded in his Defence of the Apology ; Works^ vol. iii. pp. 341, 342. Chap. IV. §§ 178-180. CYEIL AND HILAEY. 199 178. The Church of Eome in the fourth century was for some years in heresy, like the greater part of the then visible Church. Whatever testimony has been given by Athanasius, Hilary, Am- brose, Grregory, Jerome, and Chrysostom, against the bishops of the Eastern churches will as well apply to the bishops of Eome during their heresy. If Dean Hook and those of his belief are proud of the pedigree of the bishops of our Church, in their view of it, as coming through the line of Eoman bishops, let them remember in what terms these several Fathers described those bishops, and how they discarded them as antichrists, &c. &c. Cyril of Jerusalem. 179. From the manner in which this Father compares Joshua and the Lord Jesus, the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apos- tles, for whom he contemplates no successors, he affords strong negative evidence against the assumption of these Anglicans, viz. that bishops succeed to the apostleship of the twelve (18. 1.) The application and comparison he makes of the text, * Eeceive ye the Holy Grhost,' shows how unconscious he was of the use these Anglicans make of it. (18. 3.) Cyril certainly uses most extravagant language in relation to the Lord's Supper, and we may be sure, if he had possessed this modern notion respecting succession, he would, like those who now hold it, have left us in no doubt respecting it. We may safely conclude this bishop of the mother Church at Jerusalem was altogether unacquainted with Dean Hook's doctrine of apostolical succession. Hilary. 180. Hilary very definitely states that — ' Upon this rock of confession (that of St. Peter) is the building of the Church.' ' This faith is the foundation of the Church.' * This faith looses and binds on earth, and by it things are bound or loosed in heaven.' ' Therefore this house must be built of God ; for a house created by human efforts will not remain, nor is the house instituted on doctrines of this age, nor is it kept by the vain labour of our solici- tude.' (19. 2.) The chief references to clerical orders in the writings of 200 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§181, 182. Hilary will be found in 19. The edition from which the extracts have been made is a folio volume of near 500 pages, and the type but small. If this great man had any opinions in common with these Anglicans on apostolical succession, his silence is inexplicable, especially as the doctrine, if true, is a fundamental one. EUSEBIUS OF EmESSA. 181. This Father, with several others, was not infatuated by a false trust in a company of fallible mortals called a Church. (ZO- 1.) He does, however, speak of the apostles as vicars of Christ (20. 4), but if he had believed that others succeeded to their office and power, and that the apostleship was to be perpetuated to the end of the world, and that the Church should have continually such infallible guides, he surely would have spoken of the Church in a very different style. Like the Bishop of Oxford, he would not have 'given up the Divine authority, in its proper place of " the Holy Catholic Church," ' but would have had *a simple faith. in Grod's presence with His Church.^ It is certain, however, that this Bishop of Emessa did not believe that the twelve apostles were so succeeded ; from the way in which he has spoken of St. Peter and St. Paul (20. 2), he would seem rather to believe that their authority is transmitted only in their writings. And he is so far from urging a blind obedience to the teachers of the Church that he cautions Christian hearers to hear with discrimination, and if they ' teach their own traditions then they ought not to be believed and obeyed.' (20. 3.) If Christian men would act on these wise and Scriptural principles, we should soon hear no more of Papists and Puseyites, excepting as matter of history. EriPHANItJS. 182. The last Father quoted by Dr. Wordsworth on apos- tolical succession is Epiphanius. * From James, and the apostles before mentioned, there have been constituted successions of bishops and presbyters.' — Sect. 6, above. This extract does not answer the end for which Dr. Words- Chap. IV. § 182. SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS AND PEESBYTERS. 201 worth has quoted it. It proves either too much or too little, and in either case is worthless for his purpose. Dean Hook says : — ' The apostles ordained elders or presbyters in all churches ; but the powers given to these terminated in themselves ; they could not com- municate them to others.' — Succession^ Ch. Die. This succession of Epiphanius as to mode in no respect would suit these Anglicans. All that he means to say is that such clergy as presbyters and bishops had existed from the time of the apostles. But he says, ' there have been constituted suc- cessions of bishops.' Whatever the term succession means in regard to presbyters, it means in reference to bishops. If these Anglicans conceive that Epiphanius means what they mean by the term succession in regard to bishops, they must consider that he means the same thing in regard to presbyters. But Dean Hook states that — * Uninterrupted succession is a perfect and unbroken transmission of the original ministerial commission from the apostles to their successors by the progressive and perpetual conveyance of their powers from one race of bishops to another.' — Ibid. And if this definition is to be applied to the succession of bishops, as alluded to by Epiphanius, so also should it be applied to the succession of presbyters, for he affirms precisely the same thing of both, nor does he give us the remotest hint as to the mode of their succession. He did, however, hold that the distinction between a bishop and presbyter, as held in the fourth century, was of Divine appointment, and he maintains that opinion on very foolish grounds, as we shall have occasion to notice. If we examine the extract, as made by Dr. Words- worth in connection with the context (21. 2), it will be seen that Epiphanius referred to these successions or series of bishops and presbyters to show that there were no priestesses among them. * There have been constituted successions of bishops and presbyters in the house of God ; but never among these was any woman consti- tuted.' He was writing in reply to a heretical sect which went by the 202 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 183. name of CoUyridians, who worshipped the Virgin Mary as a goddess, and judged it necessary to appease her anger, and seek her favour and protection, by libations, sacrifices, and oblations of cakes, and such like services. This was the very use made of succession, as we have seen by Irenseus and Tertullian. (Sect. 47 of this chap.) Augustine appealed to the succession of the bishops of Eome for a similar purpose ; he thought it was too remote from the purer age of the Church to affirm that there had been no heretics in the succession of Eome, yet he could affirm that there had been no schismatical Donatist, and he appeals to it for this purpose. He admitted, however, that there might have been a traditor, or traitor, alluding to the Arian heretic bishop Liberius. (33. 11, 12.) About this time the appeal to successions of bishops and presbyters in proof of orthodoxy had become inapplicable in consequence of many bishops in the various successions having become heretical. Jerome says, ' For twenty years ago, heretics possessed all these churches. But the true Church was there where the true faith was.' (Z9. ^6.) Chrysostom, or some other much valued ancient author, has said much upon this point, which see 34. 22, 23. After these times any appeal to succession of bishops in proof of orthodoxy, or to show that no heretics were to be found among them, could be of no avail. 183. There remains another question and answer of Dr. Wordsworth to be considered before concluding this point. ' Q. What additional proof is there of the Divine institution of episco- pacy from ancient practice ? ' A. There is a strong confirmation of it in the fact that not only catholics but also heretics and schismatics, differing from the Church and from each other in many respects, all agreed in recognising the necessity of episcopal government, with one single exception, that of ^rius (of Sebastia, in Pontus), in the fourth century, who, on that special account, as well as for other reasons, is placed among heretics by the Fathers of the Church, "^rius said that there ought to be no distinction between a bishop and a presbyter." — Epiphan. de Hoire- ticis, 75.' (Sect. 10, above.) This reference to the so-called heresy of ^rius, like the other references to the Fathers already considered, is quite irrelevant to Dr. Wordsworth's purpose, his notions of a bishop, and those Chap. IV. §§ 184, 185. AUGUSTINE AND ^EIUS. 203 of these Anglo-catholics generally, not being so much as mooted in the controversy between ^rius and his opponents. As the account of the so-called heresy of ^rius, as given by Augus- tine, is but short, the whole is here stated : — ' Brians are named from one ^rius, who, when he was a presbyter, is related to have been grieved because he could not be ordained a bishop, and he fell into the heresy of the Arians, and also added some private doctrines, saying that it was not necessary to pray for, or offer sacrifice for, the dead ; that stated solemn fasts need not be celebrated, but if anyone desired to fast, whilst he did so, he need not seem to be under the law. He also said that there ought to be no distinction between a bishop and a presbyter.' — De Hceresibus ad vult quod Deum^ lib. i. h£eres. 53, torn. vi. f. 6. 184. The most serious charge which Augustine brings against him, and which will weigh most with those who get their doc- trine from the Bible, and not from the Fathers, is his becoming an Arian. As to his not praying for the dead, and refusing to be bound to observe certain stated fasts, he may be excused on that score. If in any respect he could be called a heretic in the light that Dr. Wordsworth represents him, it was not because he held that in the apostles' time there was no difference between a bishop and a presbyter, for, whether right or wrong, this was the teaching of most of the Fathers, Augustine not excepted, but that there ought, in the time he then lived, to be no dis- tinction between them. Hooker says : — ' So that between the conclusion of -^rius, and the proofs whereby he laboured to strengthen the same, there be any show of coherence at all, we must of necessity confess that, when ^rius did plead, there is by the Word of God no difference between a presbyter and a bishop ; his meaning was, not only that the Word of God itself appointeth not, but that it enforceth on us the duty of not appointing, or allowing that any such difference should be made.' — Ecc. Pol. vii. 9. 185. The heresy of ^rius, as it is called, together with an attempt to answer it, will be found in Zl. 1, which is the part to which Dr. Wordsworth has referred his ^ young student ' and readers. Let that extract be well considered, and it will be seen that the silence of ^rius is eloquent against the peculiar claims of the Romanists and these Anglo-catholics, the former exclu- sively for the pope of Eome, and the latter for each bishop in his several diocese. Verilv? no such claims existed in the time 204 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. § 186. of ^rius, or lie would have entered his protest against them. It will be seen that the arguments or statements of ^rius are not met by Epiphanius, but evaded. He charges ^rius with being ' ignorant of the sequence of truth,' with * not being con- versant with the recondite histories, &c.' But the pretended knowledge of Epiphanius in this respect served but to display his own ignorance, and it is difficult to believe that this Epiphanius was the man who was so friendly with Jerome, who held much the same opinion as ^rius, but did not think it contrary to Scripture, much less desirable, to abolish the distinction in his day between a bishop and a presby- ter. It is truly marvellous how Epiphanius came to guess — for it certainly amounts to nothing more — that the apostles found men in some places fit for one office, and not for the other ; so that in some places they had bishops and not presbyters, and in other places presbyters and not bishops ; seeing it is undeniable that there is but one and the same character for them both left in the apostolic writings, in distinction from the deacons, as maintained by nearly all the leading Fathers, as far as we know, denied by none. Hooker saw the worthlessness of Epiphanius's answer to -^rius, and pointed it out, as given above. Of Epiphanius, Hooker says : — ' And in that very extempore slightness which he there useth, albeit the answer made to ^rius, be in part but raAV, yet ought not hereby the truth to find any less favour than in other causes it doth, where we do not therefore judge heresy to have the better, because now and then it allegeth that for itself which defenders of the truth do not always fully answer.' — Ecc. Pol. vii. 9. 186. To us it appears certain that ^rius was in accordance with most of the brethren of his time in accounting for the origin of the distinction between a bishop and a presbyter, as it existed in his day. In proof of this we shall appeal to illustrious authors of works written in defence of our own Church. The learned Fulke states : — * ^rius taught that there is no difference between a priest and a bishop. Of this opinion was Jerome, affirming that the distinction was made by men.' (75. 8, 15.) Whitaker says ; — Chap. IV. §§ 187, 188. OPTATUS AND BASIL. 205 'And if to equal a priest Avitli a bisliop be heretical, what shall be catholic ? Jerome was altogether of ^rius his mind about equality of priests, for he determines them to be equal with the bishops by God's law.' (78. 18.) ' If ^rius was a heretic in this point, he had Jerome to be his neighbour in that heresy, and not only him but other Fathers, both Greek and Latin, as is confessed by Medina, ^rius thought that a presbyter did not differ from a bishop by any Divine law and authority ; and the same thing was contended for by Jerome, and he defended it by those very Scripture testimonies which ^rius did. But how childishly and foolishly Epiphanius answered to these testimonies everyone may see.' (78. 27.) But note especially the full testimony of the very learned Dr. Raynolds (81. 1), and also that of Bishop Stillingfleet. (90. 1.) Optatus. 187. Like nearly all the other Fathers, Optatus gives peculiar prominence to St. Peter ; he represents him as the head of all the apostles. (2Z. 2.) But he, or some ignoramus for him, to confirm the opinion, argues that therefore he was called Cephas, considering that the Syriac term, which means a stone, had the same meaning as the Latin term caput, which means a head. Bishop Ridley says : — * 1 will never believe such learned men so to have raved as to say that Peter was called Cephas because he was the head {caput), because Cephas signifies the head.' — Works, p. 182. By way of confuting the Donatists, and maintaining that the churches not of the Donatist schism were Churches of Christ, and in particular the Church of Rome, Optatus, after the maDner of Cyprian, argues from the unity of Peter's chair; but the learned Barrow, as we have seen, saw little solidity in the con- ceit (sect. 121 of this chap.), and we shall leave it among the incomprehensibles. Basil. 188. This great man has written but little on the subject of our book. All, however, that we could find in three folio volumes of his works has been given in 23. His testimony has been quoted in other chapters. 206 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IY. §§ 189, 190. DiONISIUS. 189. Quotations have been made from this uncertain author to illustrate the ancient rites of baptism and ordination. In his day it is plain that the bishop, or high-priest, as he calls him, performed the rite of baptism, assisted by the whole of the con- gregation and the presbyters. (Z4:. 1, 2.) GrKEGORY NaZIANZEN. 190. We now come to consider Grregory Nazianzen. In his time the episcopate had become much developed, yet even then we search in vain through two folio volumes of his writings for any exclusive prerogatives of the bishop, as distinct from those of the presbyter, that would in any way answer to the modern assumptions of these Anglicans. G-regory, having been ordained presbyter by his father, some- what against his will, retired for a season from Nazianzum. On his return, some apology was made to his father, the bishop, and to his fellow-prevsbyters, but in addressing them he appears to confound, by the terms he uses, the bishop with the presbyter. He says, * You have me, pastors and fellow-pastors, thou hast me, holy flock.' Again, ' Kuling, as a pastor, the pastors, and guiding the guides.' (Z5. 1.) Perhaps the pastors denote the presbyters, and the guides the bishops, or presiding presbyters. But it is not unlikely both terms may include, indiscriminately, both the presbyter and the bishop, for elsewhere he speaks of presbyters as being governors or guides of the flock : — ' The presbyters sitting lower on either side of me, of chosen age, governors or guides of the flock.' (25. 13.) It is manifest that the distinction between presbyter and bishop in point of rank, honour, or jurisdiction, was not considerable. Both alike occupied thrones, or chairs {cathedrce). Ignatius says, 'Your worthy bishop, and the worthily complicated spiritual crown of your presbytery.' (3- 29, 30.) Here probably is a reference to the mode in which the bishop and the presbyters sat together, that is, in the form of a semicircle, the bishop Chap. IV. § 191. CHAIES OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 207 sitting on a higher throne, or chair, in the centre, and the presbyters on lower thrones, or chairs, on either side of him, after the manner of the Jewish Sanhedrim. Again, Ignatius says : — * What is the presbytery but a sacred congregation, counsellors of the bishop, and sitting together with him.' (^3. 39.) Cyprian says : — ' Hereafter to sit with us (presbyters).' (11. 19.) ' When the priests (bishop, or bishops, and presbyters) of God were sitting together.' ' You (bishop of Rome) and your fellow-presbyters sitting with you.' (11. 22.) ' You always read my epistles to the very eminent clergy wlio there preside with you (bishop of Eome).' (11. 28.) 'Which presbyters are joined with the bishop in the priestly honour.' (11. 29.) Epiphanius, in stating the arguments of ^rius, says, ' The bishop sitteth upon a throne ; and so doth the presbyter ' (Zl. 1), to which Epiphanius gives no answer. Hilary, the Deacon, says : — ' The Church had elders, without the counsel of whom nothing was done in the Church.' (31. 12.) Jerome, or some one in his name, says : — ' From the beginning, as we read, presbyters were enjoined to be judges in the affairs, and were present in the council of priests (bishops), since presbyters were called by the name of bishops.' (29. 37.) Jerome says, ^ We have in the Church our senate, the assembly of presbyters.' (Z9. 41, 42.) At this time, however, and sub- sequently, there was little more than the name of the thing. 191. This synod, or council of presbyters, admits of illustra- tion from the Jewish Sanhedrims, both great and lesser, to which we shall refer, so that the reader may have the fullest conception of that to which, as we have just seen, the Fathers so frequently refer, viz. the synod of presbyters and their mode of sitting. The very learned Selden, who, in a Herculean per- formance, has exhausted whatever relates to the ancient Jewish Sanhedrims, gives the following statement from Maimonides : — ' Him who excels all others in wisdom they appoint head over them, and head of the assembly. And he it is whom the wise everywhere call Nasi (the prince), and he is in the place of our master Moses. Likewise him who is oldest among the seventy, they place on the right 208 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. §§ 192, 193. hand, and him they call " father of the house of judgment" (the father of the court). The rest of the seventy sit before these two according to their dignity, in the form of a semicircle, so that the president and vice- president may have them all in sight.' — De Synedriis Veterum Ehrwoiuiin, lib. ii. cap. vi. sect. 1, p. 156. The lesser Sanhedrim, Maimonides thus describes, as given in Selden : — ' Every Sanhedrim of three- and- twenty had three forms of proba- tioners of three-and-twenty in every form ; and when there was need of a man in the Sanhedrim, the highest in the first form was fetched in, and made judge ; and the highest in the second form came in, and sat lowest in the first form ; and the highest in the third form came up, and sat lowest in the second ; and some other man was found to sit lowest in the third form ; and so the Sanhedrims and the forms were kept full.' ^Ihid. sect. 2, p. 162. 192. Lightfoot gives a description of the manner in which the presbyters sat in the synagogue : — * Their synagogues themselves are described by the Jewish writers to consist of two parts, the chancel and the church. The chancel they called the temple, and it stood westward, as did the sanctum sanctorum in the tabernacle and the temple ; and in this they set the ark or chest (for every synagogue had one), in which they laid up the book of the law. In the body of the church the congregation met, and prayed and heard the law, and the manner of their sitting was thus : the elders sat near the chancel, with their faces down the church ; and the people sat one form behind another, with their faces up the church toward the chancel and the elders.' — Lightfoot^ Works, foho, vol. i. p. 611. 193. The counterpart of this is described by Bishop Beveridge in his plan of an ancient church, excepting he places the chancel toward the east, which was not the case in the earliest churches. (See sects. 100, 101, above.) In the middle of the chancel was the holy table ; corresponding to the ark for the book of the law in the synagogue. Behind the table was the throne of the bishop, which corresponded to that of the angel, or president, of the synagogue. On either side of the table were the thrones, or seats, of the presbyters, which answered to the seats of the Jewish presbyters. From the usages of the Sanhedrim we have illustrations of language found in the New Testament. Every seat in each Sanhedrim, whether the greater the lesser, was sometimes called Chap. IV. § 194. CHAIR OF BISHOPS A:ND PRESBYTEBS. 209 a seat, or chair {cathedra), or throne. Thus we read in Matt. xix. 2S :— * Ye which have followed me in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelw3 tribes of IsraeL' And again in Eev. iv. 4 : — * And roimd about the throne were four-and- twenty thrones {Qpovoi)^ and upon the thrones I saw four-and- twenty presbyters sitting.' 194. There is also obvious allusion to the seats of the San- hedrim in Matt, xxiii. 2, ^Saying, the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat {KaOsBpay The term cathedra was retained in the Latin Church, but they as often used sedes as its equiva- lent. This will account for the term ' cathedral ' as the name of the church in which originally the presbyters had their judicial cathedrcB as well as the bishop. The term * see ' (sedes), now embracing the extent of the bishop's jurisdiction, once recognised the judicial seats of the presbyters, without whom the bishop could do nothing of importance. The higher seat of the bishop soon set aside the lower ones of the presbyters, at least in any judicial capacity. The leading bishop of some prominent city, after the same manner, absorbed the village or country bishops, and this went on until at a comparatively early period, to use the language of Whitaker, ^ the custom hatched the pope with his monarchy, and by degrees brought him into the Church.' (78- 26.) Bingham has written very fully upon this point, and as he believed that the distinction which now exists between a bishop and a presbyter was of Divine appointment his testi- mony must be regarded as most impartial. (See 91a 1-12.) In one of the orations of Grregory, the orders both of the Old and New Testamait are especially discussed, and there, if anywhere, these Anglicans should find some ground for their opinions, but we look in vain, at least for ground, for such opinions as are expressed in Dean Hook's Church Dictionary. Gregory knew no more of such notions than of the book containing them. No extracts will be given here; the reader is referred to Z5. 7, 8. With regard to the orders of the Old Testament, as referred to by Grregory, w^e might infer the doctrine of Jerome, viz. : — P 210 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 195. * That what Aaron and his sons and Levites were in the temple, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, claim for themselves in the Church.' (29. 30.) The case Grregory refers to in the New Testament, as a pre- cedent for different degrees in the Christian Church, is the case of the twelve apostles considering Peter, James, and John, in some measure above the rest, and especially Peter, whom he represents as ' entrusted with the fundamentals of the Church.' As some apostles were considered to have a sort of primacy over the others, it was looked upon as a precedent for some presbyters to hold a similar position among their fellow-presbyters. Hence it came to pass that in the most early age of the Church every synod of presbyters had its primate. As among the Jewish priests there was the chief priest, so some of the early Fathers believed that there was one or more chief priests among the apostles. Polycrates, who lived in the second century, repre- sents St. John as being a high-priest. He says : — * John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord, who also was a priest, and bore the plate (jriTaXoi').^—^Eusebius, Hist. b. v. ch. xxiv. p. 367. Jerome, in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, gives the statement of Polycrates somewhat differently : — * John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord, and was His priest (pontifex, lepEVQ) and bore the golden plate on his forehead.' — Tom. i. p. 283. (See Leviticus viii. 9.) 195, Grregory so speaks of his own consecration as bishop as if he had been made a veritable high-priest, and uses almost the identical language of the Greek Septuagint, which records the consecration of Aaron and his sons. ' Thou didst anoint me chief priest,' .... * didst fill or consecrate my hands.' (See 25- 2.) Grregory, in recording the account of the election and consecration of Eusebius as bishop, uses similar language. He calls it the creation of a chief priest, and the part the bishops took in it as completing, or filling, that is, consecrating, the very term used in the Septuagint. * And thou shalt make perfect, fill, or consecrate {tsXskoctsls), the hands of Aaron, and the hands of his sons.' — Ex. xxix. 9. (See 25. 3.) These Anglicans must regret that such a man as Grregory was Chap. IV. §§ 196, 197. VICTORINUS AND PACIAN. 211 ignorant of their notions. He, instead of misapplying texts in the New Testament for the promotion of a presbyter to the rank of a bishop, referred to the Old Testament, and derived from Moses a precedent for the consecration of a Christian bishop. It is probable that some of the distinctions among the clergy during the time of Grregory were by him regarded as of human origin, which will account for his giving expression to painful regrets respecting the presidency which then existed, for surely that holy man would not have murmured against what he knew to be of Divine appointment. (25. II.) In another place he says : — * We are worn out, striving against consecrated bishops, who destroy the common peace, and subordinate the word of faith to their own love of superiority.' (25. 12.) He also expressed his dread of every assembly of bishops, and that he had never seen a good end of any one of them. (25. 11.) He had little conception of the belief of the Bishop of Oxford and his brethren, who conceive that an assembly of bishops gives, in its united utterance, the living, in contradistinction to the written. Word of Grod. ViCTORINUS. 196. This bishop has so expressed himself as to make it certain that in his mind he considered the apostolic office to have ceased with the twelve apostles. (26.) Pacian. 197. The testimony of this man is of singular importance, both in a negative and positive point of view. He is arguing against Novatians, who, like Tertullian, maintained that after baptism mortal sins, as they are called, could not be pronounced forgiven by any human- authority, that, although according to Tertullian (8- 18, 19), Peter could do this, and, according to the Novatians, all the apostles could do it, yet no one after them had any such power. This opinion Pacian undertakes to refute. Now, of all the arguments he could have used, the one founded p2 212 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 198. on the theory of succession, as held by these Anglicans, viz. that as Grod sent Christ so Christ sent the apostles, and that as Christ sent the apostles so they sent bishops, and that bishops so sent have the power and authority of the apostles, would have best suited his purpose. But this bishop of Barcelona, of course, was not one of these Anglicans; and living in the fourth century, and not in the nineteenth, makes all the difference. Could he but have had the charges of the Bishop of Oxford, or Dean Hook's Church Dictionarg^ or Dr. Wordsworth's Theo- philus Anglicanus, he would have trounced those Novatians with a vengeance. In the absence of such plausible but groundless assumptions, Pacian did his very best to accomplish his task. He lays chief stress on the apostolic records. He says, ' the loosening of bonds and the power of the sacrament . . . was derived from the apostolic form and authority.' (^7.) What are we to understand by the terms ' form and authority'? Plainly not anything that had been transferred from the apostles to any personal successors. By form (forma) is meant pattern, form of words, or law, and where is this to be found but in the writings of the apostles ? Hence Pacian says, ' This, therefore, we build up, which the teaching of the apostles founded.' He does not give the remotest hint that either bishops or presbyters obtained either power or authority personally from the apostles, but whatever they did obtain was from the recorded teaching of the apostles. 198. Pacian, however, was not insensible to the charms and honour of bishops having a resemblance to the apostles ; but, unfortunately, living about 1300 years before this Anglican assumption was invented, he makes out but a poor resemblance compared with that assumed by some presumptuous men in modern times. He says : — * Bishops also are named apostles, as saith Paul of Epaphroditas .... but your apostle.' ' God hath granted unto bishops the name even of His only Beloved.' ' Peter hath named our Lord bishop.' ' What shall be denied to the bishop in whom operateth the name of God ? ' Presbyters, of course, were called bishops (Acts xx. 17, 28); and Pacian's argument, if of any worth, just as much applies to presbyters. He shows, also, that whatever authority the bishops Chap. IV. § 199. THE CHAEACTEE OF JEKOME. 213 exercised was not after the manner of the apostles, but minis- terially. This is illustrated in a simple manner. ' If, when the laity (of the Church at Corinth) forgive, the apostle saith he hath forgiven,' so Pacian claims the apostolic sanction for episcopal acts. He does not conceive that bishops had the power of the apostles by a transfer of it from them by means of ordination, for certain powers of the bishop, he states, ^ were not granted to his authority ; nothing was entrusted to him . . . but the whole has flowed down from the apostolic right.' The intelligent reader will know how to apply the testimony of Pacian. Macarius. The testimony of this writer, as given in 28« will be found quoted and applied in other chapters. Jerome. 199. From the liberties which have been taken with the opinions and arguments of Jerome relating to the subject under discussion, it is necessary that he should be introduced after the manner in which Homer introduced his divinities, by a few words in defence of his character and learning. If he had possessed only the two extreme parts of the fatherhood of a teacher, namely, immaturity and decay, without the more valuable intervening part ; had he been characterised, in com- parison of other Fathers, by ignorance and imbecility, that would account in some measure for the manner in which his arguments and statements have been treated. Others, having seen that it would not do to treat him as an ignoramus, and yet having found it difficult to interpret his statements to their own liking, have attributed what they think his undue exalta- tion of the presbyter to jealousy and bad temper. Jerome, perhaps, was a bilious subject; let us see. He informs us that he was brought up in a country cottage, on millet and coarse bread, and scarcely enough of that; but such a change had taken place in regard to the outward condition of Christians, since the Emperor of Rome had become one either in reality or by profession, that now he had become so choice in his food 214 WHOSE AEE THE EATHEKS? Chap. IV. § 199. that his stomach despised the richest delicacies. (l£9- 2.) After such a great change in his diet Jerome might have become bilious. But his statements respecting the position and order of the presbyter are one and the same throughout his writings. Was he, therefore, always bilious and out of temper ? A disease so chronic in form must have told fearfully upon his health, and have brought him to a premature grave ; whereas it has come down to us that he lived to the patriarchal age of ninety-one. That he was no ignoramus, we shall now endeavour to show. In a letter to Eusticus, he says : — * I became a scholar to a man who had been a Jew, to leam of him the Hebrew alphabet; and after I had most diligently stndied the judicious rales of Qninctilian, the copious flowing elegance of Cicero, the grave style of Fronto, and the smoothness of PHny, I inured myself to hissing and broken-winded sounds. What labour it cost me, Avhat difficulties I went through, how often I despaired, and left oif, and how I began again to learn, both I myself, who felt the burden, can witness, and they also who Hved with me. And I thank our Lord that I now gather sweet fruit from the bitter seed of those studies.'— JLc? Rusticum^ tom. i. p. 46. He studied the Scriptures with Gregory Nazianzen, Arch- bishop of Constantinople. He became a person of singular note and importance to Damasus, Bishop of Eome, in writing learned letters for him, in answering the consultations of bishops, and other important affairs of the Church. At the solicitation, and under the sanction, of Damasus, Jerome undertook to make a recension of the Italic translation of the Grreek Septuagint, which had become much corrupted. But whilst he was engaged in this work, or after he had accomplished it, he resolved upon making a translation from the Hebrew, believing that it would render valuable aid to Christians in their controversy with the Jews. Jerome was instructed in the Hebrew language by dis- tinguished Jewish doctors. One of these was a famous Eabbi called Barrabanus. He says : — * I came again to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. With great labour and much expense, I had by night Barrabanus as my preceptor, for he feared the Jews, and exhibited to me another Nicodemus.' — Ad Pammachivm, tom. ii. p. 189. With indefatigable labour he also acquired the Chaldee and Chap. IV. § 199. THE LEAENING OF JEROME. 215 Sjriac. Thus qualified, he undertook the important, but, as it turned out, the unwelcome, task of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin, at that time the vernacular language of his own country. This bold undertaking provoked the opposi- tion of many. Euffinus, another learned presbyter, and at one time a very dear friend of Jerome, blamed him for the additions he had made from the Hebrew to the ancient translation of the Church ; that by it the whole Church was scandalised ; that he had attempted to introduce Judaism, and had preferred what he had learned from a Jew called Barrabas to what the Church had received from the apostles; for Euffinus, in bitter irony, called the teacher of Jerome Barrabas, instead of his proper name, Barhaninas (or Barrabanus). Jerome, in reply, said : — * Nor is it wonderftd if for Barhaninas, as there is some resemblance in the names, you should have written BaiTabas, when you take such liberty with words which admit not of change, as to have made of Eusebius, Pamphilus, of a heretic, a martyr. I must beware of such a man as you, and keep at a great distance, lest without my knowledge you change my name from Jerome to Sardanapalus.' — Apologia adversus Ruffinurrij tom. ii. p. 201. Notwithstanding the severe opposition the version of Jerome had to encounter, towards the close of the seventh century it was freely admitted into all the Latin Churches, and soon dis- placed the Italic version, and to this day is the authentic copy of the Scriptures of the Eoman Catholic Church. Augustine speaks thus of Jerome and his version : — ' The Latin Churches receive that version, which has been translated into the Latin language from the Septuagint version. Although there is not wanting in our time, Jerome a presbyter, a most learned man, and well skilled in all three languages, who, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew, has translated the same Scriptures into Latin.' — De Civitate Dei^ lib. xviii. cap. 43, f. 247. Augustine esteemed Jerome as an author of great authority. In his first book Contra Julianum Pelagianum, cap. ii., after having collected the testimonies of the most excellent and learned bishops and doctors in the primitive Church, mention- ing by name Irenseus, Cyprian, Eeticius, Olympius, Hilary, and Ambrose, his father and master in Christian doctrine, Innocent, Gregory, Basil, and John Chrysostom, he asks : — 2"!^ WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 200-. ' Wilt tnou now call so great a consent of catliolic priests a conspiracy of abandoned men ? Neither think that holy Jerome is to be contemned because he was but a presbyter, who, being skilful in the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew tongues, and passing from the West Church into the East Church, lived in holj places, and in the study of the sacred Scriptures^ even to decrepid old age. He read all, or in a manner all, the works af them which in both parts of the world wrote ecclesiastical doctrine ; and yet he neither held nor taught any otherwise of this point of doctrine.' — Tom. vii. f. 197. Augustine asked, ' Who knew anything that Jerome did not know ? ' He appears to have been the living library of those times, and persons came from the remotest parts of the known world to consult him in matters of faith and biblical knowledge. We learn this from his letter to Algasia, in which he says : — ' My son Apodemius, who denoted the import of his name, coming to» me hy sea, and from the ocean shore, even from the furthermost con- fines of France, Rome being passed over, sought Bethlehem, that he might find in those parts heavenly food, and be satisfied, that he might titter in the Lord, and might say, " My heart hath uttered a good word, I will speak my works to the king." ' — Tom. iii. p. 15&. Jerome, of all the writers of the fourth century, is the most competent and valuable authority on the question under dis- cussion ; equally acquainted with both the Latin and the Grreek Churches, and, according to Augustine, conversant with the doctrines of each ; the only Father of the fourth century learned in the rites and ceremonies of the Jews, which, as we shall see, had a very important influence on the polity and orders of the early Christian Church. His respect for the traditions and practices of the primitive Church and his knowledge of the same were not surpassed by any of the Fathers. 200. In examining his very important and full testimony on the subject of our book, we shall begin, first, with extracts made from him by Dr. Wordsworth, to support the peculiar notions of himself and his school. ' All bishops are successors of the apostles.' (Sect. 7 of this chap.) This quotation is made from Jerome's famous epistle to Evagrius, the whole of which is translated and given in 29. 24-30. The extract in question forms part of sect. 28. Let that epistle be read with the simple desire of understanding it, and anyone who thus reads it will be certain that Jerome Chap. IV. § 200. EQUALITY OF BISHOPS. 217 regarded the bishops of his day not as successors of the apostles in their character of bishops, in the prerogatives wherein they differed from presbyters, but simply as presbyters. The learned Erasmus, on the words in question, says : — ' Therefore that Jerome here makes the bishop of humble cities equal to the rest, it is to be referred to the deacons who in some places were preferred to the presbyters, whom, in a manner, he equals with bishops, elsewhere he says that presbyters succeed in the place of apostles.' — Tom. ii. p. 330. At the time Jerome wrote, the deacons of Eome, whom he wished to humble, had exalted themselves above the presbyters, and that chiefly on the ground of their wealth and worldly influence in the city of Eome ; while the presbyters, being much more numerous, not being restricted as to number like the deacons, and, from the nature of their office, not entrusted with so much wealth, were, in comparison of the seven deacons, poor ; as Jerome says, ' they were inferior to the deacons in lucre, but superior in priestly office.' Jerome undoubtedly included these presbyters when he said, * they are of the same merit, of the same priesthood, . . . they are all successors of the apostles.' But Jerome was not the only one who undertook to curb the pride of these deacons at Eome. Augustine, or some other ancient writer, performed the same task, and made use of similar arguments to those of Jerome, and concluded thus : — ' The Apostle Paul proves, however, that by a presbyter is meant a bishop, when he instructs Timothy, whom he ordained a presbyter, what sort of bishops he ought to make. For what is a bishop but the first presbyter, that is, a chief priest ? In fine, he here calls them nothing else but his fellow-presbyters and fellow- priests. Does a bishop ever call those who minister his fellow-deacons ? No, verily, they are much inferior .... In Alexandria and through the whole of Egypt, the presbyter confirms if the bishop is absent.' (33. 21.) Another quotation which Dr. Wordsworth gives from Jerome is, ' Among us bishops hold the place of the apostles.' (Sect. 7 of this chap.) This extract, like the other, is only calculated to deceive ' the young student.' If it is read in connection with the context, as given in 29. 10, it will be seen that Jerome assigns the highest degree, or place, in his church to bishops, whereas among the heretics of Montanus the bishop is put in 218 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 201. the third place. No stress can be laid on the term place {locus\ however well it sounds in the imperfect extract, for, if so, the Montanist patriarchs have the "place of the apostles. If the term place in the extract in question proves anything to the purpose, it proves too much, and, therefore, no stress can be laid upon it. Whatever places the apostles left to be occupied by others, especially places of jurisdiction and power, were held by the bishops in the time of Jerome. But we shall have occasion to notice that, according to his teaching, at the first, presbyters both held the place of apostles and were successors to them. (Z9. 46, 73.) 201. The most complete account of bishops and presbyters, as they existed in the fourth century, is to be found in Jerome's commentary on the epistle to Titus, the main points of which are given in 29. 68-82. Timothy is expressly called an evan- gelist, and is exhorted to fulfil the office of the same. Titus, however, is not so called ; and if any person could in any full sense hold the place of an apostle, or succeed to the power and authority of the apostleship, that person was Titus. Yet he is represented by Jerome as standing in the same relation to the Apostle Paul as an ordinary workman to a master builder. (29. 68.) Surely this was the occasion for Jerome to have given some hint of the inflated notions of these Anglicans, if in any respect he had entertained them ; and it would seem as if Dr. Wordsworth thought he had ; at least he has so manipulated this part of his writings as to make it appear that he taught that Titus had apostolic power, and was in the place of the Apostle Paul, and that from that time he became the local and permanent bishop of Crete. But all this is directly contrary to what Jerome has taught in his commentary on the epistle to Titus. But that the reader may judge for himself, the extract, as quoted in two diff"erent parts of Dr. Wordsworth's writings, and as prefaced in each case, is given in 29. 68-72. Let the reader especially consider that extract, as thus given, in con- nection with the whole commentary of Jerome on Titus, or the portions recorded in the Catena. Jerome represents Titus, in comparison with the Apostle Paul, as an inferior workman, and styles him a disciple whom Paul left at Crete ; but Dr. Words- Chap. IV. § 202. THE OFFICE OF TITUS. 219 worth has left this out, thinking, perhaps, it might militate against his purpose, namely, to make Jerome — a most unlikely witness indeed, — bear testimony in behalf of these modern Anglican notions. The clerical rank, or degree, ascribed by Jerome to Titus is the very general one, ' apostolical man,' which title is implied as belonging to Tychicus and Artemas, and ex- pressly applied to Zenas, and, by implication, to Apollos, though he called him * bishop of the Corinthians.' Titus, Tychicus, Artemas, Zenas, and Apollos, according to Jerome, were all em- ployed by the Apostle Paul in the erection of churches, but he represents Titus as being necessary in following the apostle to do in other places what he had done in Crete. Let the reader distinctly understand that we are not blaming Dr. Wordsworth for introducing the case of Titus, the most likely in the New Testament, to serve his purpose, but for bringing it in ' on the shoulders ' of Jerome, and, in effect, making that very learned and able presbyter contradict himself. 202. With all that Jerome knew, whether of the Jewish Church, or the primitive Christian Church, or the Eastern and Western Churches, as they existed in his day, he was as ignorant as his less learned brethren of the marvellous assumptions of these Anglicans of the nineteenth century. He distinctly states, as we have already noticed, that presbyters, to use the language of Cyprian, act vicariously in the place of Christ. ' He that despiseth you (presbyters) despiseth me, &c.' (29. 73.) After pointing out the sad abuses respecting the pro- motion of the clergy which had then crept into the Church, he distinctly affirms that in the New Testament a presbyter is the same as a bishop ; that a church was governed by a common council of presbyters, but in consequence of dissensions arising in the Church, and presbyters claiming those whom they baptised as their own, the human expedient of having one person placed over the rest, and to whom all the care of the Church should belong, became the general practice of the Church. He enters into an elaborate argument, based entirely on the evidence of Holy Scripture, that, originally, and in the time of the apostles, there was no difference between a presbyter and a bishop, and he sums up by stating : — 220 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. §§ 203-205. * Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients, presbyters were the same as bishops ; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.' (29. 77.) So that this came to pass by the custom of the Church, and he wishes bishops to know that they are above presbyters, rather by custom than by Divine appointment. On another occasion, and in another part of his writings, he shows that certain pre- rogatives of the bishop which distinguished him from the presbyter were conferred rather for the honour of the bishop than the necessity of law. (Z9- 21.) The teaching of Jerome on this point is most clear and decisive. But, clear and decisive as it is, men of eminence and learning, during the last 250 years, have attempted so to interpret it as seriously to reflect on the learning or moral character of Jerome, as if he did not know the nature of his own argument, or as if, being out of temper, he spoke at random, not caring what he said. 203. It is certain that in his time it had become a very general, if not universal, practice for one person superior to a presbyter to have all the care of a Church, for all the responsi- bility to be transferred to one person. When did this take place ? That the apostles had power and authority over pres- byters is certain, and that, under the direction of the Apostle Paul, Timothy and Titus exercised a similar authority is plainly revealed. When did bishops assume similar power but confined to a given locality ? More especially, what does Jerome teach on this point? Hear what Dr. Wordsworth endeavours to make him teach : — 204. * Q. But does not St. Jerome say that even in the apostolic times the Churches were governed by several presbyters who were also called bishops, " before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas ; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ's, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up? " ' — Translation. 205. ^ A. Yes, he does; but in another place he says that bishops are the ordained successors of the apostles ; ' [Here the ' young student ' is referred to the two extracts from Jerome which have just been con- sidered and disposed of. (Sect. 200.)] ' that St. James was bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the ascension of Christ ; that ej)iscopacy Chap. IV. §§ 206-209. THE EPISCOPATE OF PEESBYTEES. 221 is an apostolic ordinance ; that presbyters cannot ordain ; that the safety of the Church consists in the dignity of its bishop ; and his assertion, just quoted, does, when examined, tend rather to confirm the doctrine of the apostohc and Divine institution of episcopacy.' Here follow other extracts from Jerome, in confirmation of the answer : — 206. ' S. HiERON., De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. James, who was called the brother of our Lord, immediately after the passion of the Lord was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles.' 207. ' S. HiERON., in Lucif. c. 4. The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the highest priest, on whom, if a certain supereminent power be not conferred, there will be in the Church as many schisms as priests. Hence it arises that without the anointing, and without the injunction of the bishop, neither the presbyter nor the deacon have a right to baptise.' 208. ' For what does a bishop do, except in the case of ordination, which a presbyter may not do ? ' (See sects. 7, 8, above.) 209. Let us examine these extracts in order. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, is especially referred to to prove ' that episcopacy is an apostolic ordinance.' Of this there is no question. But the fact is, according to the teaching of Jerome, this episcopacy was equally the prerogative of the presbyter, between whom and a bishop there was no difference. For Dr. Wordsworth to make it appear that Jerome teaches this Anglican notion of an episco- pate belonging exclusively and by Divine appointment to the bishop, is to make this learned man flatly contradict himself, and not in one part of his writings merely, but throughout the whole of them. In the very next extract which the Doctor gives, had he quoted a little of the context with it, he would have furnished sufficient proof that Jerome had not the remotest con- ception of a bishop of this Anglican kind, and, further, that the bishops of the fourth century had exclusive prerogatives con- ferred on them * rather for their honour than the necessity of law.' Had he given Jerome's reasons for, and his account of, the origin of ' the safety of the Church being made to depend on the dignity of the highest priest, &c.' the extract, instead of making for him, would have been point blank against him. He has followed rather too closely the practice of one of his elder cousins, M. Harding, a notorious papist, who was well answered by Bishop Jewel, whose answer shall be here given. By making 222 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 210. a slight change, merely substituting M. Wordsworth for M. Harding, M. Wordsworth will be well answered : — ' This place of St. Jerome is notably well noted. But if it might have pleased M. Wordsworth to note but the two Hnes that went before, he should soon have seen that this note was not worth the noting .... Jerome entreateth there of the order of confirmation, which, he saith, by the usage of the Church, for quietness and unity, in many places was ministered only by the bishop, and not by any other priest, and that, he saith, " more for the honour of the state of bishops than for the necessity of the law." Immediately after he addeth these words that M. Wordsworth here allegeth " the safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the highest priest, &c." ' (73. 4.) 210. Eespecting the bishop having the exclusive power of ordination, Jerome is referring to it as a fact in the age in which he lived ; he does not state that bishops had this power exclu- sively from the beginning ; had he done so, he would have con- tradicted the whole of the epistle of which the extract forms a part. The reader may compare sect. 27 with the other sections of the same epistle, or all the passages selected from Jerome, as given in 29. and he will be quite certain that these Anglicans do not obtain a particle of help from Jerome, and that it is worse than useless to attempt to pervert his own testimony against himself. The fact is, he held it as a maxim that any- one who was ordained a presbyter might ordain another to the same office. It may be seen from the extracts quoted from his dialogue against the Luciferians (29. 18-^1) how he argues that on the same grounds that these Luciferians received the baptism of heretics so should they receive their ordinations, and he lays down this very broad principle, that *as anyone receives so also can he give.' (29. 21.) No man was so deeply versed in ecclesiastical doctrine as Jerome, and on this point he may be regarded as oracular. Tertullian, as we have seen, had, 200 years before, given utterance to the same principles when he said, ' Laymen have also the right, for that which is equally received may equally be given.' (8. 11.) Augustine, in his letter to Fortunatus, is represented as saying : — * In necessity, when bishops, or presbyters, or any kind of ministers, are not to be found, and the danger of him who seeks baptism is urgent, lest this life be terminated without that sacrament, we are wont to hear Chap. IV. § 211. PKESBYTERS CAN ORDAIN. 223 that even laymen are accustomed to give the sacrament, which they have received.' — Gratian, Pars 3, de Consecrat. dist. 4, c. 21. Eespecting this principle, as laid down by TertuUian, and maintained by Jerome, and very fully so by Augustine (33. 30-33), Dr. Pusey states :— * The maxims of TertuUian are often so fascinating, from their very condensation as readily to gain admission, although involving unper- ceived consequences. Thus even St. Jerome admits the maxim that what a man hath received that he may impart, which although it may, in cases of necessity, apply to the immediate subject, holy baptism, would equally justify presbyterian ordination.' — Preface to the Writings of TertuUian, pp. xv. xvi. So we think, and so thought Jerome, and he no doubt knew much better the teaching of the Church in the century in which he lived than Dr. Pusey appears to have known it. Chrysostom also describes the only absolute difference between a bishop and a presbyter in his day as consisting in the power of ordination, but at the same time informs us that this difference did not exist from the beginning, but that in this particular * they had gone above, and in that thing only seem to have overreached or defrauded the presbyters.' (34- 45.) 211. Dr. Wordsworth labours very hard to turn the testi- mony of Jerome against himself; here is another remarkable instance : — * Q. How do you show this ? ' viz. that the teaching of Jerome * rather confirms the doctrine of the apostolic and Divine institution of episcopacy.' * A. We do not deny that in the apostolic age the names bishops and presbyters were applied to the same persons ; but then there were at that time bishops also, in our sense of the word, namely, the Holy Apostles themselves ; and (whatever may be alleged as the reason for the institution of episcopacy) the fact and time of its institution are the only questions with which we are concerned. Now, in this very passage, St. Jerome testifies that it was " decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong^ And that which was received throughout the whole world, and of which the origin does not appear (and which Jerome himself seems to ascribe to the age of ApoUos and Cephas, that is, to the apostolic age, and, in the case of St, James, does, as we have seen, make immediately consequent on our Lord's Ascension), could not be of human institution, if it were only from the rule of St. Augustine, " That which the universal Church holds (as St. Jerome 224? WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 212. says is the case with episcopacy), which, though never instituted by any council (and councils all presuppose bishops, for they consist of them), was always retained, is with the utmost justice believed to be delivered by no less than apostolical authority ^ ' — Theoph. Ang. p. 92. We just notice in passing that Augustine stated to Jerome that custom constituted the difference as it then existed between a bishop and a presbyter, which, with abundant evidence to be hereafter adduced from him, shows beyond a doubt that, if the premises of Dr. Wordsworth's argument be correct, he has applied Augustine's argument in a way he never intended it. It is not correct to state that councils consist of bishops if it is meant of bishops only ; both presbyters and the laity formed part of them. (See 13- 1; 16. 4, 5, 7; 38. 1; 39. 31; 4Z. 1; especially 91. 6.) 212. But the statement that Jerome ^ seems to ascribe to the apostolic age,' the distinction between a bishop and a presbyter as it existed in his day, must be especially examined. Dr. Wordsworth does not stand alone in this imputation to Jerome, which, if true, would make this learned man an ignoramus in argument. Kose, an especial authority of Dean Hook, to whom he refers us, says : — * I have already noticed that Jerome's meaning was probably only that this change was made by the apostles themselves. Jeremy Taylor {Episcopacy Asserted) even assumes this to be the right meaning of the passage in Jerome.' — Appendix, p. 192. Both Wordsworth and Eose express themselves doubtingly but evidently wish the unlearned reader to take their doubt for truth, and on the strength of the same to believe that the dis- tinction which existed between a bishop and a presbyter in the time of Jerome was ordained by the apostles, and that he so teaches. Apart from every other consideration, it is certain, from the language itself, that it could not be exclusively applied to the Corinthians. Jerome does not say it was said among the Corinthians, but among the peoples (populis), * I am of Paul, &c.' (Z9. 75.) The language would just as well apply to the people of any city in Italy, or Britain, or any other place. Now there is oue point which these men have overlooked, and it is this, that the change to which Jerome alludes did not take Chap. IV. § 213. SECOND COEINTHIAN SCHISM. 225 place until presbyters had begun to cherish schisms in the Church, by each one of them claiming those he baptised as his own. (Z9. 26, 75.) When the members of the Corinthian Church said, * I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' we have no proof that either the apostles St. Peter, St. Paul, or that the apostolic man Apollos, cherished these schisms, by each claiming those whom he had baptised as his own. For this is one of the main reasons assigned by Jerome for a Church being subsequently governed by one person, called a bishop, rather than by a common council of presbyters. Holy Scripture and early antiquity give no account of a bishop of Corinth being constituted with sovereign authority after these schisms had arisen in the apostolic age ; but antiquity does give us positive evidence to the contrary. Clement of Eome, in his most ancient and valuable epistle, says : — * Take the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle into your hands. What was it that he wrote to you at the first preaching of the gospel among you ? Verily, he did by the spirit admonish you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because that even then ye had begun to fall into parties and factions among yourselves. Nevertheless your partiality then led you into much less sin ; forasmuch as ye placed your affections upon apostles, men of eminent reputation in the Church, and upon another who was greatly tried and approved by them. But consider, we pray you, who are they that have now led you astray, and lessened the reputation of that brotherly love that was so eminent among you ? It is a shame, my beloved, yea, a very great shame, and unworthy of your Christian profession, to hear that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, by one or two persons, be led into a sedition against its presbyters.' — Cap. 47. p. 60. Clement, no doubt, wrote his epistle after the death of the Apos- tle Paul ; at this time, then, there were schisms in the Church of Corinth far more serious than in the time of that apostle — schisms which resulted in a sedition against some of its presby- ters. Where was the bishop with his sovereign authority, not only over the laity, but over the presbyters also ? St. Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians about the year a.d. 56; if there had been, immediately after that time, a bishop such as these Anglicans require, it is marvellous that Clement should have known nothing of that worthy person. 213. Several years after St Paul wrote his epistle to the Q 226 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. lY. §§ 214, 215. Corinthians, he wrote one to the Philippians, addressing a plurality of bishops of one city, and still later he called for the bishops or presbyters of the Church of the one city Ephesus, both of which cases are adduced by Jerome in support of his argument, namely, that, in the time of the apostles, bishops and presbyters were the same. Surely here is conclusive proof that the schism at Corinth was not immediately, or for many years after, followed by the universal institution of bishops, such as these Anglicans confide in when it suits their convenience. 214. But Jerome can interpret his own language. If he wrote his commentary on Titus as rapidly as he did some of his trans- lations of Holy Scripture, it would be for him but a morning ex- ercise before a late breakfast in his cave at Bethlehem. In the middle of his commentary he refers to the first Corinthian schism, and at the close so speaks of St. Paul and Apollos as plainly to show that, in his mind, the distinction, as it existed in his day, between a bishop and a presbyter, could not have originated immediately after the first schism at Corinth. He says : — * This is that Apollos of whom Paul writes to the Corinthians, " Everyone of yon saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas." He was a man of Alexandria of the Jews, very eloquent and perfect in the law, a bishop of the Corinthians. On account of the dissensions which were at Corinth, it is thought, that he passed over to Crete, a neighbouring island, with Zenas the lawyer, and when the dis- sensions which had arisen at Corinth were moderated by the epistle of Paul that he returned thither again.' (29. 81.) That is, as one of the bishops or presbyters of the Church. This demonstrates that Jerome does not even seem to ascribe to the age of Apollos and Cephas the kind of bishops that existed in his day. 215. But Jerome does give some account of a person in some respect superior to an ordinary presbyter from the time of St. Mark : — ' For at Alexandria, also, from Mark the Evangelist to the bishops Hereclas and Dionisius, the presbyters always called one elected from among themselves, and placed in a higher rank, bishop; just as an army may constitute its general, or deacons may elect one of themselves, whom they may know to be diligent, and call him archdeacon.' (29. 26.) Chap. IV. § 216. PEESBYTERS PROMOTE THE BISHOP. 227 Mr. Perceval says : — ' Obsei-ve, the utmost that can be made of this passage, by itself, is that presbyters at Alexandria had a voice in the appointment of the patriarch, which, in other places, rested with the bishops of the pro- vince, and even this is not distinctly stated ; Jerome does not say the liishop was chosen hy the presbyters, but from among them, nor does he say hy whom he was placed in the higher degree.' — ApoL pp. 39, 41. Mr. Palmer also states : — * But St. Jerome does not say that the bishop thus elected was not afterwards consecrated by bishops.' — Pt. vi. ch. iv. vol. ii. p. 314. Both Perceval and Palmer would fain make a fool of this learned presbyter. For if bishops performed their parts, as was customary in the time of Jerome, in the promotion of all these Alexandrian bishops, where could have been the relevancy of his referring to them? Let the whole of the epistle of Jerome to Evagrius be well considered as given 2^9. 24-30, and the reader will be quite certain that the promotion of the Alexandrian bishops, whatever it was, came from the presbyters, and that bishops, such as existed in the time of Jerome, had no part in it. This is strongly confirmed both by Amalarius and Eutichius. (56- 5, 6; 57- 1-3.) 216. Nothing can be plainer from the context than that Jerome teaches that the bishop was chosen by the presbyters, though he does not use those exact words. 'Just as deacons may elect one of themselves, . . . and call him archdeacon,' so did the presbyters choose one of themselves and name him bishop. Mr. Palmer so translates the passage, ' The presbyters always chose one of themselves.' — Vol. ii. p. 314. Amalarius did not consider the presbyter so promoted to be a bishop at all in the modern sense of the term. Hence he adduced the case as relating to the consecration of presbyters, and, after having adduced it, remarks : — ' The consecration of an archdeacon is well known to us. An arch- deacon has the same consecration as the others have, but by the election of his brethren he is placed first.' (56. 6.) It is plain Amalarius understood that this Alexandrian pres- byter, placed in a higher rank and called bishop, had no conse- cration different from his brethren. Q2 228 WHOSE ABE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. |§ 217, 218. 217. The utmost that can be obtained from the teaching of Jerome on clerical orders is that a bishop or presbyter existed from the time of the apostles as a, primus inter joares in regsTd to his brother presbyters, and that any distinction which he had superior to them was conferred upon him, not by any distinct order of bishops, such as existed in the time of Jerome, but by his fellow-presbyters and equals, in most cases including the lower orders of clergy and the laity. Hence, at the conclusion of his epistle to Evagrius, he says : — ' And we know that the apostolical traditions were taken out of the Old Testament ; that what Aaron and his sons and Levites were in the temple, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, claim for themselves in the Church.' (29. 30.) ' But we know this, that a bishop and presbyters were the same as Aaron and his sons. There is one Lord, one temple, let there be also one service.' (29. 5.) Here it is plain from this extract, taken in connection with the context, that the bishops in Jerome's time had gone beyond this ; and, by way of bringing them back to what he believed to be the more primitive practice, if not of Divine origin, he urged as an example the Jewish orders. As this point has been already discussed, the reader is referred to Chap. III. 10-14. Episcopal power in the time of Jerome had become so developed that a bishop, when chosen and ordained, was supreme over presbyters and the other orders, as well as over the laity. Jerome, as we have seen, attributed the origin of this to custom and expediency. This is for the most part conceded by Mr. Palmer, but the truth stated is so prefaced and introduced as to deprive it of its real force. 218. Mr. Palmer says :— * It is admitted that bishop and presbyters were the same at Jirst^ and that the Church was governed by a council of presbyters under the apostles. But as Jerome says elsewhere that James, Polycarp, and others, were appointed bishops by the apostles, he means that they did not institute the superiority of bishops universally till after the schism at Corinth ; which is very probable. In fact, the superiority of bishops to presbyters, when he wrote, arose more from custom than Divine institution. That is to say, the bishops had probably obtained greater jurisdiction at that time than they possessed at first, and the full amount of that jurisdiction was not essential to the episcopal order by Divine institution. Besides this, many offices which presbyters might have Chap. IV. § 219. APOLLOS A BISEOP OF COEINTH. 229 performed were at that time reserved ordinarily to the bishop, such as preaching, baptising, confirming, celebrating the eucharist. Thus the superiority of bishops was more from the custom of the Catholic Church than from the Divine injunction.' — Pt. vi. ch. i. vol. i. p. 297. When Mr. Palmer tells us that Jerome means that the apostles did not institute the superiority of bishops universally until after the schism at Corinth, he both implies and states what is not correct. Had he assumed that in each common council of presbyters there was a primus, who in more modern times was called a bishop, this would have been quite com- patible with the teaching of Jerome and nearly all the ancient Fathers. But that he taught that bishops, in our sense of the term, were partially instituted by the apostles before the schism at Corinth, and universally by the apostles after that event, is contrary to his most express teaching, as distinctly recorded in his epistle to Evagrius and in his commentary on Titus, and many other parts of his writings, as we have already proved. 219. But Mr. Palmer states that * Jerome says elsewhere that James, Polycarp, and others, were appointed bishops by the apostles;' and he adds, in proof, * In his (Jerome's) commentary on Titus, he says: — Quod fecerunt et apostoli, per singulas provincias pjreshyteros et episcopos ordinantes. (Which the apostles did, ordaining, through every province, presbyters and bishops.)' Ibid, p. 297. We can find no such passage in his com- mentary on Titus, nor does our copy of Jerome's works contain it. The language, ' bishop or presbyter,' ' bishops or presbyters,' is frequently to be met with. That apostles ordained bishops or presbyters is most true, but to uoderstand Jerome, when speak- ing of the ordaining of a bishop, that he meant one in our sense of the term, is to make him flatly contradict himself. From what Mr. Palmer has said, it is plain that he admits that before the schism at Corinth there was not a local bishop there, in our sense of the term. Now, Jerome in this very commentary on Titus, calls Apollos a * bishop of the Corinthians,' and describes him as having left Corinth on account of the schism there. (29. 81.) Was Apollos, then, when he left Corinth, the sovereign bishop alike of presbyters and laity of the Corinthian Church ? Verily, no. Jerome, naturally enough, when speaking 230 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. §§ 220-222. of the ancient Fathers of the Church, as they had two titles, gave them that of bishop, which was the more honourable in his day. 220. Archbishop Potter has a very ready way in dealing with this learned presbyter. He says : — ^ But whatever was St. Jerome's sense of this matter, since it has appeared to be ill-grounded, and contrary both to the universal consent of primitive antiquity and of the Scriptures, we need not have the least concern about it. The truth is this, some deacons, "who enjoyed wealthier places in the Church than many presbyters, claimed several privileges superior to them, and were unwilling to be admitted into that order, which irregularity was so highly resented by St. Jerome, who was a man of passion, and only a presbyter, that, to raise his own order beyond the competition of deacons, he endeavoured to make it equal by its original institution with* bishops and apostles — as it is common, even for the best of men, in the heat of disputation, to run into one extreme by avoiding another.' — Church Government^ ch. iv. p. 133. It will be seen that Augustine, a bishop, expresses himself more warmly on the arrogance and presumption of these wealthy deacons of Eome than Jerome does. (33- 20, 21.) Whether the opinions of Jerome are right or wrong, the reader may see from the first part of the Catena Patrum that nearly all the authorities of the first four centuries substantially agreed with him. 221. We shall now take a cursory view of the evidence of Jerome, as generally given in the Catena, bearing upon the subject under discussion. He, with his brethren, did not hold that the power and authority of an apostle were transmitted to his successor, and he held that a presbyter was as much a successor of an apostle as a bishop was ; this is certain if, as he maintains, in the apostolic age presbyters were the same as bishops. But he also affirms that the clergy (of course including presbyters, as is plain from the context) are successors to the apostolic degree. (29. 1.) Again he says, ' If we (himself and other presbyters) are in the place of apostles.' (Z9. 46, 73.) 222. We learn from the writings of Jerome, as well as the other Fathers (especially Ambrose, 30. 14), the grievous corruption of the clergy and bishops. Alas ! freedom from persecution and the patronage of the civil authorities sadly altered the character Chap. IV. § 223. THE DEGENEKACY OF THE CLEKGY. 231 of many of those who bore the name of Christian. Jerome was one of the faithful few, who bore testimony against these corruptions. He confesses the great change that had taken place in his own outward circumstances (Z9. 2), and he applied to himself what he levelled at others, to render the truth he spoke less personal to them. ' The clergy,' he says — ' Who ought to instruct and awe the women with a grave and com- posed behaviour, first kiss their heads, and then, stretching out their hand as it were to bestow a blessing, slyly receive a fee for their salu- tation. The women, in the meai;|;ime, elated with pride in seeing themselves thus courted by the clergy, prefer the freedom of widowhood to the subjection attending the state of matrimony. Some of the clergy make it the whole business and employment of their lives to learn the names of the ladies, to find out their habitation, to study their humour. One of these, an adept in the art, riseth with the sun, settleth the order of his visits, acquainteth himself with the shortest ways, and almost breaketh into the rooms of the women before they are awake. If he seeth any curious piece of household furniture, he extolleth, admireth, and handleth it ; and sighing, that he too should stand in need of such trifles, in the end, rather extorteth it by force than obtaineth it by good will, the ladies being afraid to disoblige the prating old fellow, that is always running about from house to house.' — Ad Eustochiumj de Custo- dia Virginitatis, tom. i. p. 139. Jerome described the clergy of Eome as 'the senate of Pharisees,' and Kome itself as * the scarlet whore.' — In prcef, version. Dyd. de Spir. Sanct tom. ix. p. 397. 223. The heathen Marcellinus, after informing us that Damasus and Ursicinus aspired, with equal ambition, to the episcopal chair, adds : — • * I must own that, when I reflect on the pomp attending that dignity, I do not at all wonder that those Avho are fond of show and parade should scold, quarrel, fight, and strain every nerve to attain it ; since they are sure, if they succeed to be enriched with the offerings of the ladies, to appear no more abroad on foot, but in stately chariots, and gorgeously attired ; to keep costly and sumptuous tables ; nay, and to siu-pass the emperors themselves in the splendour and magnificence of their entertainments. But how happy would they be if, despising the grandeur of the city, which they allege to excuse their luxury, they Ibllowed the examples of some bishops in the provinces, who by the temperance and frugality of their diet, the poverty and plainness of their dress, the modesty of their looks fixed on the ground, the purity of their lives, and the regularity of their whole conduct, approve them- selves to the eternal God and all his true worshippers.' — Ammian, 1. 27, pp. 337, 338. 232 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. § 224. From evidence of this kind, the reader will account for the frequent incidental allusion throughout the first part of the Catena Patrum to the corruption and wickedness of the clergy and bishops, and will not necessarily conclude that Jerome was out of temper when he wrote and protested against such abuses of the ministerial office, but rather commend him for his faith- fulness. He reminded bishops that they were priests, not lords ; he taught that bishops should honour the clergy as the clergy ; that the service in the Church should be such as it was in the temple ; and that, in conducting it, the distinction between the bishop and the presbyter should not be greater than it was between Aaron and his sons. (29. 4, 5.) He shows, too, that bishops had widely departed from the apostolic model in the way in which they treated their fellow-presbyters. (29. 5, 65.) He thought it just possible, in his day, to find some bishops in whom were found the marks of the apostolate ; but he evidently thought such were few and far between. He also declares that all those who have a false faith have all false things, orders, no doubt, among the rest. They might have the outward office, but they were really cut off from all commu- nion with Grod. He says, ' Such an one is not to be called an apostle, nor a prophet, nor an evangelist, nor a pastor, nor a teacher.' (29« 67.) Jerome, moreover, hinted that many bishops in his day acted very much after the manner in which Simon Magus wished to act, disposing of the clerical office for bribes and other motives than those which ought to be paramount in the mind of a bishop. (29. 74.) 224. The authority which these Anglicans suppose to have passed from the apostles to the bishops exclusively, Jerome finds only in the writings of the apostles, and so teaches on this point as to make it certain that the authority of an apostle never passed to any successor. When heresy overspread the Church, and the faith was generally denied, to whom did Jerome direct the faithful few ? Not to any living men, but to the lively oracles of God. (See 29. 47, 48.) The Bishop of Oxford and Dr. Wordsworth so confound the authority of the Church (that is, of bishops as successors of the apostles) with that of Holy Scripture that the two appear to be inseparably connected. Chap. IV. §§ 225, 226. VARIOUS GEADES OF CLERGY. 233 So did not that most able and learned presb3i:er Jerome. No writings of bishops, or churches, or councils, or any writings or opinions of any men, however eloquent or learned, have authority, but only the writings of the apostles, and other inspired men. (Z9- 52-54.) ' That which has no authority from Scripture is as easily rejected as approved.' (Z9. 61.) 225. Jerome did not believe that the authority claimed by bishops in his day was wrong ; he considered it schismatical to call it in question. He, however, urged the importance of bishops making a becoming use of their power, and referred to Moses as an example : — * Who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people.' (29. 78.) Damasus, Bishop of Eome, possessed enormous episcopal power, and in various parts of the world conferred on certain bishops the title of his vicars, enabling them to perform several things which it was supposed they could not perform in virtue of their own power. To this it would seem Jerome had no objection, for he was an admirer and defender of Damasus. At this very time, both at Eome and other places, the various ranks of the higher order of clergy were the same as those of a diocese of the Church of England. Hence he says, ' Every church hath her own bishop, her own archpresbyter, her own archdeacon;' and if the reader will consult the context, as given in 29. 6, he will find that Jerome argued for this diversity of grades in the Church on the ground of expediency, and the natural order of things, the counterpart of which is found in the writings of Archdeacon Paley on clerical orders. The archpresbyter would correspond to our dean ; and the archdeacon in these times was not in the order of presbyters, but simply of the order of deacons. The same person was sometimes csiiled primicerius, and, probably, Augustine alluded to this officer when he said, ' It is base to call a primicerius a judge.' (33. 21.) 226. We come now to consider a few extracts taken from writings ascribed to Jerome, but of which the authors are not known. The most important of these is a treatise on the seven 234 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS ? Ch^. IV. § 226. orders. The more rational part of it contains sentiments on the bishop and presbyter in exact accordance with those of Jerome, but other parts of it contain sentiments respecting the position of a bishop identical to those ascribed to Ignatius. The sentiments agreeing with Jerome are such as the following : — ' Solely on account of the authority of the chief priest was the ordi- nation of the clergy reserved to him, &c. lest the discipline of the Church being claimed by the many, it might disturb the peace of the priests, and generate scandals. For this cause also the election of a bishop has latterly been referred to the metropolitan, and since the chief power is given to him, this faculty is taken from others, and now the chief priests begin to endure another priest, not of right, but of necessity.' (29. 34, 35.) ' From the beginning, as we read, presbyters were enjoined to be judges in the affairs, and were present in the council of priests, since presbyters themselves were called by the name of bishops, according as it is written, &c.' (29. 37.) Here the same texts are quoted for the same purpose for which Jerome quoted them, and the author concludes as follows : — ^ You understand, therefore, that in the presbyter is placed the highest point of the priesthood.' (Z9. 37.) After stating that the Lord himself ordained persons severally to the seven orders, he enumerates them, but places bishops and pres- byters as one order. He then makes statements about the bishop, and the place he holds, identical with those ascribed to Ignatius : — * And so it is that you may recognise the Lord in the bishops, the apostles in the presbyters, who also are apostles themselves. Again, * So in the grave-diggers the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets ; the teachers in the doorkeepers, the prophets in the readers, the angels in the subdeacons, the archangels in the deacons, the apostles in the presbyters^ God in the bishops.^ (29. 38-40.) It is plain that the author of this ancient treatise on the seven orders distinguished between what was of Divine and human origin in regard to the orders of the Church. So far as he agrees with Jerome, he supports his teaching by Holy Scripture. When he appears to agree with the opinions ascribed to Ignatius, we are favoured with no such evidence. According to this treatise, then, presbyters have the place of the apostles. With Jerome, he maintains that the superiority of a bishop over a Chap. IV. §§ 227-229. TESTIMONY OF AMBEOSE. 235 presbyter is of human origin. But, with Ignatius, he assigns to the bishop the place of the Lord and of God. Both this treatise and the opinions ascribed to Ignatius must have been of an early date, seeing that the original honour of the presbyter is retained for him as a successor of the apostles. 227. Some unknown author on the epistles of St. Paul ex- pressed similar sentiments to those of Jerome. That may account for these commentaries having been ascribed to him. We are taught that priests not only hold their own place but also, in a certain sense, that of the apostles (Z9. 83), and that there is no, or but little, difference between a bishop and a presbyter. (Z9- 84.) Ambeose. 228. We have now to examine the testimony of Ambrose, who, though a voluminous writer, has scarcely uttered a syllable that can be of any service either to papists or their imitators — these Anglicans. He is a witness rarely called upon, as his teaching on the points under discussion in no respect squares with either party. It would seem as if those who lived a hundred years ago, and previously, considered him as regarding no specific orders of Divine appointment, from the circumstance that they have ascribed to him the writings of an author who maintained these views ; the writings, namely, of Hilary the Deacon, which are usually published with those of Ambrose, and pass under his name. 229. Ambrose emphatically disclaims for himself and others his being, in any proper sense, a successor to the prerogatives of an apostle. For he says, ' Who had this honour of the apostles but those whom the Son of God himself chose ? ' (30. 8.) But Ambrose disclaims for himself, as a spiritual minister in the Church, every degree except the lowest. It is true he was consecrated a bishop, aud equally true that he speaks of episcopal grace, but from his manner of doing so, he would appear to regard it as a sort of outward honour. Of this, how- ever, we may be certain that had he possessed this Anglican notion respecting a bishop's succeeding to the power and 25J6 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 230. authority of an apostle, or being a ' regent in the place of Christ,' his own position as a high civil functionary under the emperor would have abundantly qualified him to appreciate anything he might have obtained by succession. Had this Anglican notion pervaded his brain, namely, that he, by trans- mission from his ordainer or bishop, had received an apostolical commission, the one which the apostles themselves had received, he could not have thus spoken. It would not have been false modesty merely, but positive wickedness, inasmuch as it would have been bringing contempt on so holy an office thus, in effect, to ignore it. But this good and humble man, looking at what St. Paul had taught respecting the prerequisites of a bishop (1 Tim. iii. 1-1 1), and considering very properly that these should be possessed before ordination, as that rite could not confer them, seemed to deplore their loss, and to regret, to use his own words, that he was * snatched from benches of justice, and robes of government, into the priesthood,' so that he had to begin to teach what he himself had not learned. (30. 8.) 230. Ambrose, as we shall see, regarded the Church of the city of Rome as a leading one, and hence he said : — * I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome ; but, neverthe- less, we men have sense also ; and, therefore, whatever is more correctly practised elsewhere, we are more correct in practising.' (30. 12.) How little he could have known of the claims of Rome at the present day when he maintained that ' Paul was not inferior to Peter, . . . since he may also be compared with the first, and was second to none, &c.' (30. 10.) He affirms also that Peter's primacy was indeed in confession, not in honour ; the primacy of faith, not in order. (30- 11.) He also affirms that the Church is built on the faith of Peter : — ' Faith, therefore, is the foundation of the Church : for it was not said of the flesh of Peter, but of his faith, that the gates of hell should not prevail against it.' (30. 11.) He did not believe that the sheep were committed to the one pretended successor of Peter at Rome, for he says : — * Feed my sheep ; those sheep and that flock the blessed Peter did not then undertake alone, but he also imdertook them with us, and all of us undertook them with him.' (30. 13.) Chap. IV. § 231. PROMOTION OF AMBROSE. 237 No teaching could be more fatal to the assumptions of the papists than that of Ambrose, another specimen of which will be found in 30. 6. He had great regard for the Church of Kome, as we have seen, but he must have been in absolute ignorance of both papal and puseyite teaching of modern times. The doctrine of Ambrose on this point is quite in accordance with that of Origen (10. 3, 4, 6) ; the one confirms and illustrates the other. 231. His testimony is most extraordinary respecting the practice in his day of selling the office of a bishop for gold, as also that of a presbyter for the same lucre. But did the vender sell, and the purchaser buy, the apostolic office ? Ambrose did not think so. The article so trafficked in, he considered to be not apostolic grace, but leprosy. There is no saving clause in this long extract (30- 14) to the effect that no amount of pecu- lation in either seller or buyer could hinder the valid trans- mission of the apostolic commission in ordination. Do these Anglicans know that councils of some authority, in some things with them, have decreed all those ordinations null and void where any simoniacal contract has been made ? Can Dean Hook be quite sure that none of the papal links, by which they hold so fast for the transmission of the apostolical commission, have never been guilty of simoniacal acts in its supposed transfer, or, what is still worse, has it never happened that a candidate for the papal chair has poisoned its occupant, and thus through poison has succeeded to the apostolical commission of his mur- dered antecessor, at least to that article which the Dean pro- fanely calls by that name ? The promotion of Ambrose to the episcopal office was remark- able from the circumstance that, when the people unanimously elected him to that office, he was not baptised. A short account of the transaction, as given by several authors, will be found in 38. 3 ; 39. 33, 34 ; 42. 2, 3. As Ambrose was thus chosen by the people, and, in effect, made bishop by them, he naturally enough calls the people his fathers: ^ Ye are my parents, ye who conferred my priesthood ; ye, I say, are both sons and parents ; sons individually, parents collectively.' (30. 7.) 238 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. §§ 232, 233. Hilary the Deacon. 232. This is the place to consider the testimony of Hilary. His writings, until a comparatively recent period, were attributed to Ambrose, and to this day are published with his works, as if they were his. The writings of Hilary have been held in great repute, Roman Catholic authorities not excepted. Sixtus de Sienna writes as follows, ^He has written on all the fourteen epistles of St. Paul : the words, indeed, are short, but weighty in thought.' To which Simon, in his Critical History of the Neiv Testament, adds, ' There are few ancient writers on the epistles of St. Paul, and even on the whole New Testament, which can be compared with this.' One or two statements of Hilary have already been considered. When he informs us that evangelists were deacons (31. 6), and, in his own mind, considered this to be the teaching of Scripture, we cannot accept him as one who is mighty in the Scriptures. But, as with the other early authors so also with this, we have rather to do with what he teaches than with its accuracy. If his teaching does not square with these Anglican theories of a bishop, we may be sure he could not have entertained them. He maintains that there was one and the same ordination of a bishop and a presbyter, though he teaches that in a synod of presbyters there was a first presbyter, and that he was called by the name of bishop. (31- 10.) He also says, that, in the beginning, one by seniority, or next in order, became the first among equals, but that, subsequently, this was effected by the presbyters appointing one of their number to this post, and so merit, and not order, made a bishop. He also states that, as in the synagogue, so in the Church, there were elders without the counsel of whom there was nothing done, and he deplores that through the pride of the first presbyters, or bishops, so primitive a practice had ceased in his day. The reader must consult the extracts for himself. (31> 8, 9, 12.) 233. He instructs us that at the commencement of the Chris- tian Church, ' all were teachers, and all baptised, &c.' (31. 6.) Again he says : — Chap. IV. § 234. TESTIMONY OF BUFFINUS. 239 * That, therefore, the people might increase and be multiplied, in the beginning it was permitted to everyone to preach the gospel, to baptise, and to expound the Scriptures in the Church, &c.' (31. 7.) He also states that the ordination in the Church of his day was different to that in the time of the apostles, and gives his reasons for thinking so. (31- 8, 9.) In another part of his writings, after the manner of Chrysostom, he appears to interpret the Scriptures in the light of the general practice of his day. (31> 1-3.) From this author we have not a syllable respecting this Anglican mode of succession, but the ordination, which is said to confer it, as of Divine appointment, is absolutely ignored. RUFFINUS. 234. EufEnus, next to Jerome, was the most learned biblical scholar of his age. We have already anticipated part of his testimony, and part must be reserved for another chapter. The edition, from which the extracts have been taken, consists of two folio volumes, containing upwards of 600 pages, and what- ever could be found in any way relating to the subject of this book has been fairly selected. From the manner in which Euffinus has spoken of the Christian ministry, and the freedom he has used in the application of texts to their orders and office, it is plain that he knew nothing of the private opinions of these Anglicans of the nineteenth century; or how could he have ignored what was essential to the being of a church, and the validity of the sacraments ? We can obtain no proof from Euffinus that any succeeded to the office of an apostle. He so describes them as to make it plain that, in his mind, they were not in any proper sense suc- ceeded either by bishops or presbyters. He speaks of them as ' continuing mountains,' and he regarded them as being so, not in the persons of any who came after them, but in their writings. His doctrine on this point was the same as that of Gregory the Grreat, and the early Fathers generally. (32. 1.) He also represents the rulers of the Church, so as to make no essential difference between a bishop and a presbyter. (32. 4.) He divides the whole Church into rulers and ruled, those who were 240 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. § 235. placed under, and those who were placed over, including presby- ters, of course. Augustine. 235. We come now to consider those parts of Augustine's testimony relating to the subject of this book which have not been already anticipated. Of all the bishops of the age in which Augustine lived, he, on the authority of Jerome, a very compe- tent judge, w'as the most illustrious. Jerome, writing to him, ' Thou, as the most noted bishop of the whole world, oughtest to promulgate thy opinion, and draw all thy fellow-bishops to thy assent.' — Epi. xi. tom. ii. f. 10. Subsequent ages have concurred with Jerome. The compilers of the Eoman Catholic Breviary have quoted much more from him than any other Father ; and it is almost needless to remark that he was esteemed the greatest patristic authority by all the reformers. And how much we are indebted to the writings of Augustine for throwing off the papal supremacy, and re-esta- blishing the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, in matters of faith and practice, Grod only knows. It is surpassing strange how this most noted bishop of the fourth century, so considered in the age in which he lived, and at the present day, should have been absolutely ignorant of the assumptions of these Anglicans, if their doctrine was indeed then known. The acts of Augustine as a bishop, and those of his fellow-bishops of the fourth century, in contradistinction to those of presbyters, were distinct and well defined, and by them, in point of fact, they were more above presbyters than presbyters were above deacons. This is indisputable. The question is, whether those bishops were Divinely appointed, exclusively to perform those acts, and whether Augustine so teaches. And, what is still more impor- tant, whether he taught that the power and authority of bishops, as then exercised, had come from Grod the Father to Christ the Son, and from Christ the Son to the apostles, and from them, by ordination, to bishops, and from these to others in unbroken con- tinuity, and that such a transmission was essential to the existence of the Christian ministry, the being of a church, and the validity Chap. IV. §§ 236, 237. PKESBYTERS SUCCESSOES OF APOSTLES. 24-1 of the sacrament. This is the doctrine which is taught in Dean Hook's Church DictioQiary, and, what is to be lamented, it is imbibed bj a considerable number of the clergy. We shall find that Augustine knew of no such doctrine; in fact, it has been very openly affirmed, and pretty generally admitted, that he is heretical on these points. We shall, then, consider his so-called heresy, candidly admitting that, if these Anglicans teach the truth on the subject under discussion, he must have been hereti- cal in the extreme. 236. Now, that there was as great a difference between Augus- tine as a bishop and Jerome as a presbyter as the most rabid Anglican could desire is a fact. Augustine modestly claimed this, and Jerome cheerfully conceded it. But to what was the difference attributed ? Was it that a bishop was a successor of an apostle, and that a presbyter was not? No such thing. Augustine, like his more learned friend and fellow-presbyter Jerome, assigns the distinction, as it then existed, to the custom of the Church ; — ' For although according to the titles of honour which the custom of the Church hath now obtained the episcopate is greater than the pres- byterate.' (33. 5.) Augustine speaks of bishops being successors of the apostles, but in no other sense than that presbyters are. And the reader must not understand the term successor in the Tractarian sense, namely, to the prerogative of an apostle, wherein an apostle differed from a bishop or presbyter of the apostolic age, but simply in a chronological sense, that presbyters, or bishops, making no distinction between them, come next after the apostles. Augustine represents his own presbyters as successors of the apostles, and vicars of Grod and of the Lord : ' Ye are the succes- sors of the apostles.' ' Ye are in His (Grod's) place, or are His vicars, because ye act in His stead.' Again he speaks of the chief government of the Church of Hippo, but with himself he also includes his presbyters, and he further represents himself and fellow-presbyters as vicars, or in the place of the Lord. (33. 83, 84.) 237. Augustine has used the terms succession, successor, and the like, more than some of the leathers, and from the various R 242 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEKS ? ^ Chap. IV. § 237. connections in which the terms occur, as used by him, we have the most ample means of getting at his meaning in the use of them. This, then, is the place to consider what he, and the other Fathers, meant by such phraseology. It is of the more importance to consider this nomenclature because it is that in which these Anglicans so much delight, and of which they make large capital in the defence and propagation of their heresy. Hence these terms are pronounced with great emphasis, and printed with marked characters, which make a sound in their discourses, a show in their writings, but which show does not contain their meaning, which sound does not convey their per- verted sense. A selection of this nomenclature, as used by Augustine, will be given : — * That narrative is not Matthew's which the Universal Church brought down by undoubted succession from the seats of the apostles, even to the present bishops.' (33. 27.) ' As, therefore, I believe that that book was of Manichaaus, since from that time he lived in the flesh, it has been kept and brought down through his disciples by an un- doubted succession of your presidents, even to your time.' (33. 28.) * If, then, thou hast submitted to an authority utterly unkno-svn and frenzied, so as to believe a thousand fabulous phantoms, because they are written in those books which, by a miserable error, thou hast judged right to believe in, why not rather submit to the evangelical authority, so founded, so established, so gloriously spread abroad, and commended to us by most undoubted successions {successiones certissimas^ from the apostles' times to oirr own ? ' — Contra Faustum Manichceum, lib. xxxii. cap. 19, tom. vi. f. 101. 'So Judas doth represent those Jews who were enemies of Christ, who both then hated Christ, and now, through succession, this species of wickedness continuing to hate him.' (33. 54.) For the context of this, and the other extracts, the reader must see the Catena, to which references have been made. Let it be especially noticed how Augustine applies the term undoubted succession to the Manichean rulers, as he does to the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church ; and that, as St. Peter represented good men in the Church' who should come down from him by succession, so Judas represented bad men who should come down from him by succession. As St. Peter represented one class so, according to the teaching of Augustine, Judas represented the other. Now, what is meant by the phrase undoubted succession in the Manichean rulers is assuredly Chap. IV. § 238. THE DOCTRINE OF SUCCESSION. 243 meant by it in the bishops of the Catholic Church. Dean Hook has explained what he means, and what is the meaning of his party, by ' undoubted,' or, as he terms it, ' uninterrupted suc- cession.' Let his exposition of succession be applied to the Manichean rulers, and the reader, it is thought, will find the Dean's exposition itself expounded. 238. Augustine speaks of the undoubted succession of these heretics as he does of the Christian rulers. Will the Dean's exposition of succession do as applied in this case ? Certainly not, for they were a set of most wretched heretics, or fanatics. Augustine himself informs us that they held that * the Para- clete (Comforter) was accomplished in their Arch-Manichseus by the Holy Grhost.'-;— Z)e Hceres. cap. 46, tom. vi. f. 5. Augus- tine has applied the same language to the true ministers of Christ, but if, in this connection, such language could admit of the Dean's interpretation, it is utterly unaccountable that Augustine should apply the same language to the followers of Manichseiis. It would have been just as incongruous as if Dean Hook, in his Church Dictionary, in describing Mormon teachers, had represented them as an ' uninterrupted succession ' of presi- dents from Smith. It w^ould have just suited the Mormons, for they pretend to have a succession after this carnal fashion. The fact is that the Dean has imported a meaning into the term succession altogether foreign to its use in the Fathers, or as held even by the authorised teaching of the Eomish Church so called. All that Augustine meant by undoubted succession was that a string or line of persons, coming one after the other, in chronological order, had descended from the apostles to his time, from Manichseus to the same time, and that also from the time of Judas to the same period there were those that had come down from him by succession. In none of these cases of succession, selected from Augustine, must the reader conceive of there being any transfer, or communication, of anything whatever from one person to another. If Augustine had held any such notion, it would follow, from what he has stated, that, if the successors of St. Peter derived from him, by transmission, the commission given to him by Christ, so the successors of Judas, coming down ' by succession,' have from him that which was put in his heart by 244. WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 239. Satan. That Judas, in some sense, had successors was believed by some of the reformers. (See 58.9; 69. 10, 11.) The only consistent interpretation of the term succession, as used by Augustine, is this, that whatever Peter had that was to be perpetuated would not be transmitted by St. Peter, but his successor would derive what he had from the same original source that St. Peter did. This is, as we shall see, what Eome teaches. So those who came after Judas would not receive from him the wickedness which had been put into his heart, but, being wickedly disposed, Satan would do for them what he had done for their predecessor Judas. This notion of a transmitted influence, in succession from person to person, is a modern notion, not three hundred years old, but, notwithstanding, is a piece of antiquity, though very young, in which these Anglicans greatly rejoice ; and none more so than Dean Hook, as is plain from half-a-dozen places in his Church Dictionary, 239. Dr. Wordsworth, however, adduces Augustine's com- mentary on the following text, ' Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth ' (Ps. xlv. 16), in proof that he believed that bishops are successors of the twelve apostles in this Anglican sense (sect. 5 of this chap.), and he also refers to the writings of Bishop Andrewes for state- ments to the same effect, but this good man also adduces the comment of Jerome on the text in question for the same purpose. (Chap. II. 14.) The early Fathers have very generally considered this text as a prediction relating to the twelve apostles. The consensus of antiquity in regard to its interpretation and application has been given in the Catena, a summary of which will now be adduced, from which it may be seen how unacquainted these ancient authors were with these Anglican views of succession. Had they held them in any degree, nothing could be more natural than that some one or more of them, in applying the text in question to the apostles, and, in a secondary sense, to the rulers of the churches, and the saints generally, should have given us some hint of it. It is of no importance to our present enquiry whether the "Fathers interpreted the Scriptures correctly or incorrectly, our sole object at present being to ascertain what Chap. IV. § 239. APOSTLESHIP NOT TRANSMISSIBLE. 2i6 their opinions were. Did they, or did they not, hold the opinions common to these Anglicans respecting bishops suc- ceeding to the apostleship of the twelve by a personal transfer of it from the apostles to bishops, these bishops transferring it again to other bishops, so that, in the belief of the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, bishops, and bishops only, were successors of the twelve, and successors in that sense ? If these early Fathers did entertain any such notion, we ought most certainly to meet with it in their comments and applications of the text in question. We shall examine the testimony of the Fathers on this point in chronological order, beginning with Basil the Great, who says : — ' Who are therefore sons of the Church ? Those truly who are sons of the Gospel, who govern the whole earth. He says, " Their sound is gone out in all the earth;" and being constituted on twelve thrones, they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel. But if anyone takes the Fathers of the bride to be patriarchs, not so indeed as to reject this opinion respecting the apostles, &c.' (23. 1 .) The first application of the text must remain, and a secondary application, admitted out of regard to others, is, *That the rulers, indeed, of the whole earth are the saints.' This great man provides no successors for the apostles, unless the saints be those successors. Our next witness is Jerome, who states : — ' Oh Church ! apostles have been thy Fathers, because they begat thee. But now, since they have departed from the world, thou hast in their stead sons, bishops, which have been created by thee. For these also are thy Fathers, because by them thou art ruled. Christ appointed His saints over all peoples. For in the name of God the Gospel is extended to all the ends of the earth, in which are princes of the Church, that is, bishops have been constituted.' (29. 50.) According to this account, the pedigree claimed by these Anglicans for bishops is surreptitious and false, there being made a gross omission of one in the line of succession, namely, the Church, which entirely changes the character of the whole thing. Here we are taught by this learned Father that the apostles begat the Church, and that the Church created bishops. This interpretation exactly accords with the teaching of the early Church, namely, that the Church — the congregation of the 246 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. §§ 240, 241. faithful, after the apostles — is the original seat of all power, as our own Hooker maintains. 240. The learned Kuffinus bears a similar testimony. He states : — ' The apostles begat thee, they were sent, they have preached, they are the Fathers, they have been received into glory, and in their place sons have been born, have been appointed bishops. Do not think that thou art abandoned because thou seest not Paul, seest not those through whom thou wert born. Out of thine own offspring, has a body of Fathers been raised up to thee. Sons have been born to thee for thy use. " Princes," that is, " masters and teachers." ' — Eph. iv.ll. (32. 7.) Euffinus here makes a similar application of the text to that made by Jerome, but explains what he understands by princes in its relation to his times, namely, that it denoted * masters and teachers ' of the Church. It is certain he did not consider the apostolic office to be perpetuated in his time by any class of rulers in the Church ; if he did, why did he pass over the first part, and quote the latter of the following text ? ' And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some masters and teachers.' (Eph. iv. 11.) By * masters and teachers,' for so it stands in the Latin version of his day, he included both bishops and presbyters, who, he maintains, had been created by the Church. 241. Augustine is our next witness. He states : — ' It was the apostles begat thee ; they were sent, they were the preachers ; they are the " Fathers." Is the Church, then, left desolate by their departure ? God forbid. . . . The apostles were sent to thee as fathers ; instead of the apostles sons have been born to thee, there have been appointed bishops. For in the present day, whence do the bishops throughout all the world derive their origin ? The Church itself calls them Fathers ; the Church itself brought them forth, and placed them on the seats of the Fathers. Think not thyself abandoned, then, because thou seest not Peter, nor seest Paul; seest not those through Avhom thou wert born ? Out of thine own oiFspring has a body of Fathers been raised up to thee.' (33. 49.) It is plain that Augustine has borrowed from his elder and more learned brethren, Jerome and Euffinus, especially the latter. Both Kuffinus and Augustine speak of the apostles as being Fathers in their time. It is true both of them considered the rulers of the churches in their day as a body of Fathers, but Chap. IV. § 242. THE CHUECH MADE BISHOPS. 247 of another order and origin than the apostles. They both speak of the apostles in an emphatic manner as being sent, of which their title apostle was indicative ; they do not speak of the bishops of their day in that style, and although Augustine says the Church calls them Fathers, yet it is plain they were not so called in the same sense as the apostles were. He represents apostles as being Divinely sent, and he speaks of them as having begotten the Church ; but he states that the Church begat the bishops, and placed them on the seats of the apostles. He, as we have seen, considered the Church to be the successor of the apostles, and of Peter in particular (see sect. 128 of this chap.); so that, according to the teaching of Augustine, the human medium through which bishops obtain their power as rulers of the Church is the congregation of the faithful, who, according to the early Fathers, inherently possess all power. 242. Chrysostom, on the text under consideration, expatiates very eloquently, but every word is against these Anglicans. He states : — ' The apostles traversed the whole world, became rulers more lordly than all rulers, than kings more mighty. For kings, indeed, exercise power whilst they live, but when they die their power lapses ; but these, when dead, rule the more. The laws of kings have force within their own dominions, but the ordinances of the fishermen have been ex- tended everywhere through the habitable earth. The emperor of the Romans cannot legislate for the Persians, nor can the king of the Persians for the Romans ; but these men of Palestine have imposed their laws alike on Romans and Persians, Thrasians and Scythians, Indians and Moors. Nay, all over the world, not only while living have they thus been powerful but also since they are dead ; and of those by whom these laws have been received there is not one who would not a thousand times rather lose his life than revolt against them.' (34. 17, 18.) Chrysostom, like his Grreek brother, Basil, does not so much as allude to the apostles as having successors in any sense. The apostles retain their office as rulers, and rule all the more since their death, and, in the sense in which they were rulers, could have no successors. Cyril, of Alexandria, another Greek bishop, has quoted and applied the text in various parts of his writings, but he makes no allusion to any but the twelve apostles. He states : — ' We say that the walls of Zion signify the Holy Apostles and Evange- 248 WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS? Chap. IV. § 243. lists, tliat tbey are placed in this position by God, and approved by his sanction, which never ceases or fails. For their names are written in heaven, and they are placed in the book of the living ... of whom David, that Divine man, makes beautiful mention, singing to Christ, the Saviour of all : " Thou shalt make them princes over all the earth, and they shall make mention of thy name for ever and ever." ' (37. 17.) For two other instances where he cites and applies the text, see 37- 4, 14. Verily, this Grreek archbishop of the fifth century never con- ceived of the apostles as having any successors in this Anglican sense. Theodoret, a fourth Greek bishop in this list, represents the apostles as being governors still. He states: — ' The Divine apostles — regarding the Fathers as the patriarchs — being constituted as prefects and generals by Christ the King after their death, governed both land and sea.' (39. 5.) In the same connection, he also speaks of sons coming after the apostles, and ruling the Church ; but, from the fact of his representing the apostles as ruling after their death, in that sense in which they were rulers, they could have no successors. Eucherius, Arnobius, and Andreas so apply the text as to show they never conceived the twelve apostles as having any after them who inherited their power. (43- 45. 47. 3, 5.) We have impartially given the whole testimony — at least as much as we could find — of the Fathers of the first five centuries, in relation to the interpretation and application of this text, and, to our mind, it is singularly fatal to the extravagant assumptions of these Anglicans. 243. Dr. Wordsworth's mode of succession is altogether dif- ferent from that known to Augustine. The Doctor's theory is that ^ ministers derive their commission by succession from the apostles, and this series was never interrupted ; no, never.' It must, then, have come down through some monsters in human form. But he provides for its safe conduct through all these : — * And this commission was not invalidated by the errors of those through whose hands it passed, so that the continuity of the apostolic succession could thus have received any interruption.' And he introduced Augustine, innocent Augustine, on the shoulders of Bishop Andrewes, to help him. Thus : — * Semblably is it with these ; they that by the word, the sacraments, Chap. IV. § 243. OEDINATION NOT TO BE EEPEATED. 249 the keys, are unto other the conduits of grace, to make them fructify in all good works, may well so be, though themselves remain unfruitful, as do the pipes of wood or lead that, by transmitting the water, make the garden bear both herbs and flowers, though themselves never bear any. St. Aug. Tract. V. in St. Joann.' — Theoph. Ang. pp. 211, 212. If the reader will refer to 33. 57, 58, he will notice that the remarks of Augustine refer exclusively to the administration of baptism, and that there is no reference to ordination, much less to this Anglican notion of succession, of which he was absolutely ignorant. It is true, however, that Augustine, and Jerome, and other Fathers, regarded the rite of ordination as a sacrament ; and although the privileges and honours of the condition which each of these rites represented might be forfeited by heresy or immorality, yet, on the restoration of the parties, on no account was either of these rites to be repeated. (See 91. 23.) The rite of baptism, and the condition or state into which the baptised are initiated, are both of God's appointment, and in respect to which the administrator of the rite can neither give nor withhold anything of essential importance. He is little more than the mouth-piece on the occasion, and Augustine appears so to teach in the tract to which Dr. Wordsworth refers us. (33- 57, 58.) Did Augustine hold anything different in regard to the rite of ordination ? We have not a particle of proof that he did, and these Anglicans have not given any. Let us suppose, then, for the sake of argument, what is no doubt the truth, that Augustine considered the rite of ordination, and the office to which the person ordained was designated, as being of Grod; and that, as in the rite of baptism so in ordination, the ordainer is little more than a mouth -piece on the occasion, and that, whatever power, grace, authority, or rights, the person so ordained obtains, these are not from the ordainer, but from the office, which is of Grod's appointment. But, according to this Anglican theory of ordination, the person ordained must receive from the ordainer a commission which he himself holds, to use the language and thought of Dr. Wordsworth : — * Christ sent His apostles as His Father had sent Him. He gave them the Holy Ghost as His Father had given to Him ; and commis- sioned them to execute the same apostolic, episcopal, and pastoral office, in their own persons, and in that of their successors.' — Ch. II. 11. 250 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. § 244. According to this teaching, then, a bishop of our Church, when he ordains another bishop, gives to the person he ordains the Holy Grhost, as God the Father gave to Christ his Son, and commissions him to execute the same apostolic, episcopal, and pastoral office which Christ did, in his own person ; and that the Holy Grhost thus supposed to be given and the commission thus transferred have come down through a line of men, without any interruption, from the time when Christ said to his holy apostles, 'Eeceive ye the Holy Grhost' (John xx. 21-23). In regard to the administration of baptism, Augustine says : — ' For those whom John baptised were baptised by John, but those whom Judas baptised were baptised by Christ. In like manner, there- fore, they whom a drunkard hath baptised, or a homicide, or an adul- terer, if the baptism was Christ's, it was Christ baptised them. I do not fear an adulterer, nor a drunkard, nor a murderer, for I hearken to the Dove, through whom it is said to me, " This is He which bap- tiseth." ' (33. 58.) It is manifest from these words that Augustine considered the baptiser as of very secondary importance in the sacrament. But could he thus have conceived of an ordainer in the same light if he had entertained this Anglican notion of succession, viz. that the power, the grace, the authority, came to the ordained, not by virtue of the office to which he was iustituted, and which was of Grod's appointment, but mediately through the ordainer and through his ordainer up to the time that Christ said, ' Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost,' it cannot be supposed that he would. There is not the remotest evidence that Augustine held any such notion of succession, and it is an injury to the character of this great man, and deceptive to ' the young student,' that Dr. Wordsworth should have referred to this fifth tract of his as though he did, and thus make it appear as if Augustine himself held that all these wonderful things, believed by these Anglicans, should have come down unimpaired through all the vile characters they are supposed to have done. 244. One word respecting the doctrine of intention in regard to this point. Could this Anglican kind of commission be transferred by an archbishop who did not believe that he held it, and openly repudiated this Anglican doctrine respecting it ? And could a candidate for episcopal consecration receive the Chap. IV §§245,246. 'VIA MEDIA' THEOEY. 251 commission in question from such an archbisliop while he himself held precisely the same opinions as his consecrator did ? The one repudiating the intention of transferring such a com- mission, and the other repudiating the intention of receiving it ; is the transfer of such a grace, supposing there is any reality in it, under such circumstances safe and sure ? Here is an inte- resting question for an acute Anglo-catholic. 245. These Anglicans most distinctly claim to be a branch of that stump which bears the Eomish system of superstition and falsehood, or, to vary the imagery, a daughter of that old gaudily attired lady so graphically described by our reformers and martyrs; and they are compelled to imitate the old lady in holding a doctrine of apostolical succession something like hers, but they do not hold such a succession as their affinities and chosen foundation would seem to intimate. If they did, they would have to go to Eome, where their more consistent brethren have already gone. By a favourite expression they define their position to be * via media,'' that is, mid way^ between Lambeth and the Vatican, Canterbury and Rome. The fact is, they want to be at Rome without leaving Canterbury. The golden cords that bind some of them to the latter place are five thousand five hundred fold strong, as well as other ties equally binding on the less ethereal part of human nature. To adopt, then, the Romish theory of apostolical succession would be to make their present position an open disgrace to their consciences. So they have adopted the ' via medio,,' or via sua, theory of succession, by which the more substantial part of their nature can be at Canterbury and their souls at Rome. 246. Both Romanists and these Anglicans maintain that the apostleship is perpetuated in the Catholic Church, and there is no great difference between them as to the nature of the apostleship thus perpetuated. But as to the Tnode of its per- petuation there is an essential difference of opinion. These Anglicans, as we have seen, maintain that it is handed on from one person to another, and that this has been the mode of transmission since Christ first conferred it on the apostles. The Romanist maintains that it is not conferred by man at all, that bishops are not even instrumental in its transfer. 252 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS ? Chap. IV. § 247. The RomisK claimant to the apostleship professes to receive it from Christ only, and that he cannot be supposed to receive it from man, for this plain reason that no man among the Romanists even professes to confer it. Thus, a Romanist authority says : — * Christ in person bestowed supreme authority on St. Peter, whilst his successors receive the same power from Christ also, but yet by means of a lawful election to the see of Eome. . . . The Roman pontiff succeeds, therefore, to the apostles, both in episcopacy and apostleship ; in episcopacy because he is invested with the episcopal character, which descends from the apostles by successive imposition of hands; in apostleship because he possesses jurisdiction over the whole world, and over all Christians, not by concession from any mortal, but by office, as occupying St. Peter's chair.' — Apostolic Succession explained, hy a Priest of the Order of Charity, pp. 31, 32. Nicolas de Lyra, a Roman Catholic commentator, teaches the same thing. He says : — ' Some say that the high-priest was consecrated by inferior priests, as the pope is consecrated by those inferior to himself.' — In Lev. cap. viii. tom. i. col. 984. We learn the same thing from the writings of Bishop Jewel, where he says : — ' For that you tell us so many fair tales of Peter's succession, we demand of you wherein the pope succeedeth Peter ; you answer, " he succeedeth him in his chair." ' When the chair was vacant no one had the apostleship supposed to belong to it, but the person promoted to it is con- sidered to receive the apostleship by virtue of the office. To this succession, as to mode, there can be no objection ; and Bishop Jewel does not offer any. Provided there are the required qualifications for the office otherwise, one bishop may succeed another, as Manasses succeeded David. (73- 30.) 247. In this case the promoters to the chair of Peter do not even profess to confer the apostleship. And here we have an apt illustration of the way in which men are, or may be, pro- moted to the ministry, not only as respects the highest order, but any order. Those who are true ministers of the Church of Christ are ordained of Him, and in the strictest sense are His ministers. He appoints them to every part of their work, and Chap. IV. § 248. EOMAN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 253 requires a faithful performance of it. Whatever human mode is used in ordaining such ministers, the offices to be executed by them are settled by the law of Christ, and their right and authority to execute them are not derived from those who promote or ordain them, but from Christ's law. The ordainers are not creators, or efficient causes of anything in the whole affair. They are but instruments conferring a mere human right ; thus we are told that the pope is elected to the see of Kome, while the same authority informs us that the supposed apostleship is ' not by concession from any mortal, but by office as occupying St. Peter's chair.' If this unobjectionable mode of promotion will do for the highest order among the Eomanists, why will it not do for any of their orders ? Anyhow, the Komanist branch of what is miscalled the Catholic Church differs very materially upon this point from this Anglican twig, which pretends to be of the same stock ; so much so that the mother branch will not acknowledge the daughter. The daughter, however, piteously cries. Mother ! and catches at the shadow of a recognition, though accompanied with the anathema of disinheritance, unless she returns home. This wretched bantling cannot deny its parentage, for this would be to cut off all claim to the patrimony which, according to the most express teaching of Dean Hook and his party, would involve the loss of a Divinely instituted ministry, sacraments, and the very being of a Church, and all the revealed means of salvation. 248. In one of the above extracts it is stated that the Eoman pontiff succeeds the apostles in an episcopacy which descends from the apostles by successive imposition of hands. But here, again, Eome teaches that the bishop and priest are of the same order and priesthood by Divine right, and that wherein a bishop differs from a priest it is by the right of the pope. Mr. Palmer, one of these Anglicans, has given the authentic teach- ing of Eome on this point : — * In fine, the synod of Trent seems to favour this view, since it does not reckon the episcopate as a distinct order from the priesthood. . . . Such, too, seems to have been the sentiment of the bishops of England in The Institution of a Christian Man, 1536, and The Necessary Doctrine J 1543, where only two orders of bishops, or priests, and 254< WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. §§ 249, 250. deacons are reckoned of Divine institution. It seems, too, that many of the reformers in the sixteenth century entertained this opinion ; and several theologians of our churches in that and the following ages have been cited in favour of it.' — Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 283. 249. The private opinion of these Anglo-catholics on the doctrine of succession has scarcely anything in common with the teaching of Eome. It is true that they boast that some leading Eomanists have acknowledged the ordinations of the English Church as valid ; but the same authorities represent that Church as heretical and schismatical, and it is only fair to state that the same authorities acknowledge the ordinations of the Cal- vinists to be valid, which Dean Hook and others of his party deny, showing how great a difference there is between real Eomanists and their wretched imitators. In fact, they are a via media offspring of two opposiog qualities, like their father, Archbishop Laud. But what is most marvellous is that these hybrids should increase, and, instead of becoming less incongru- ous in the mixture of their natures, should become more so ; but it should be borne in mind that we are speaking of what is moral, and not what is physical, and that there is no accounting for the freaks of the human mind when once it becomes un- hinged. As good Bishop Hall addressed Laud, their father, so we, in the same words, address his still more degenerate offspring : — * I would I knew where to find you ; then I could tell how to take a direct aim; whereas now I must rove and conjecture. To-day you are in the tents (>f the Romanists, to-morrow in ours ; the next day between both, against both. Our adversaries think you ours, we theirs ; your conscience finds you with both, and neither. I flatter you not ; this of yours is the worst of all tempers : heat and cold have their uses ; lukewarmness is good for nothing but to trouble the stomach Resolve one way, and know at last what you do hold, what you should. Cast off either your wings or your teeth ; and, loathing this bat-like nature, be either a bird or a beast. ... It is dangerous deferring that whose want is deadly, and whose opportunity is doubtful. God cryeth with Jehu, " Who is on my side, who ? " Look at last out of your window to Him, and, in a resolute courage, cast down this Jezebel that hath bewitched you.' — Decad. iii. epis. v. Works, pp. 324, 325. 250. Another piece of evidence to be adduced from Augustine most fatal to these modern Anglican notions is the fact which he states respecting the Catholic Church of his day, viz. that the ordinations and baptism of heretics and schismatics on their Chap. IV. § 251. LAY BAPTISM VALID. 255 conforming to the Catholic Church were ,iiot to be repeated. According to these Anglicans, without their figment of succes- sion, neither of these ordinances would be valid. Certainly not, according to Dean Hook and the earlier Tractarians. But, from some remarks of the Bishop of Oxford, it would seem as if some of them had changed their faith, somewhat in regard to what is commonly called the baptism of schismatics, which is now accepted by them in such a way as that it is not necessary to repeat it. From the extract from Augustine's writings as given 33. 30-33, it is plain that it was not lawful in the Catholic Church to re-ordain the presbyters and bishops coming from the schis- matic and heretical party, but, as in baptism so in ordination, the ordinance was not repeated. He, however, regarded both their baptism and ordination of no avail so long as they were not in communion with the Catholic Church, but as held per- niciously. It is plain from that extract that Augustine held what he considered heretical and scbismatical ordination in the same light as baptism under similar circumstances, and of the latter he says : — * But even though baptism be usurped without necessity, and baptism be given by anyone whatever to whomsoever it may, still that which has been given cannot be described as not given, but may be rightly spoken of as given contrary to rule.' (33. 33.) 251. As these Anglicans have been very bold in their heresy, and most outrageous in their assumptions in its defence, it would seem to be necessary to confirm this teaching of Augus- tine, as that of the Catholic Church of the fourth centuiy, lest even sound churchmen, but not well informed on these points, should be startled with his teaching. Of all the authorities that could be quoted on matters of this nature, the learned Bingham is the most competent, and one to whom these Anglicans ought not to object, for their preceptors, the Tractarians, have dragged him into their Catena Patrum in the defence of their doctrine of apostolical succession. It will not be necessary here to do more than refer the reader to the extracts from Bingham as given 91. in sects. 16-25, but especially sects. 16 and 23. This evidence from Bingham 256 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Ciiap. IV. § 252. having been consulted, the reader can be in no doubt as to his view of the practice of the Catholic Church. It is plain that this modern Anglican succession had no place there, or she could not have acted so indiscriminately in receiving the ordination of those who had no pretensions to it. Bingham, so learned in patristic records, makes it clear that succession, in the Tractarian sense, had no place in his belief. So far from thinking that the English Church had any right to the administration of ordination and the sacrament, by virtue of any supposed succession which she had received from the Eomish system of superstition, he shows that she had lost all lawful claim to the same, and could only regain it on her coming back to the faith of the Catholic Church, viz. to the faith of a mere handful of Christians whom the so-called Catholic Church ignored, and he even says : — * And though there had been no visible professors of that faith and doctrine entirely pure yet it had been sufficient for the first reformers to have returned to the profession of the faith itself; which, in effect, is returning to the unity of the Holy Catholic Church, the chief and principal part of whose unity is the sincere faith of the creed and Scriptures.' (91. 17.) 252. Another point in which the teaching of Augustine con- demns these Anglicans is their exclusive claim of dispensing Christian ordinances. In this respect they greatly resemble the Donatists, the only difference being that these Anglicans main- tain the absolute necessity of the administrator having the benefit of their figment of succession, the Donatists that he should be a holy person. Each party assumed that it bad its respective in- dispensable qualification. A Donatist shall speak for himself, and Augustine shall answer him : — * Petilianus. — Whosoever receives faith from an unbeliever receives not faith, but guilt. Augustine. — But Christ is not an unbeliever from whom I receive faith, and not guilt. Pet. — The character of everything depends strictly on its origin and its root, and if it has not something, it is nothing. Aug. — My origin is Christ, my root is Christ, my head is Christ. Pet. — Nor does anyone regenerate well, except he regenerate with good seed. Aug. — The seed by which I am regenerated is the Word of God, which I am admonished obediently to follow, although he through whom I hear it may not himself practise what he teaches, the Lord saying and making me safe, " What they say, do ye ; what they Chap. IV. § 253. TWO ORDEES IN THE EiUlLY CHURCH. ^257 do, do not ye ; for they say and do not. Pet. — How absiu-d to suppose that he who is guilty through his own transgression can absolve others from guilt. Aug. — He alone makes me free from guilt who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification ; for I believe not in the minister by whom I am baptised, but in him who justifieth the sinner, so that my faith is accounted unto me for righteousness.' — Contra Literas P etiliani Donatistce, lib. i. cap. 7, tom. vii. if. 16, 17. If the reader will refer to 33. 55, 56, he will see how Augus- tine represents the Donatists as giving salvation in a manner to which the Catholic Church of Augustine's time had no preten- sions, and he will also see how he represents the Donatist bishops as saying, ' I baptise, and what I give is holy ; if thou receivest from another, thou hast received nothing ; if thou receivest from me, thou hast received something.' The claims made by these schismatical Donatists in comparison of those made by the Catho- lic Church in their day are identical with those made by these Anglicans in comparison of the true Catholic Church in our day. The reader has only to call to mind how these Anglicans repre- sent the ordinances of the Church of Scotland, a reformed sister Church to our own, and for which we are taught to pray as a part of the Catholic Church, according to the directions of the 55th canon ; and how they represent other Churches similarly constituted, and he cannot but feel that the remarks of Augustine are as applicable to these Anglicans as they were in his time to the schismatical and exclusive Donatists. ClTRYSOSTOM. 253. Chrysostom is our next authority, and if we could accept the concessions of some of these Anglicans as faithfully repre- senting their brethren, it would not be necessary to dwell long on him. Mr. Palmer says : — * If we divide the sacred ministry according to its degrees instituted by God, and understand the word " order " in the sense of " degree," we may very truly say that there are three orders of the Christian ministry ; but if we distribute it according to its nature, we might say that there are only two orders, namely, bishops, or presbyters, and deacons ; for pastors of the first and second degree exercise a ministry of the same nature. Both are ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God ; both are invested with the care of souls, and the government of the Church, in different degrees ; both are sent to teach S 258 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. § 263. and preach the Gospel of Christ, to make disciples by baptism, to cele- brate the eucharist, to bless the congregation, to offer prayers and spiritual sacrifices in the presence of all the people, even to seal with the Holy Spirit in confirmation. In the power of ordination alone do the ministers of the first degree differ absolutely fi:om those of the second ; and, therefore, they might be considered, in general, as of the same order, though of different degrees. . . . We find that Clement of Eome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Fir- milian, and others, sometimes speak of two orders in the Church, i. e. bishops or presbyters, and deacons, or else mention the pastors of the first order under the title of presbyters. Besides this, many writers employ language and arguments which go directly to prove the identity of the first and second degrees of the ministry in order. Amongst these may probably be mentioned Jerome, Hilary the Deacon, Chry- sostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Sedulius, Primacius, Isidore Hispa- lensis, Bede, Alcuin, the synod of Aix in 819, Amalarius, and others quoted by Morinus ; to these may be added the great body of the school- men, Hugo S. Victor, Peter Lombard, Alexander Alensis, Bonaventura, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, Abulensis, Turrecremata, Cajetan, &c. Many teach that the episcopate is only an extension of the sacerdotal order, such as Durandus, Paludanus, Dominic Soto, &c. In fine, the synod of Trent seems rather to favour this view, since it does not reckon the episcopate as a distinct order from the priesthood.' — Treatise on the Church., vol. ii. pp. 282, 283. The reader, in the above extract, may accept what is there said as true in relation to there being only two orders of Divine appointment by the several authorities whose names are given. Nor does it appear that anyone of them entertained any distinc- tion of Divine appointment. Some of these modern authorities named, as well as the earlier ones, whom we have already con- sidered, have so expressed themselves that it is certain to their minds that wherein there was any absolute distinction between a bishop and a presbyter, it was of human origin. Mr. Palmer refers us to the council of Aix ; from the records of that council we give the following : — * But only on account of the honour or dignity was the ordination of the clergy reserved to the high-priest.' {Sed solum propter authori- tatem, summo sacerdoti clericorum ordinatio reservata est.) — Con. Aquis. Can. 8. Lombard, the chief of the schoolmen whose name Mr. Palmer, gives, says : — ' Having briefly spoken of the seven degrees of the Church, we have shown what should belong to everyone, and all of them are spiritual Chip. IV. § 254. COEPUS JUEIS CANONICI. 259 and sacred, notwithstanding the canons determine that only two orders ought to be termed sacred by way of eminency, namely, that of the diaconate and that of the presbyterate ; because we read that the primitive Church had only these two ; and of these alone we have the command of the apostle : For the apostles did ordain bishops and presbyters in every city.' — Lib. 4, dist. 24. The testimony of Amalarius may be found 56. 1-10. The Bishop of Sevil, about the year 600, stated : — ' To presbyters as well as to bishops is committed the dispensing of the mysteries of God ; they are set over the Churches of Christ, and in the mingling the body and blood of Christ they are alike with the bishops, and in the office of preaching to the people ; only for the greater honour of the bishop, and preventing schisms, the power of ordination was restricted to him. — De Eccles. Officus, lib. vii. cap. 7. At a council held at the same place it was stated : — ' Although there are many functions of the ministry common to the presbyters and bishops, yet by the modern and ecclesiastical rules there are some functions denied to them, such as the consecration of presbyters, deacons, &c.' — Cone. Hispal. secundum Decret. 7. 254. The following extracts from the Gorjpiis Juris Canonici will be interesting in this connection : — * C. VIII. After what manner a presbyter should be ordained. ' In the council of Carthage (an. 398, in Africa), " ^Yhen a presbyter is ordained, the bishop blessing him, and holding his hand on his head, all the presbyters who are present are also to hold their hands on his head together with the bishop." — Decreti I. Pars, Distinctio XXIII. ' C. IV. No one should be chosen for a bishop unless he is ordained in holy orders. * " No one should be chosen for a bishop unless he should be found living religiously in holy orders. But we call the diaconate and pres- byterate holy orders. Forasmuch as the primitive Church is said to have had these only." — Ihid. Bis. LX. ' C. V. A bishop is the same as a presbyter, and by custom alone bishops are over presbyters. Jerome, on the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus, on the words, " That thou shouldest constitute " (an. 386, in Palestine). " A presbyter therefore is the same .... that the seeds of schism might be plucked up." (For the whole passage, see 29. 75.) And a little after, " Therefore, as the presbyters know .... rule the Church in common." (29. 78.) ' C. VI. It is allowed to presbyters to teach in the presence of bishops. ' Jerome to Rustlcus, respecting the seven degrees in the Church (about an. 378, in Palestine). (For the greater part of the quotation, see 29. 34-37.) s 2 260 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 255. ' C. VII. Bishops and clergy should give honour one to another. * Jerome to Nepotianus, ep. 2. (an. 392, Palsestina Eomam). (For the quotation, see 29. 4, 5.) * C. VIII. Presbyters should not go before bishops, but go along with or follow them. * From the council of Laodicea, c. 56 (about an. 320). * Presbyters ought not to enter and sit in the tribunals before the bishop has entered, but to enter with the bishop, except in case the bishop is sick, or on a journey. * C. IX. A bishop should not regard himself as a lord, but as a col- league {collegarri) of the presbyters. 'From the fourth council of Carthage, c. 34 (about an. 398, in Africa). ' " In whatsoever place the bishop sits, it is not allowed to the pres- byter to stand. The bishop may sit on a higher seat in the church, and in the session of presbyters ; but within the house should regard him- self as a colleague of the presbyters." — Ibid. Distinctio XCV. ' 255. Mr. Palmer has conceded a great deal, and has referred to long list of authorities, to which we have added a few more, who have conceded all absolute distinction except in the very attenuated degree that a bishop may be a prhnus inter jpares in regard to the presbyters. He maintains that the bishops have, by Divine right, the power of ordination which presbyters have not. He says, ' In the power of ordination alone do the minis- ters of the first degree differ absolutely from the second.' In the fourth, or beginning of the fifth, century, Chrysostom con- sidered that the only difference there was between a bishop and a presbyter was in the power of ordination. But his language plainly intimates that it was not of apostolic appointment, but of human origin. (See 34. 45.) If it were safe to accept Mr. Palmer's concession, this would be the only point needful to be considered in Chrysostom, but thus to pass over so important a writer as golden-mouthed John, some time presbyter of Antioch, and finally the Archbishop of Constantinople, would not be doing justice to our subject. Of all the Fathers of the fourth, or per- haps of any, century, Chrysostom was the most eloquent and rhetorical, but this, of all other things, unfits him to bear sober testimony on the subject of our book ; he is so frequently on the wing soaring in rhetorical exaggeration on almost everything which he describes that it is only when we find him on terra firma, speaking in unadorned language, that we can venture to Chap. IV. § 255. DECEIT AUTHOKISED. 261 take his testimony. A specimen of his rhetoric is given 34. 1 3. Moreover, we have reason to think that, if Chrysostom had an object in view, which he believed was for the glory of Grod, and the good of man, exaggeration, and even deceit, he would regard as being legitimate for his purpose. He and another youth, both of some rank and position, well educated, and in favour with the Christian laity on account of their piety, were fixed upon by them to be elected for bishops, not as yet holding any office in the Church. The two youths consented to under- take the office, and meet together and prepare for their promo- tion. When the day of their ordination arrives, Chrysostom conceals himself, and avoids the promotion, and Basil is ordained without him. Basil grievously complained of Chrysostom having deceived him. The latter j ustifies the deception, and vindicates his conduct both from reason and Scripture. This has come down to us in his treatise on the priesthood, which is written in the form of a dialogue, a portion of which will be found 34'« 2, 3. This loose morality was not confined to Chrysostom. Clement of Alexandria recommended a similar practice. (See 9.6.) Dr. Newman, in his History of the Avians of the Fourth Century, p. 81, quotes, with approval, Clement on this point, and informs us that he * accurately described the rules which should guide the Christian in speaking and writing economically.* He also states that ' the principle involved ' in the economy, as used by the ancients, is * that of representing religion for the purpose of conciliating the heathen.' Dr. Gratty, in a Sheffield paper, informed his readers that what good ' Dr. Newman did whilst he was with us, he left behind him when he went to Eome.' Anyhow, he did not take this with him, for there are unmistak- able proofs in this book that Tractarians, or their descendants, can imitate the ancients, and write ' economically ' to defend their heresy. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, in his commentaries, acquits Jacob of falsehood and deceit in passing himself off for his elder brother, on the ground that, having purchased the right of primogeniture, he was, in truth, the first-born son, (Interr. .Ixxxi. torn. i. p. 91.) Similar things may be laid to the charge of Ambrose and Jerome. 262 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. § 256. 256. It is the more important to bear in mind this deceitful or economical mode of teaching, avowed and adopted by some of the Fathers, as we shall be better able to give a more consistent and harmonious interpretation of passages in one and the same Father, relating to the sacraments and the office of the Christian ministry, which often appear discordant and contradictory. "VMien they were anxious to exalt the ministerial office, and enhance the value of the sacraments, to accomplish an end so desirable in their estimation, to use the language of Newman, they wrote ' economically.' Archbishop Laud, the father of these Anglo-catholics, and the chief originator of their heresy, though in a less developed form than it exists at present, appears to have been conscious that Cyprian did not always write the words of truth and soberness. He, being desirous to speak well of Cornelius, Bishop of Kome, has made use of strong language in reference to him, of which the Komanists have taken advantage to exalt the office of the pope. On this strong language of Cyprian, Laud remarks : — ' In which fair way of returning his thanks, if he make an honour- able mention of the Romans, and their faith, with a little dash of rhetoric even to a non potest, for a no7i facile potest, 'tis no great wonder.' — Answer to Fisher, p. 5. Again Laud says, speaking in reference to Cyprian charging Stephen, the Bishop of Kome, with obstinacy and presumption: — * I think it was no change, and that when he wrote to Cornelius, it was rhetoric and no more.' — Ibid. No Father has dealt so largely in rhetoric to exalt the office of the Christian ministry as Chrysostom. Bishops and presbyters, putting little or no difference between them, he exalts above angels, and makes their office the medium of all the blessings of salvation. Ample proof of this is contained in the extracts made from his works. (See 34. 7, 12.) Elsewhere, having laid aside his rhetoric, and ceased to speak ^ economically,' he re- presents the communicants in the Lord's Supper as being all but equal with the bishop and presbyter. He says: — * There are occasions in which there is no difference at all between the priest and those under him, for instance, when we are to partake of. the awful mysteries, &c.' (34. 40.) * I am about to say what may Chap. IV. § 257. BISHOPS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PRESBYTERS. 263 appear strange, but be not astonished or startled at it. The offering (Lord's Supper) is the same, whether a common man, or Paul, or Peter, oiFer it.' (34. 48, 49.) 257. Mr. Palmer, as we have seen, concedes that the only absolute difference between a bishop and a presbyter is in the power of ordination. The foundation of this distinction rests, for the most part, on the authority of Chrysostom and Jerome. What Jerome has said on this point has already been considered ; it remains that we examine the testimony of Chrysostom. He states : — ' There is no great difference between a bishop and a presbyter. Both had undertaken the office of teachers and presidents in the Church, and what he has said concerning bishops is applicable to presbyters. For, in the ordination only, have they gone above, and in that thing only seem to take advantage of, the presbyters.' (34. 45.) Here it is plain that presbyters once had this power ; but, as we have seen from Augustine, Jerome, and others, that certain things had been conceded to the Bishop from custom, and for the sake of adding to his dignity; it is most likely that amongst them was the exclusive power of ordination. Chrysostom says, * For in ordination only have bishops gone above presbyters.' It is implied that they were not always above, but that at some subsequent time to the apostolic age, in this respect, they went above them. The reader will notice that in 34- 45, five other translations are given from various authors ; but it is probable some of these have followed the old Latin translation rather than the original Greek. That our mere English readers may be quite sure of the meaning of Chrysostom's language, we shall make him his own interpreter on the Grreek word in question, which in New Testament use, and as used by him, signifies to take advantage of anyone, to circumvent for gain, to defraud. In the fol- lowing passages the term in question will be rendered uniformly, and the reader can judge from the context in what sense it is used. On the text Matt. x. 32, Chrysostom states : — * He that doeth right taketh advantage (TrXeoveKTfl) in time, and the delay of the penalty is counted for gain by the sinner : he hath intro- duced an equivalent, or rather a much greater advantage (xXeore^lay), the increase of the recompense. ^^ Hast thou taken advantage 264 WHOSE ABE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. § 257. {eTrXeovEKTrjffac), " saith He, " by having first confessed me here ? I also will take advantage of thee {TrXeorEKrfiau) as) by giving thee greater things, .... for I will confess thee there." ' See 34. 40, where the word occurs. Again, on the words, ^ Lest Satan should get an advantage of us (Jva [jlt) irXsovs/c- ttjOmjllsv virb rod ^aravd, Lest we should be taken advantage ^f ^y Satan),'' 2 Cor. ii. 11 , he remarks, ' Well naming it taking advantage (irXeovs^iav). For he no more takes his own, but violently seizes ours.' Again, on the words, * We have defrauded no man (ovBsva sTrXsovsKrvjaa/jisv, We have taken advantage of no man),'' 2 Cor. vii. 2, he explains, ' We plundered, have plotted against, no man.' Again, on the phrase, * Did I make a gain of you ? . . . Did Titus make a gain of you ? {iirXsopsKTijaa v^xas ; . , . firj 71 sTrXsovsKTijaev vixas Tl-tos ; Did I take advantage of you? . . . Did Titus take advantage of youff 2 Cor. xii. 17, 18, he remarks, ' '^ For tell me," he says, ^' did any of those who were sent by us take advantage of you ? {eiiksovstcTrjcrsv vfxas ;) " He did not say, " Did anyone receive aught from you ? " but he calls the things " taking advantage (TrXsovs^lav),'" attacking them, and blaming them exceedingly, and showing that to receive of an unwilling giver is taking advantage.'' And again, on the words, ' That no man go beyond and defraud his brother (TrXsovsfCTslv . . . TOP ahsX(f>6v, take advantage of his brother),' 1 Thes. iv. 6, he says, ' Therefore, intercourse with another is transgression, and robbery, and taking advantage (nrXsovs^ia), or rather it is more cruel than any robbery. Dost thou call him brother, and takest advantage of him {ttXsoi'sktsls), and that in things which are unlawful?' This passage from Thessalonians contains the identical Grreek words, wdth the exception of a change in a preposition, which Chrysostom affirms of bishops. The language of each in a uniform translation is, * Let no man go beyond and defraud his brother.' ' For in the power of ordination only bishops have gone above, and in that thing only seem to defraud, the pres- byters.' Chrysostom, as we have seen, uses the verb ' to take advantage of ^ in a good sense, and admits that in some cases it is lawful to take advantage. We have not any ground to suppose that he here wishes in any way to reflect on bishops ; Chap. IV. §§ 258, 259. CASES OF TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 265 to use his own language, they might take advantage of, or usurp many things, in taking on themselves the greater share of the labour. (34. 40.) And to guard the apparent harsh- ness of his language, he qualifies it by saying, bishops ' seem to take advantage.' Let it be noted well that Chrysostom says in the simplest and plainest language that bishops have gone above presbyters in the power of ordination. It is plain, then, that in that particular they were not always above them, and that, in consequence of having gone above them, they seem to take the advantage of them. 258. The next point to be considered is that of Timothy and Titus, who certainly acted very much in the character of our present bishops, and did so by Divine appointment ; and if we had any persons coming immediately after them, claiming the same exclusive jurisdiction, and equally extensive as that claimed for them by Chrysostom, the case of episcopal govern- ment of that kind would be most conclusive ; but the records of the first three centuries are absolutely silent in regard to any person claiming, or being represented as having, any such ex- tensive jurisdiction. The nearest approach to it is the case of Cyprian, about the year of our Lord 250, at which time the episcopate had become largely developed ; but even in his case, as has been already shown, he had not the absolute jurisdiction of the Carthaginians, for he could do nothing without the consent of his presbyters, and for the most part of his laity. Over other bishops or presiding presbyters he had no jurisdic- tion. The jurisdiction of Cyprian came immensely short of that claimed for Timothy and Titus. 259. Their cases have been stated by Dean Hook, and supported by the testimony he has adduced from Chrysostom, which shall be here given : — 'When our Saviour established the Christian Church, he made his apostles governors thereof, and vested them with a power to ordain others to the ministry ; and, accoidingly, they ordained the seven deacons, and consecrated St. James bishop of Jerusalem, and he ordained presbyters of that Church. That Timothy, as soon as he was made bishop of Ephesus by the great apostle of the Gentiles, but not before, had this power of ordination is allowed by St. Chrysostom himself, who magnified the power of presbyters more than any of the Fathers ; and he proves it thus, viz. because St. Paul gave Timothy a caution not to admit any- 266 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IV. § 260. one rashly to an ecclesiastical office. It is true he likewise bid him not to despise the gift which was given to him by prophecy, with the laying on of hands of the company of elders ; but, he could not mean by those words an assembly of ordinary presbjters, for as such they could not have conferred any extraordinary commission, especially upon Timothy, because he was, at that very time, a bishop, and ordained by St. Paul himself He had a jurisdiction over all the presbyters of Asia, for he had power given him by that apostle to enquire into their conversation and abilities, and then to admit them into that holy office if he found them qualified, and not otherwise. Titus had the same power through- out that populous island of Crete ; and these things are so plain that they must deny the authority of the Scriptures who deny the power of ordination to be originally in bishops ; and therefore they have in- vented a senseless objection, viz. that, though Timothy and Titus were superior to presbyters, yet their power was but temporary, for they were chosen by the apostles at that time, upon a particular occasion, to preside in the assemblies of presbyters, to moderate the affairs of those Churches, which power was to determine at the expiration of their commission.' — Ordination^ Church Dictionary. It is a mere assumption on the part of the Dean when he affirms that the great apostle made Timothy bishop of Ephesus. Eusebius, the great Church historian, who especially investigated these matters, informs us that the most reliable information is recorded in the New Testament ; but here the evidence to be deduced is not for, but against, Timothy being bishop of Ephesus. Whitby, a most impartial and competent witness, says : — * The great controversy concerning this (Epistle to Titus) and the Epistle to Timothy is whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops, the one of Ephesus and the Proconsular Asia, the other of Crete Now of this matter, I confess, I can find nothing in any writer of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that they bore that name.' — Preface to Titus. 260. We must now more especially consider the testimony of Chrysostom respecting Timothy as referred to by the Dean. Chrysostom represents Timothy as — ' Being entrusted with the public affairs of the world.' ' In whose hands the case of so many churches was placed, and who superintended 'whole cities, and nations ; nay, the world at large.' ' Flew everywhere faster than those who have sound and vigorous constitutions ; now to Ephesus ; now to Corinth ; often to Macedonia and Italy ; appearing everywhere, by land and by sea, with the teacher.' (See 34. 14.) The Dean also says, 'He had a jurisdiction over all the pres- Chap. TV. § 261. TIMOTHY NOT A LOCAL BISHOP. 267 byters of Asia.' Timothy, then, according to the Dean, was the Bishop of Asia. But there were many churches in Asia, and each church, according to primitive antiquity, must have its bishop, or presiding presbyter, who, according to the testimony of Dean Hook, which in this case we accept, both taught and administered the sacraments in the church over which he pre- sided. The Dean says : — ' From the time of the apostles, the office of public teaching in the Church, and of administering the sacraments, was always performed by the bishop, unless in cases of great necessity.' — Presbytery Church Dictionary. It was utterly impossible for Timothy every first day of the week to teach and baptise, and administer the Lord's Supper, throughout all Asia, and the only light in which we can view him is that of an archbishop, in fact, a bishop of bishops, having as much authority over other bishops as these Anglicans believe bishops then had over their fellow-presbyters. But if so, and we see no other conclusion to which we can come, Timothy's commission terminated with himself. In the year 250, when episcopal power had become greatly extended, Cyprian affirmed in council assembled, *no one of us setteth himself up as a bishop of bishops, &c.' (13. 2.) The office of bishop of bishops, however, became a reality in the fourth century, and was dis- tinctly recognised by the Catholic Church. So far is Chrysostom from representing Timothy as being a local bishop of any one place that he describes him as an attendant on the Apostle Paul, whom he calls the ' teacher ; ' and with him, and, as it would seem, under his direction, he was employed in the office of an evangelist, and was here and there and everywhere employed in founding churches, and ordaining presbyters. Titus was also so engaged, as appears from the account of Jerome. (29. 80.) These Anglicans obtain no assistance for their peculiar views from Timothy. 261. If the Dean had literally quoted and explained the passage to which he refers in the writings of Chrysostom, it would not in any respect have served his purpose. This we shall now do. ' With the bishops and deacons ' (Phil. i. 1 ), or, as Chrysostom understood, or rather misunderstood, the Greek, 268 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEES? Chap. IV. § 261. * To the fellow-bishops and deacons.' On this view of the text he remarks : — * Were there several bishops (such as we now call by that name) of one city ? Certainly not ; but he called the presbyters so. For they then still interchanged the titles, and the bishop was called a deacon. For this cause, in writing to Timothy, he said, " Fulfil thy ministry {^laKoriav) " when he was a bishop. For that he was a bishop appears by his saying to him, " Lay hands suddenly on no man," and again, " which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Yet presbyters (such as are now called by that name) would not have laid hands on a bishop. And again, in writing to Titus, he says, "For this cause, I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest ordain elders (pres- byters) in every city, as I had appointed thee ; if any be blameless, the husband of one wife ; " which he says of the bishop. And after saying this, he adds immediately, " For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God, not self-willed." So then, as I said, both the presbyters were of old called bishops and deacons of Christ, and the bishops pres- byters ; and hence even now many bishops wTite, " To my fellow-pres- byter." ' (34.43.) Again he says, on the text : — * " Laying on of the hands of the presbytery." He speaks not here of presbyters (such as we now call by that name) but of bishops. For presbyters cannot be supposed to have ordained a bishop " ' (in our sense of that term). (34. 46.) Again he makes Titus himself alone to be the consecrator of bishops ; if so, the Fathers generally must have been ignorant of the fact, or they would not have been so stringent in having, at least, three employed in the consecration of a bishop. We- generally understand Titus to have ordained a company of presbyters in every city in Crete, and so Jerome understands it. But Chrysostom, again misunderstanding his Greek Testa- ment, or squaring its meaning with the custom of the age in which he lived, states : — * He is speaking of bishops, as we have before said. In every city, he says, for he did not wish the whole island to be entrusted to one but that each should have his own charge and care, for thus he would have less labour himself, and those under his rule would receive greater attention, if the teacher had not to go about to the presiding of many churches, but was left to be occupied with one only, and to bring that into order.' (34. 52.) Again Chrysostom says: — * He (St. Paul) would not have given him (Titus) jurisdiction over so many bishops, &c.' (34- Chap. IV. §§ 262, 263. VICTOE AND GAUDENTIUS. 269 50.) For the present, then, we leave Chrysostom, with the assurance, after the most candid examination of his testimony, that he is no friend of these Anglicans of the nineteenth century, and that their views on the subject under discussion get no support from his voluminous writings. ViCTOB. 262. Some Fathers, as Cyprian, represent Peter only as having a primacy; and others speak of Paul also having a primacy, or being a leader in regard to the other apostles. Victor says, * Peter, and James, and John, as leaders, obtained the primacy among the apostles.' (35.) Grregory Nazianzen also speaks of them as leading apostles. (2^5. 8.) GrAUDENTIUS. 263. The little this bishop has written respecting the subject of our book has, for the most part, been adduced and applied in other chapters. It appears to have been the custom for bishops, who were usually the only preachers, to preach immediately one after another, on the same occasion. (36. 2.) Augustine alludes to the same thing. (33. 82.) Koman Catholics main- tain that Peter can only have one successor at a time, and they claim the pope to be that successor. It is certain Graudentius entertained no such opinion, or he would not have called Aml^rose 'a successor of Peter the Apostle.' (36. 2.) We should make a mistake if, when occasionally the Fathers speak of any of the twelve as having successors, we understood them to mean by successors what these Anglicans mean by the term, namely, successors to the apostleship of the twelve, and having their power and authority. As bishops in the early Church were considered to be primates of presbyters, and as the early Fathers held Peter to be primate of the apostles, so bishops, in a loose way of speaking, were represented as being successors of Peter. This was the opinion of Chrysostom. (34t. 4.) It is certain Graudentius did not consider Peter to have any exclusive authority or power different from the other apostles. From his 270 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS ? Chap. IV. §§ 264-267. own account of St. Peter, he considers him to have been the leader or spokesman of a company, all the members of which were his equals in power and authority. Cyril of Alexandria. 264. We shall only make a few general remarks on the testi- mony of Cyril, as the greater part has been already quoted and applied in other chapters. He represents Peter as being prince and head of the other apostles. (37. 8.) In one place he seems to teach that the Church was built on Peter (37. 1), and in another, that it was built on faith, such as that which was exercised by Peter. (37. 13.) He speaks of those who presided over the churches as coming after the disciples. (37. 2.) But the term he uses to designate these successors is as applicable to presbyters as to bishops. From the manner of his speaking of the apostles (37. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 14), it is plain he never con- ceived of their apostleship being transmitted to others. He finds a correspondence to the Jewish priesthood not in the clergy only, but in all Christians. (37- 9, 10, 12.) Socrates. 265. What is recorded in the Catena Patrum from this Church historian has been applied in other chapters to illustrate or confirm various points under discussion. (38.) Theodoret. 266. This Father is one of the most sober-minded and valu- able commentators of the century in which he lived. We especially commend his testimony to the intelligent and candid reader ; and such a reader may be safely left to his own con- clusions. (39.) 267. Vincent (40.), Sedulius (41.), Sozomen (42.), and EucHERius (43.) are authors who, though not so distinguished as some of their predecessors, yet, as they confirm and illustrate the main opinions of earlier times, and give information of im- Chap. IV. § 268. THE EXALTATION OF PETER. 271 portance to the furtherance of our object in writing this book, their testimony and evidence have been adduced, and will be found in the Catena under the several numbers attached to their names. Leo I. 268. This pope of Eome did more to prepare the way for the supremacy of the Eoman bishop than any other man. The position he assigns to Peter in regard to his fellow-apostles, and the claims he makes on behalf of himself as bishop of the see which, it was believed, Peter founded, were quite new things in the Church. Origen had taught that — * All imitators of Christ derive their name from the Rock, that is, Christ; for as because they are members of Christ, by the name derived from him, they are called Christians, so from his being rock (petra), they are called Peters.' (10. 4.) Ambrose and Augustine speak in the same style. But it should be noticed how much more Leo makes of the text. Keferring to Peter, he states, as in the language of Christ : — * Thou art also a rock, because thou art firm by my virtue, as those things which are proper to my power may be common to thee by participation with me. Divine authority attributed the great and wonderful fellowship of its power to this most beloved man.' (44. 1.) But the following statement surpasses all : — ' But the Lord so wished the sacrament of this gift to belong to the oflfice of all the apostles as to be placed principally in the most blessed Peter, the chief of all the apostles ; that from himself, as from a certain head, to diffuse his gifts in the whole body, that it might be understood that he would be without any share of the Divine mystery who should dare to depart from the firmness of Peter ; for that he had been taken into the fellowship of the undivided unity, he wished him to be named that which he himself was, saying, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." ' (44. 8.) This is blasphemous. Leo, however, does not pretend that he had succeeded to the power and authority of Peter. As these Anglican notions were not then invented, we are not to be sur- prised that Leo manifests no acquaintance with them. By 'the name of Peter,' ' the chair of Peter,' he assumed wondrous things ; and the church history by Evagrius testifies to his 272 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS ? Chap. IV. §§239, 270. enormous power. (52.) But in his day, having made Peter into a Divine person, he rather presumed to be inspired by him than to have inherited by successive ordinations his power and authority. (44- 9.) 269. Here we shall only mention the names of the following Fathers, referring to the Catena where their testimony is given, Arnobids, 45- ; Kemigius, 46. ; Andeeas, 47. ; Paschasius, 48-; FuLGENTius, 49.; Arbthas, 50.; Primacius, 51.; EVAGRIUS, 52. GrILDAS. 270. This British presbyter, like many other early Christian authors, gives a dark account of the clergy. It is to be hoped, however, that none were so bad as the British, and one would desire that they were not half so bad as they are represented to be. (53. 1.) There is one point which we must especially notice, viz., his extreme care not to deprive the clergy of their proper title. In every instance in which he alludes to them it is in the following style : ' Priestly seat of the bishopric or presbytership.' 'The office of the bishopric or presbytership.' * Bishops 'or presbyters.' (53. 2.) The circumstance of his being a presbyter perhaps made him more tenacious in retaining the older titles, though placed second. It is observable through- out our Catena that the presbyters and deacons have borne fuller testimony respecting the equality of bishops and presbyters. When the presbyterate was in the descent, and had lost its power of government in the Church, and the episcopate was in the ascendant, and had the exclusive government in it, unless these presbyters had some claims on the grounds of ancient practice and precedent, it would have been absurd to have started them for the first time in the fifth century. As a general rule the Fathers of the first five centuries, as may be seen in the Catena, do not place the title of saint before the names of the apostles and other sacred characters, as it is customary nowa- days. But this British presbyter places the title before the names of prophets, and thus we have ' St. Amos,' ' St. Micah,' 'St. Haggai,' * St. Habakkuk,' and 'St. Malachi.' (53. 1.) Chap. IV. §1 271-273. CIVIL ABOVE ECCLESIASTICAL POWEB. 273 GrREaORY THE GrREAT. 271. The chief part of the testimony of this Father has already been considered ; we have only one or two points to notice. He teaches that the pastor, in remitting and retaining sins, acts ministerially, and that he contributes no more to the real remission of sin in the accused than the disciples contributed in giving life to Lazarus. But as the disciples loosed Lazarus after the Lord had given him life so the pastor looses the sinner after the Almighty has given him contrition. (54. 18.) 272. This Father recognised the supremacy of the Roman emperor ' over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal.' He distinctly states that * power was given to my lords, over all men,' that Grod had committed his priests into the hand of the emperor. (54:« 20.) He also represents the emperor as having * received the power of ruling, not only over the soldiers, but also over the priests.' (54:. 21.) 273. How this Grregory spoke of a papal or episcopal supre- macy may be seen in 54. 24-28. The eloquence of the Bishop of Oxford could not have used more stirring, striking, stringent, stinging epithets than this eloquent pope in the condemnation of the Bishop of Constantinople, under the wing of the emperor assuming to be universal bishop. It is believed that Grregory spoke under the influence of excessive jealousy and wounded vanity, and that, if the emperor had encouraged him to have as- sumed the title, out of honour to St. Peter, and with due regard to his own exaltation, he would not have refused it. Mauricius the Emperor, on the whole an excellent man, had to make way for an execrable wretch who usurped the dominion, and who, without any provocation, put him to death, but before doing so, for his greater torment and grief, ordered five of his sons to be first in- humanly murdered before his face. To the wife of this wretch, who, according to history, was such a character as to be a suit- able match for her husband, Grregory writes in the most fulsome style, and represents the infamous pair as good Christians, and solicits their patronage for Peter, which in reality meant himself. A portion of the letter is given 54. 29. A very few years after the papal supremacy of the Eoman bishop was complete. 274? WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. IV. §§ 274, 275. Bede, 274. The testimony of Bede has for the most part been antici- pated. His teaching in general is the counterpart of that of Augustine. We have only had access to two volumes of his writings, and these are on the New Testament, from which it may be gathered how little this English presbyter had in com- mon with these Anglicans as to the origin of bishops, and how differently this greatest of ancient English divines interpreted their favourite texts on which they rest so much. (55. 1-12.) Amalarius and Eutichius. 275. The later testimony of Amalarius (56.) and Eutichius (57.) has been added on the ground that the former is a com- mentator upon Jerome, and both confirm his teaching in regard to the Alexandrian bishops, from St. Mark to the time of Hereclas and Dionisius ; Eutichius especially. Amalarius also makes quotations from an author whom he calls Ambrose, singularly contrary to these Anglican theories respecting the succession of bishops. Chap. V. § 1. THE BIDDING PRAYEK. 275 CHAPTEK V. A JUST EXPOSURE OF DEAN HOOK's ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT THE BIDDING PRAYER OF THE 55tH CANON HAS NO RELATION TO THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 1. NoTHiNa can be more certain than that since the Reforma- tion our Church has belonged to, and has been considered a branch of, the Catholic Church, not that system of superstition to which the Romanists belong, and in which these Anglicans rejoice, but to those Churches, Christianly reformed, whose con- fessions have been conjointly published, and have been accepted as the joint faith of the Protestant Reformed Churches. Of these Churches the Scotch Presbyterian was one. And for this Church, in the 55th canon, we are taught to pray as for a part of the Holy Catholic Church. This is a fact as certain as any historical evidence can make it. Dean Hook and others, con- scious of the dilemma in which they would be placed if such a fact were admitted, have wrestled very hard to upset it. We shall here give the part of the canon in question, followed by the Dean's own statements respecting it : — ' The 55th canon of the Convocation of 1603 is as follows : " Before all sermons, lectures, and homilies, the preachers and ministers shall move the people to join with them in prayer, in this form, or to this effect, as briefly as conveniently they may : Ye shall pray for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, that is, for the whole congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world, and especially for the Churches of England, Scotland, and Ireland." .... The special pleading of some Presbyterians and their advocates renders it necessary to observe that the Church of Scotland alluded to is not the present Presbyterian establishment. The assertion made by the adversaries of the Church of England is this, that the 55th canon bids us pray for the Church of Scotland, and must have recognised " that Church under a Presbyterian form as it now is, because none other, at that time, existed." Now we may commence our observations by remarking upon the extreme im- probability of the alleged fact, that those who passed the 55th canon should contemplate in the Bidding Prayer the Presbyterian community of Scotland, and regard it as a sister to the Churches of England and Ireland. The leading members of the Convocation were Andrewes, Overall, and King, eminent men, and of most decided views on Church T 2 27$ WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. V. § 2. government. Can the student of ecclesiastical history refrain from smiling when he is told that a convocation of the English clergy, headed by these divines, who had already given a character to the age in which they lived, intended to place the " Holy Kirk," as the Presbyterians style their denomination, on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland ? The president of the Convocation was Bancroft. Dr. Sumner has taught us how immense are the powers which the president of a Convocation possesses, and how unscrupulously those powers can be used to silence the Convocation, if it be suspected that the majority of the members differ in opinion from the president. Bishop Bancroft was certainly not more likely to be tolerant of opposition than our present primate, and what Bancroft's opinion of Presbyterianism was is stated in a sermon which he published. Of the " Holy Kirk," as the Presbyterians call themselves, Bancroft said that " they perverted the meaning of the Scriptures for the maintenance of false doctrine, heresy, and schism," and he likens that " Holy Kirk " to " the devil's chapel in the churchyard in which Christ hath erected his Church." We con- sider Bancroft's language as unjustifiably violent ; but, such heitig his language, it is monstrous to suppose that he intended to place that Kirk, in his estimation so unholy, on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland, or that he would not have discontinued the convocation, if he had suspected that it would recognise that Kirk as a sister Church.' — Bidding Prayer^ Ch. Die. 2. It is important to notice the peculiar animus manifested in the above extract. The Dean's notions of a bishop, and especially of an archbishop, in which his figment of succession is supposed to run, should have protected the primate of the English Church from being charged with being unscrupulous in using his enormous powers as president of Convocation, and with having unworthy motives, charges which are probably false. These Anglicans, as it has well been said, ^ are for the bishop when the bishop is for them,' not otherwise. ' The assertion made by the adversaries of the Church of England.' Who are these ? The Dean, by quotation and name, refers to Chancellor Harrington and Archdeacon Churton, and at once identifies him- self with a particular controversy, and they who specially made the assertion are the present Bishop of Manchester and Dean Groode. It surely is not correct to call such persons ' adver- saries ' of the Church of England. In the Guardian of Novem- ber 12, 1851, the Bishop of Manchester is reported to have said that — ' The Church of England, in the 55th canon, enjoined the people to pray for the Church of England, Scotland, and Ireland ; although the CiiAP. V. §3. ON THE SCOTTISH CHUKCH. 277 Church was then, as now, Presbyterian, and episcopacy was not yet established.' Archdeacon Churton, in the same paper, on Nov. 19, denied that the Presbyterian Church was referred to in the canon. Subsequently Mr., now Dean, Groode vindicated the statement of the bishop ; after this, Chancellor Harrington published a pamphlet with the intent to prove that the canon did not refer to the Presbyterian Church. The Dean's article on the Bidding Prayer is a standing perpetuation of the controversy, and again and again, to our knowledge, has been quoted publicly in defence of what is not true. It should be noticed how carefully ttie Dean avoids calling the congregation of our Scotch brethren- a church. He affects to believe that they are not a church. He calls them a ' Presbyterian establishment,' ^ a Presbyterian community,' ' a sect,' ' The " Holy Kirk," as the Presbyterians styled their denomination.' And why should not they so style themselves, and why should not Dean Hook so style them? especially as the ' supreme governor in these realms, over all persons, in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as temporal ' (55th canon), so acknowledges them, and worships with them, when she visits Scotland. Our Scotch brethren believe themselves to form a part of the Holy Catholic Church, and undoubtedly have been so acknowledged by our own Church and the laws of this realm, and, in the usual style of ecclesiastical language, they call themselves a Holy Kirk or Church. 3. ^Ye come now more especially to examine what Dean Hook ascribes to Bancroft He states that Bancroft said, ' The Holy Kirk " perverted the meaning of the Scriptures for the maintenance of false doctrine, heresy, and schism."' If the reader will refer to 80. 3, he will see the extract in question, and, taken in connection with the context, will find no allusion to the Church of Scotland. Those whom Bancroft charges with perverting the meaning of the Scriptures for the maintenance of false doctrine, heresy, and schism, were ministers of our own Church, such as the authors of the First Admonition, Field, Wilcox, and others, who were imprisoned in Newgate for their joint production. The authors of the Second Admonition, Dr. Thomas Cartwright, Martin Mar Prelate, Miles Monopodios, or 278 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. V. § 3. G-ilby, and others of the like character, these were the persons, as the references in the margin of the sermon show, to whom Bancroft referred ; and even these he will not venture to call false prophets, as he did the papists. ' The name of false prophets,' he says, * I am content in divers respects to suppress.' The preface to his sermon shows that his remarks on heresy and schism were directed to some members of our own Church. He says : — ' Schismatics are such as, retaining with us the true faith, do separate themselves from us, for orders and ceremonies.' This, of course, could have no application to the Scottish Church, which was then, as now, an independent church like our own. But Bancroft gives us one instance, and one only, in which he considers 'the meaning of the Scriptures to be per- verted for the maintenance and defence of false doctrine, schism, and heresy ; ' which he thus states : — * There are very many nowadays who do affirm that, when Christ used these words, " Die ecclesice " (tell it to the Church), he meant thereby to establish in the Church, for ever, the same plat and form of ecclesiastical government, to be erected in every parish, &c. They had (say these men) in their synagogues {2'he Certain Form of Church Government) their priests, we must have in every parish our pastors, &c.' (80. 4, 5.) Bancroft gives us an authority for this new doctrine, a book, called The Certain Form of Church Government, the joint pro- duction of Travers and Cartwright, neither of whom was a member of the Scottish Church. But in the mind of Bancroft it is plain he did not consider the Scottish Church to hold this doctrine of Cartwright and his followers, for in a book which he published a few years after the sermon from which Dean Hook makes his extracts, he states : — ' Master Cartwright and all his English followers (that I have read) do affirm it most confidently ; that by the commandment of God, by the institution of Christ; by the rules of God's word; and by the practice and commandment of the apostles, " There ought of necessity to be an eldership in every parish : " "in every congregation : " "church by church : " " in every particular congregation, &c." ' (80. 15.) This doctrine Bancroft shows to be contrary both to the Scottish and Genevan Churches. He says : — Chap. V. § 4. BANCEOFT MISEEPEESENTED. 279 * The reforming ministers of Scotland do account their platform, no-w- in practice there, to be agreeable to the word of God, as M. Cartwright's; and yet (as the chronicles do report) they have but fifty -two elderships in Scotland ; and those places in their chiefest cities and great towns. Unto every of which eldership (as I am informed) twenty-four particular churches or parishes (for the most part) do appertain : none of them having any such particular eldership of their own, but are controlled, and censured, by those in the said cities and towns, &c. Lastly, as hitherto you have found M. Cartwright, with his Mends, opposite in this matter unto Geneva and Scotland, &c.' (80. 16.) It is, then, simply and absolutely untrue that Bancroft charges the Church of Scotland with maintaining false doctrine, heresy, or schism. Nay, it is plain that, if any member of the Scottish Church had held and openly maintained such a doctrine as of Divine authority, and necessary for a Christian Church, he must have been a promoter of heresy and schism in the Scottish Church. 4. Dean Hook goes on to say : — ' And he (Bancroft) likens that " Ploly Kirk " to " the devil's chapel in the churchyard in which Christ hath erected his Church." ' There is not a particle of proof that Bancroft affirms this of the Kirk of Scotland. How could he ? If that Kirk was the devil's chapel in the churchyard of the Church, the question is, of what Church ? Not the Church of Rome, for at this time, according to Bean Hook, it was defunct. He says : — ' At the period of our Reformation it (the ancient Church) was annihilated ; it was entirely subverted ; not a vestige of the ancient Christian Church of that kingdom remained .... In 1610, King James the First attempted to re-introduce the Catholic Church into Scotland.' — Church in Scotland^ Ch. Die. p. 167, ed. 1842. The Dean, in applying what Bancroft affirmed only of certain members of the Church of England to the whole of the Church of Scotland, is making him state an absurdity. The Dean, how- ever, in a subsequent edition of his Dictionai'y, represents episcopacy as being set up before 1610, for he gives with approval the following statement: — * Henceforward, therefore, and indeed from the assembly at Perth (1597), the Church of Scotland must be regarded as Episcopalian.' According to this statement, then, after the Romish Church had ceased, it is not 280 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. V. § i, pretended that any other episcopal church was set up until 1597. According to the Dean's own showing, not only in his Dictionary oi 1842, but in a subsequent edition, when Bancroft, in the year 1588, preached his sermon, from which, the quotation is made, there was no Church in Scotland ; it ^ was annihilated, was entirely subverted : not a vestige of the ancient Christian Church of that kingdom remained.' In the year 1588 there was no Church, according to the statement of Dean Hook, in Scotland. Will he inform us in what churchyard Bancroft considered the devil's chapel — that is, the Church of Scotland — to be ? According to the Dean's own evidence, there was no ' churchyard' in Scotland in which to place it. And if even any vestige of the Eomish Church did remain, it is plain from Bancroft's sermon that that system of superstition^ in his esti- mation, was no church at all ; for he plainly represents papists as false prophets, a term he suppressed in reference to some of the extreme Puritans, against whom his sermon is for the most part directed. (See 80. 1,2, 11, 13.) And in the same sermon, in a passage quoted by Dean Hook, we are led to infer that Eomanism is a system of falsehood, is antichrist, and is of the devil. (80. 13.) The church which Bancroft regarded as a Church of Christ was undoubtedly the Church as constituted in this country. But for him to liken the ' Holy Kirk ' of Scotland to the devil's chapel in the churchyard of the Church of England is making him talk intolerable nonsense and absurdity. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland was at that time as much the Kirk of Scotland as our Church was the Church of this realm, and was so recognised by Bancroft himself. The simple truth is this, there were some parties in the Church, to whom we have just alluded, who laboured hard to alter our Church, as then constituted, and in effect to erect another. And it is to these, as the references in the margin of his sermon show, that he refers, and not to the 'Holy Kirk of Scotland.' Of these Bancroft says: — * They have had their subscriptions, their synods of divers sorts, classical, provincial, and general. In those synods they have practised censures, made laws of their own, and disallowed some of those which the state of this realm hath made. Unto these and such like, their private conventicles, they have appropriated the name of the Church ; Chap. V. § 5. OPPOSITION OF CEETAIN PUEITANS. 281 and having separated themselves, in a sort, from all those Christians that favour not their mistress, they have become joined into a new brotherhood.' — Bancrofts Survey of the Pretended Discipline, ^c. p. 57. Again he says in the same book : — *■ In the year 1572, the first admonition was offered to the Parliament, as containing a perfect platform of the worthy pretended discipline, to have been established within this realm.' — P. 65. Writing of the same persons, he states : — * There are two especial points, for the which we dislike them, their departing from our Church, and the framing to themselves of a Church of their own, &c.' (See 80. 28.) The phrase or proverb, * Devil's chapel, &c.,' did not originate with Bancroft ; he, in the margin of his sermon, refers it to Luther. Becon, chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, had before used it, and especially applied it to the papists in their at- tempts to erect another church in this kingdom. (See 68« 3,4.) The Dean most systematically endeavours to unchurch the Kirk of Scotland, but affects to cry out against this language of Bancroft, and says, ' We consider Bancroft's language as unjus- tifiably violent.' But this cry was not required, for it is certain Bancroft made no such assertion respecting the Scottish Church. 5. Vf e have one other quotation from this celebrated sermon, in which the Dean misapplies the language of Bancroft : — ' How the members of this " Holy Kirk " spoke of the Prayer Book, we learn from the president of the Convocation himself. Their language was, " That it (the Prayer Book) is full of corruption, confusion, and profanation ; that it contains, at least, five-hundred errors ; that the orders therein described are carnal, beggarly, dung, dross, lousy, and antichristian." They say, " we eat not the Lord's Supper, but play a pageant of our own, to make the poor silly souls believe they have an English mass ; and so put no difference betwixt truth and falsehood, betwixt Christ and antichrist, betwixt God and the devil." See Bancroft's Sermon, p. 284.' If the reader will refer to 80. 13, he will see that the authorities to which Bancroft refers for his statement were not, as the Dean affirms, ^ members of this " Holy Kirk," ' but the authors of the First Admonition^ and Miles (Monopodios), or 282 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. V. § 5. Grilby, as Bancroft elsewhere calls him, to whom he refers in the margin. Of this First Admonition, Neal, in his history, gives the following account : — * The Puritans, finding it in vain to hope for a reformation from the Queen or bishops, resolved, for the future, to apply to Parliament, and stand by the constitution ; for this purpose they made interest among the members, and compiled a treatise, setting forth their chief grievances in one view. It was drawn up by the Rev. Mr. Field, minister of Aldermary, London, assisted by Mr. Wilcox, and was revised by several of the brethren. It was entitled an Admonition to the Parliament^ ^c.'— Vol. i. pp. 284, 285. Bancroft gives this account of the book : — * To this purpose, certain persons assembled themselves privately together in London (as I have been informed) : namely, Gilby, Sampson, Lever, Field, Wilcox, and I wot not who besides. And then it was agreed upon (as it seemeth) that an admonition (which the now L. Archbishop of Canterbury did afterwards confute) should be compiled, and offered unto the Parliament approaching, anno 1572.' — Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline, ^c. pp. 54, 55. The other author to whom Bancroft refers, under the assumed name of * Miles,' was not a member of the Church of Scotland, but, like the authors of the first admonition, a member of our own Church. From the manner in which Bancroft refers to his authorities in the margin, it cannot be ascertained which part of the outrageous language which the Dean ascribes to members of the Scottish Church was uttered by the authors of the First Admonition^ and which part by Miles. But Bancroft, a few years afterwards, again quoted from these precious documents, as may be seen in 80. 29. Miles, or Grilby, as he is there called, is the author of the latter part of the extract, which the Dean ascribes to members of the Scottish Church : — * That we eat not the Lord^s Supper, but play a pageant of our own, to make the silly souls believe they have an English mass ; and that so we make no difference betwixt truth and falsehood, betwixt Christ and antichrist, betwixt God and the devil. — Gilhy, p. 2.* Eogers, in his book, entitled The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England^ which he shows to be in exact accordance with 'all the neighbour churches, Christianly reformed,' and Chap. V. § 6. ACCOUNT OF CEKTAIN PUEITANS. 285' which he dedicates to Bancroft, gives us an additional point of Gilby's faith, under his assumed name : — * Miles Monopodios numbereth parsons and vicars among the hundred points of popery yet remaining in our Church.' — On the 36th Article, p. 331. The question is, was this Grilby a member of the Scottish Church ? If he were, the Dean should be pardoned for stating — ' How the members of this " Holy Kirk " spoke of the Prayer Book, we learn from the president of the Convocation himself. Their language was, " We eat not the Lord's Supper, but play a pageant of our own, to make the silly souls believe they have an English mass ; and that so we put no difference betwixt Christ and antichrist, betwixt God and the devil," ' But Grilby was no member of the ' Holy Kirk ' of Scotland, he was a member of the Church of England. Grrindal, Arch- bishop of York, writing to Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, thus refers to Gilby : — * But, as for Mr. Gilby, I cannot deal with him ; for he dwelleth at Leicester, out of this province, and much nearer to London than to York.' — Remains of Ahp. Grindal, p. 327. To this, Strype adds the following note : — * Many of these were ministers who enjoyed benefices and places of profit in the Church, and yet lived not in obedience to the rules and injunctions of it. The men of this rank of the most fame were Good- man, Lever, Sampson, Walker, Wyburne, Goff", Whittingham, Gilby. These the said commissioners thought fit to convent before them, and to press their duty upon them ; and if they persisted in their refusal of it, to deprive them. Some part of this work would lie upon the Archbishop of York : for Lever, Whittingham (Dean of Durham), and Gilby, being of the North, and so of his province, were thought to fall under his cognisance. These two last had been exiles at Geneva in the days of Queen Mary.' — Strype, Grind, p. 252. Bancroft, as we have seen, mentions three of these, namely, Lever, Sampson, and Gilby, as authors oi the First Admonition to Parliament, 6. On the strength of these three unaccountable misappli- cations of what Bancroft affirmed concerning a few members of the Church of England to the Church of Scotland, the Dean remarks : — t 284 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. V. §§ 7, 8. ' It is monstrous to suppose that Bancroft intended to place that Kirk, in his estimation so unholy, on the same footing as the Churches of England and Ireland, or that he would not have discontinued the Convo- cation if he had suspected that it would recognise that Kirk as a sister Church.' Is it not ^ monstrous ' rather that a dignitary of our Church should publish, year after year, what reflects so seriously on a Christian Church, and on a National Church second only to our own in the history of the Church of Christ, and all without a vestige of foundation I 7. It is true, Bancroft did not like the Church of Scotland ; this is seen in the sermon in question, to which some of the members of the Scotch Church took exception. They did not, however, regard those parts of the sermon which the Dean has quoted as in any respect referring to themselves. It is certain that Bancroft had nothing in common with these Anglicans of the nineteenth century, as is plain from his sermon. He speaks of all the Eeformed Churches of Europe, the Church of Scotland not excepted, as clapping their hands at the Eeformation of the English Church. He speaks of the confession drawn up by Bishop Jewel as having obtained principal commendation among all the Churches, the Church of Scotland not excepted. The only exception he makes is that of the papists. He speaks with great commendation of Bucer and Peter Martyr, whom these Anglicans greatly dislike. But the reader must consult 80. 11-13, 17, for fuller information. 8. This sermon of Bancroft's was preached in the year 1588 ; but we have access to his opinions nineteen years after this date, and some years after the canon was framed in which we are enjoined to pray for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. In the year 1607, his chaplain dedicated to him an exposition of the thirty-uine articles, ' proved to be agreeable both to the written Word of Grod and to the extant confessions of all neighbour churches, Christianly reformed.' He speaks with intense interest of the laudable attempt of Archbishop Cranmer to obtain a conjoint confession from all the Eeformed Churches. In reference to which he says : — * But this proved a work of much difficulty, if not altogether impos- Ohap. V. § 9. CONFESSION OF THE SCOTTISH CHUECH. 285 sible in men's eyes, especially in those days, to be brought about ; the next course and resolution was that every kingdom and free state, or principality, which had abandoned the superstitious and antichristian religion of the Church of Rome, and embraced the Gospel of Christ, should divulge a brief of that religion, which among themselves was taught and believed, and whereby, through the mercy of God in Christ, they did hope to be saved : which to God his great glory and the singular benefit and comfort of all Churches, both present and to come (as the extant harmony of all their confessions doth most sweetly record), with no great labour, was notably performed.' (82. 4.) The confession of the Church of Scotland formed one of this harmony. In the history of these confessions^ that of Scotland is thus described : — ' XII. The confession of Scotland was first exhibited to, and allowed by, the three estates in Parliament, at Edinburgh, in the year 1560; again ratified at the same place, and on the same authority, in 1567; and finally subscribed by the King's Majesty, and his household, at Holyrood House, the 28th day of January, 1581.' — The Harmony of the Protestant Confessions^ ^c. Rev. P. Hall. Intro, p. xxxix. In the year 1607, some years after the canon in question was framed, we find a most distinct and public recognition of the whole system of the Church of Scotland. Eogers would not have written what would have been uncongenial to the feelings and sentiments of Bancroft, to whom he was chaplain, especially in his dedication. And that Bancroft approved of the book and its dedication is certain from the fact that he commanded it to be disseminated in his province. Again Eogers said : — * The doctrine in this land allowed, and publicly graced and em- braced of all sorts at his entrance into the realm, hath been not only acknowledged to be agreeable to God's word, sincere, and the very same which both his highness and the whole Church and Kingdom of Scotland, yea, and the primitive Church, professed.' (82. 18, 19.) 9. There were discontented spirits both in our own Church and in that of Scotland, but surely neither Church is to be judged of by a small fraction of each. Eogers alludes to these discontented person in our own Church, and facetiously describes them, while at the same time he maintains, according to their own statements, that in all main things they agreed with the Church of England. (See 82. 8, 11-14.) The reader will do well to consult the whole of that part of 82. from sect. 1 to 22, WHOSE ABE THE FATHEES? Chap. V. §§ 10, 11. the entire spirit of which is as much opposed as possible to the well-known sentiments of these Anglicans. It is true that Bancroft in this sermon uttered sentiments respecting the origin of the bishop in the Christian Church that were in advance of any which had been publicly maintained since our Church had been reformed, and sentiments, perhaps, which were nearer the truth, but were received as new in our Church, and were strenu- ously opposed by that very learned man, Dr. Eaynolds. (See 81.) 10. Bancroft, in the year 1610, most distinctly acknowledged the ministers of the Church of Scotland to be lawfully and Scripturally ordained. Three presbyters of the Church of Scot- land came to this country to be consecrated bishops. Spotiswood, one of the three, gives the following account of the trans- action : — ' A question in the meantime was moved by Dr. Andrewes, Bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish bishops, who, as he said, " must first be ordained presbyters, as having received no ordination from a bishop." The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained, " That thereof there was no necessity, seeing, where bishops could not be had, the ordination given by the presbyters must be esteemed lawful ; otherwise, that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches." This applauded to by the other bishops, Ely acquiesced, and at the day, and in the place appointed, the three Scottish bishops were consecrated.'— Spotiswood^ bk. vii. p. 514. Several years after this, and when many of our bishops and clergy had become influenced by the heresy of Laud, and, to use the language of Dean Hook, ' the Catholic Church became extinct in Scotland,' ' four Scottish divines were again conse- crated in London in 1661.' But in this case these Scottish presbyters were ordained deacons, and then re-ordained presby- ters, before they were consecrated bishops. 11. The a priori reasoning of Dean Hook — for such he calls it, founded as it is in delusion — gives no proof that Bancroft, as the president of Convocation, was against praying for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that his powers were as immense as those which the Dean ascribes to Archbishop Sumner, and that he was disposed to use those powers as unscrupulously as he says the late Arch- Chap. V. § 12. THE PLIANCY OF BANCROFT. 287 bishop was, Bancroft, no doubt, would be guided, for the most part, in his acts and expressions of opinion regarding the Scotch Church by King James I., by whom he was about to be promoted to the Archiepiscopal See of Canterbury. Bancroft had a pliant and easy way of accommodating his conscience and his opinions to that profane man. Perhaps there is some excuse for him, for he appears, with some others, to have regarded swearing James as the very Solomon of his age. We are told by Bishop Short, in his Church History^ that — ' His majesty was particularly eloquent in favour of oaths ex officio^ and made a long speech to prove their utility and necessity. This topic so pleased the episcopal party that the Archbishop (Bancroft) de- clared that the King spoke by the especial assistance of God's Spirit ; a Hne of comphment too well received by James himself, and unfortu- nately repeated by most of the courtiers who were present.' — Short'' s History of the Church of England, sect. 509. 12. Now, Dean Hook has made the attempt to prove that King James could not possibly have given his consent to Convo- cation to pray for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and if King James was opposed to it, we freely admit that Bancroft might have been so too ; but we also maintain that, if the King were not opposed, neither was Bancroft likely to be. We now proceed to give the Dean's second part of a priori reasoning, founded on the recorded sentiment of King James, several years after the canon became the law of the Church. He says : — * The King, who gave his consent to the canons, and who, in giving his consent, acted not, as a sovereign in these days, on the advice of his ministers, but on his own authority, was James I., and King James's opinion on Presbyterianism was sufficiently decided, and by this time well known. " That bishops ought to be in the Church, I have ever main- tained as an apostolic institution, and so the ordinance of God ; contrary to the Puritans, and likewise to Bellarmine, who denies that bishops have their jurisdiction immediately from God. (But it is no wonder he takes the Puritans' side, since Jesuits are nothing but Puritan Papists.) And as I ever maintained the state of bishops, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy for order's sake, so was I ever an enemy to the confused anarchy or parity of the Puritans, as well appeareth in my Basilicon Doron. Heaven is governed by order, and aU the good angels there ; nay, heU itself could not subsist without some order, and the very devils are divided into legions, and have their chieftains ; how can any society then upon earth exist without order and degrees ? and therefore 28a WHOSE ABE THE FATHERS? Chap. V. § 13. I cannot enough wonder with what brazen face this Answerer could say that I was a Puritan in Scotland and an enemy to Frostestants. I that was persecuted by Puritans there, not from my birth only, but ever since four months before my birth ? I that, in the year of God 1584, erected bishops, and depressed all their popular parity, I then being not eighteen years of age ? I that, in my said book to my son, do speak ten times more bitterly of them nor of the papists ; having, in my second edition thereof, affixed a long apologetic preface, only in odium Puritanorum ? I that, for the space of six years before my coming into England, laboured nothing, so much as to depress their parity, and re- erect bishops again ? Nay, if the daily commentaries of my life and actions in Scotland were -svritten (as Julius Caesar's were), there would scarcely a month pass in all my life, since my entering into the thirteenth year of my age, wherein some accident or other Avould not convince the cardinal of a lie in this point. And surely I give a fair commendation to the Puritans in that place of my book where I affirm that I have found greater honesty with the Highland and border thieves than with that sort of people." — Premonition to the Apology for the Oath of Alle- giance^ p. 44. Now is it credible that a monarch, despotic in his dis- position, and peculiarly despotic in what related to the Church, in an age when the supremacy was asserted, and exercised with as much of inconsiderate tyranny as the most determined liberal of the present age could wish or recommend, — is it credible that a despotic sovereign, holding these opinions, would give his sanction to a canon which would raise the system he dreaded and abhorred to a parity with the Church of England and Ireland ? Certainly the advocates of Presbyterianism must be prepared to believe things very incredible to men of reasoning minds if they can believe this to be probable.' — Bidding Prayer^ Ch, Diet. 13. The Premonition to the Apology, from which the Dean has given the King's sentiments on Puritans, is quite out of court, it being written and published some years after the canon in question was framed. Grunpowder-plot, as it is called, did not occur until the year 1605, which was the occasion of the oath of allegiance. Cardinal Bellarmine, under the feigned name of Tortus, wrote against the oath, and this occasioned the apology of King James. The premonition to this, then, is of too late a date, unless King James was always of the same mind in Church discipline and religious doctrine, but his changeableness in these points is too notorious to be disputed. In the Greneral Assembly at Edinburgh, 1590, when standing, bonnet off, and his hands lifted up to heaven — * He praised God that he was born in such a time, as in the time of the hght of the Gospel ; to such a place, as to be king of such a Kirk, CiL^p. V. § 14. KING JAMES ON THE CHUKCH. 289 the sincerest kirk of the world. " The Kirk of Geneva, " said he, '' kept Pasch and Yule, what have they for tliera ? They have no institution. As for our neighbour kirk in England, their service is an evil said mass in English, they want nothing of the mass but the liftings. I charge you, my good people, ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen, and barons, to stand to your piurity, and to exhort the people to do the same, and I forsooth, so long as I brook my life and crown, shall maintain the same against all deadly, &c." There was nothing heard for a quarter of an hour but praising God, and praying for the King.' — Calderwood's History of the Church of Scotland^ pp. 256, 257. Again, in his speech in Parliament, 1598 — ' He declared what great care he had to adorn and commodate the Kirk, to remove all controversies, to establish the discipline, and to re- store the patrimony. To effectuate this, he said, it was needful that ministers should have vote in Parliament, without Avhich the Kirk could not be vindicated from poverty and contempt. " I mind not," said he, " to bring in papistical or Anglican bishops, but only to have the best and wisest of the ministry appointed by the General Assembly to have place, in council, and Parliament.' — Ihid. p. 418. Upon his leaving Scotland, in the year 16-03, to take posses- sion of the crown of England, he gave public thanks to Grod in the Kirk of Edinburgh : — . ' That he had settled both Kirk and Kingdom, and left them in that estate which he intended not to hurt, or alter any ways, his subjects living in peace.' — Ihid. p. 473. 14. The question is, when did the King change his views respecting this Presbyterian Church ? We have all the evidence we could reasonably expect, and that from the King himself, that he had nat changed his views at the time the canon was framed, nor two years after. It is true the King, in the extract which the Dean has given from the premonition, refers to his Basilicon Doron respecting his sentiments regarding the Puri- tans, and if, in the mind of the King, Puritans and Presbyterians were one and the same, the extract would have in some measure served the Dean's purpose for which he quoted it. Now, had the Dean read the preface, a most important part of a book, he would have seen that no amount of railing against the Puri- tans would prove that he then railed against the Presbyterians, In a later edition of his Basilicon Dovon, or His Majesty^s u 290 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. V. § 15. Instruction to his dearest Sonne Henry the Prince, in a pre- fatory address ' to the reader,' he states :— * First, then, as to the name of Puritans. I am not ignorant that the style thereof doth partly belong only to that vile sect amongst the ana- baptists called The Family of Love : because they think themselves only pure, and in a manner without sin, the only true Church, and only worthy to be participant of the sacraments, and all the rest of the world to be an abomination in the sight of God. Of this special sect I princi- pally mean, when I speak of Puritans, divers of them, as Browne, Penry, and others, having at sundry times come into Scotland to sow their popple amongst us. But, on the other part, I protest upon mine honour, I mean it (the name Puritan) not generally of all preachers, or others that like better of the single Form of Policy in our Church (the Church of Scotland) than of the many ceremonies that are in the Church of England — that are persuaded that their bishops smell of a papal supremacy — that the surplice, the cornered cap, and such like, are the outward badges of popish errors. No, I am so far from being con- tentious in these things (which, for my own part, I ever esteemed as indifferent), as I do equally love and honour the learned and grave men of either of these opinions.' — The Works of King James, pp. 143, 144. 15. Dean Hook says, ' King James's opinion on Presbyterian- ism was sufficiently decided, and by this time (1603) well known.' In proof of this, the Dean gives no evidence of a sufficiently early date, excepting the King's reference to his Basilicon Boron, to which, in his premonition, the King alludes, and affirms that he has found greater honesty in border thieves than with Puritans. But we will give the passage to which the King alludes : — * Take heede therefore (my Sonne) to such Puritanes, verie pestes in the Church and common-weale, whom no desert can oblige, neither oathes or promises binde, breathing nothing but sedition and calumnies, aspiring without measure, railing without reason, and making their owne imaginations (without any warrant of the word) the square of their conscience. I protest before the Great God, and since I am here as upon my testament, it is no place for me to lie in, that ye shall never finde with any Hie-land or Border theeves greater ingratitude, and more lies and vile perjuries, than with these phanaticke spirits.' — Basilicon Doron^ book ii. pp. 160, 161. The Dean must have been sadly wanting in information on the subject on which he was writing, and, to make the matter worse, most reckless in making use of the partial information he had. If King James were bad enough, he was not bold enough to represent the members of the legally established Church of Chap. V. §§ 16, 17. DECLAEATION OF KING JAMES. 291 the country in which he lived and reigned, and the Church to which he belonged, as worse than thieves. It is certain, from his own statement, that the affirmation was not made respecting Presbyterians at all, but a certain class of English Puritans, two of whom he mentions by name ; and the fact that he refers to Highland and Border thieves significantly indicates that he alluded to persons that were not Scottish, that in his estimation Scottish thieves were better than certain English Puritans. 16. But we advance a step further ; the Dean dates the canon in question 1603. In the year 1605, we have an important declaration made by the King himself. We are told by Arch- bishop Spotiswood, in his History of the Church of Scotland, that King James had put off a meeting of the Greneral Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and — * These proceedings of the council were openly condemned by divers preachers ; and, to make them more odious, it was everywhere given out that the suppressing of assemblies and present discipline, with the introduction of the rites of England, were the matters intended to be established : whereupon the declaration following was by His Majesty's command published : — * " Whereas we have ever since it pleased God to establish us in the imperial croAvn of Great Britain equally regarded the good of both kingdoms, now happily united in our royal person in one monarchy, ever minding to maintain and continue the good and laudable customs and laws whereby each of them hath been these many ages so worthily governed : nevertheless, some malicious spirits, enemies to common tranquiUity, have laboured to possess the minds of our well affected subjects with an opinion that we do presently intend a change of the authorised discipline of the Church, and by a sudden and unseasonable laying on of the rites, ceremonies, and whole ecclesiastical order es- tablished in this part of our kingdom of Britain, to overturn the former government received in these parts; which none of our good subjects, we trust, will be so credulous to believe.". . . " Like as for the more verification of our own honourable intention, and to stop the mouths of those unquiet spirits, raisers of that false scandal of alteration, &c." . . . "Given at our honour of Hampton -court, the 26th of September, 1605, and in the third year of our reign of Great Britain, France, and Ireland." ' — Spotiswood^s Church History, book vii. pp. 487, 488. 17. Much more evidence might be adduced, but obviously enough has been brought forward to show that, so far from King James representing the Presbyterians of his own kingdom, in the year 1603, as being worse than Highland or border thieves, U 2 292 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. V. § 18. about that time, or a little before, as we have seen, he declared on his honour that he loved them, and two years after, he represents those persons as ' raisers of false scandal,' who had given it out that he intended to change the Presbyterian disci- pline of the Church of Scotland. The Dean, then, has signally failed to prove that, at the time the canon was framed, the King repudiated the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. 18. The Dean advances from what he calls a 'priori reasoning to what he designates history. He says: — ' But if we refer to history, what we find to be thus improbable is proved to be impossible. " The Church, under a Presbyterian form, as it now is," did not at that time exist as a recognised body, or an esta- blishment.' And here he adduces what he calls historical proofs, which are not worth quoting. Nothing could be more to the point than the King's own state declaration, two years after the canon in question was framed, as recorded by Archbishop Spotiswood. From that document, as we have already seen, we learn, with absolute certainty, what the Church of Scotland then was, and what it was not, in the judgment of James and Archbishop Spotiswood, two competent, and in this case most impartial, witnesses. ' It was everywhere given out,' says the Archbishop, 'that the suppression of assemblies and present discipline, with the introduction of the rites of England, were the matters intended to be established.^ In the mind, then, of the Arch- bishop, in the year 1605, the assemblies and present discipline of the Presbyterian Church existed, and the rites of the Church of England did not exist, in the Church of Scotland, but ' some malicious spirits ' had given it out that the suppression of the present Presbyterian discipline, with the introduction of the English rites in its place, were matters intended to be esta- blished, and King James commanded his declaration to be published ' to stop the mouths of these unquiet spirits, raisers of that false scandal of alteration.' If we admit that the King lied about his intentions (though the Archbishop believes he spoke the truth, for he says, * copies of this declaration were sent to the ministers remaining in ward, that they might see the vanity of these rumours'), we must receive his admissions Chap. V. § 19. THE SCOTTISH CHUECH, PEESBYTERIAN. 293 respecting the Scottish Church as still having its Presbyterian discipline, and as yet without the polity of the Church of Eng- land. If the Church of Scotland was then, or two years before, what Dean Hook and his unfortunate instructors would faia persuade us it was, perhaps all, or any one of them, will account for the statements and admissions in the official declaration of the King ? 1 9. The Dean, to show how our Church dealt with the Presby- terians of Scotland, quotes the 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th canons, and then, as if his common sense for the moment had left him on some roving commission, he declares : — ' We can conceive nothing in the records of absurdity more absurd than the idea that the very parties by whom Presbyterians were ex- communicated should be the parties to speak of their denomination as a sister church. At the time when the 55th canon was enacted, the two kingdoms had been united, and the king of the two kingdoms had expressed his determination to unite the two Churches ; he had already taken measures to eifect his purpose, and in a few years he succeeded in his object. The Convocation, acting under his commands, excom- municated the Presbyterians, whom he hated, and held out the hand of fellowship to the Church which he was rearing amidst the ecclesi- astical anarchy of Scotland. " True," says a learned writer, " the bishops were not consecrated till a few years later, but when the law of the land had recognised their estate, and the men were known and appointed, it appears to me a verbal shuffle, and something more (un- intentional, of course), to say, 'the Church of Scotland was then, as now, Presbyterian.' " ' The reader will notice the statement of the Dean, ' the two kingdoms had been united.' This is incorrect ; each kingdom, at that time, had its separate and independent laws, both civil and ecclesiastical, as also separate houses of parliament, and separate and distinct estates of the realm. The Dean says, ' the King of the two kingdoms had expressed his determination to unite the two Churches.' The Dean does not say when, nor where, he had expressed such a determination ; on or before the year 1603. If the Dean means by this union that the King intended to have one and the same kind of government in each Church, the King, in the state declaration made two years after the canon was framed, as we have seen, affirms the contrary, and speaks in terms of extreme disapprobation of those who had given it out that he contemplated a change of the Presbyterian WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. V. § 20. Church which then existed, into one in discipline and rites like the Church of England. The Dean says, ' The Convocation, acting under his (King James's) commands, excommunicated the Presbyterians.' He regards the canons, which manifestly were intended to be only applicable to subjects of this realm, as applying to the separate and independent Church of Scotland, and in effect to all the sister reformed Churches, who for the most part had not episcopal government, and in most cases at that time preferred being without it. If, by the canons, which the Dean quotes, the Convocation excommunicated the Presby- terian Church of Scotland, they equally excommunicated the Eoman Catholics throughout the world. The 8th canon is unquestionably levelled at the Eoman Catholics, who most emphatically deny that either bishops, priests, or deacons are lawfully made, and they maintain that they require some other calling to those offices. When Archdeacon Wilberforce, the brother of the Bishop of Oxford, went to Eome, his orders were repudiated. The Dean shall have the benefit of his own state- ment as given in his own words. We can conceive nothing in the records of absurdity more absurd than the idea that the very parties by whom Eomanists were excommunicated should be the parties to speak of them as being of the Holy Catholic Church. Perhaps these Anglo-catholics will be rather tender of the Eomish communion, and affirm that the canons could have no reference to those Eoman Catholics who did not live in England. Be it so. No more have the canons reference to Presbyterians not living in England. In fact the canons are altogether irrelevant to the purpose for which the Dean has quoted them. 20. The Dean then quotes, with approval, that the law of the land had recognised the estate of bishops. Now, this can only tend to deceive the reader not acquainted with the history of the case. For the men which formed this so-called estate of bishops differed nothing whatever from their brethren the presbyters, except only that they had a vote in parliament ; but their history shall now be given. Calderwood states : — * Concerning the number of the ministry that should have a vote in parliament in name of the Kirk, it was likewise concluded and thought Chap. V. § 20. PRESBYTEES MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. 295 expedient that as many of them should be chosen for vote in jjarliament as were wont of old in time of the papistical kirk to be bishops, abbots, and priors, that had the like liberty, videlicet, to the number of fifty- one.' — Calderwood's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 421. How these members of parliament, for indeed they were nothing more, were chosen, and under what conditions they held the office, the same historian states : — ' Concerning the manner of choosing of him that shall have vote in parliament in name of the Kirk, it is condescended upon that the Kirk shall nominate six for every place that shall have need to be filled, out of which number His Majesty shall choose one. As for the cautions to keep him that hath vote in parliament from corruption, they are these following: — * 1. That he presume not at any time to propound at parliament, council, or convention, in name of the Kirk, anything without express warrant and direction of the Kirk, and such things as he shall answer for to be for the weal of the Kirk, under the pain* of deposition from the office ; neither shall he keep silence, or consent in any of the said con- ventions to anything that may be prejudicial to the liberty and weal of the Kirk, under the same pain * 5. He shall be bound to attend faithfully upon his own particular congregation where he shall be minister, in all the points of a pastor; and hereanent shall be subject to the trial and censure of his own presbytery and provincial assembly, as any other minister that beareth not commission. * 6. In administration of discipline, &c. he shall neither usurp nor acclaim to himself any power or jurisdiction farther than any of the rest of his brethren, under the pain of deprivation. . . . * 7. In Presbyteries, Provincial and General Assemblies, he shall behave himself in all things, and be subject to their censure, as any of the brethren of the presbytery. ' 8. At his admission to his office of commissionary, these and all other points necessary he shall swear and subscribe to fulfil under the penalties foresaid ; otherwise not to be admitted. ' 9. In case he be deposed by the General Assembly, Synod, or Presbytery, from his office of the ministry, he shall lose his vote in parliament ipso facto, and his benefice shall vaik ' (be vacant). — Pp. 439-41. Spotiswood gives the same account. The King himself was present when the General Assembly, in 1600, ratified these things. The King, on a former occasion, had defined what he wished these voting ncinisters to be, and what he wished them not to be. ' He said it was needful that ministers should have vote in parliament, without which the Kirk could not be vindicated fi:om poverty and 295 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. V. § 21. contempt. " I mind not," said he, " to bring in papistical or Anglican bishops, but only to have the best and wisest of the ministry appointed by the General Assembly, to have place in council and parliament." ' — P. 418. 21. It is painful to find that the Dean quotes so-called history to the effect that from the time these voters in parliament were instituted, ' the Church of Scotland must be regarded as Episcopalian.' But what were the chief motives in introducing these commissioners, as they were called, to occupy the place in parliament of the former popish bishops ? Certainly not any common to these Anglicans ; their notions about a bishop as a representative of an apostle, and as an office without which there could be no church, never entered the heads of the promoters of this scheme. The Duke of Argyll has given so just a statement on this'point that his testimony shall be stated ; in which, at the same time, we shall have confirmed the exact position of these so-called bishops. He says : — * The popish hierarchy had never been legally dispossessed of the emolmnent of their sees, and, with the exception of a small portion M^hich had been assigned for the maintenance of the reformed clergy, they had been suffered to continue in the enjoyment of the property of the Church. The Scottish nobles had long cast a wistful eye on so valuable a prize ; and now, when death and forfeiture had made some important vacancies among the Romish priesthood — ^noAv was the time to secure the acquisition of those revenues. But none could legally hold ecclesiastical property but such as were themselves ecclesiastics. A parliamentary secularisation, or seizure, was too bold a measure, opposed as it would be by the whole influence of the reformed ministers, who loudly denounced the selfish avarice which prevented the application of the property of the Romish Church to the much- needed objects desig- nated by the Book of Discipline. How then, was the desired appropriation to be effected ? A most notable scheme was planned. There were al- ready superintendents in the Reformed Church, and why might there not be bishops too ? Every possible concession might be made to the Presby- terian character of the existing constitution of the Church — there need be little change but a change of name — it was not necessary that the new bishops should be possessed of any spiritual power, or any authority in the government of the Church, superior to that already delegated to superintendents as representatives of corporate authority ; they might be examined and admitted according to the same forms ; they might be subject, like them, to the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court — to the control, to the censure, and finally, to the deposition, of the General Assembly. All these concessions the Regent and the nobles were willing to make, and did make. What then, it may be asked, was the object Chap. V. § 22. TULCHANE SCOTTISH BISHOPS. 297 of a change at all ? It could not be a desire to maintain the *' Catho- licity" of "the Church" — it could not be a desire to secure the blessings of apostolic and episcopal succession. There was no provision for this — no thought of it ; it was an idea, of which the Earls of Lennox, Mar, and Morton had not the remotest conception. One object, and one object onl}^, had those men in view; one requirement, and one requirement only, was made of the presentee to a vacant bishopric — that he should not be too greedy of its revenues — that in consideration of a certain part he should pass on the greater portion into the exchequer of his patron.' — Presbytery Examined, ^c. pp. 62, 63. Such is the origin of the so-called episcopacy of the Presby- terian Kirk of Scotland. . These so-called bishops were for the most part a wretched caricature of the office and character of a bishop. Calderwood, in his history, after giving their origin in the manner described by the Duke of Argyll, says : — ' Therefore the bishops, admitted according to this new order, were called, in jest, Tulchane bishops. A tulchane is a calf's skin, stuifed full with straw to cause the cow give milk. The bishop had the title, but my Lord got the milk or commodity. Yet in this book, no further power is allowed to bishops or archbishops than before to superin- tendents. Nothing here concerning discipline, process of excommuni- cation, order of ministration of the sacraments.' — P. 55. The writer, Calderwood, goes on to say : — ' Adamson, in his sermon, divided bishops into three sorts, my lord Bishop, my lord's bishop, and the Lord's bishop. My lord bishop, said he, was in time of papistry : my lord's bishop is now, when my lord getteth the fat of the benefice, and the bishop serveth for a portion out of the benefice, to make my lord's right sure. The Lord's bishop is the true minister of the Gospel.' — P. 55. 22. According to Dean -Hook, then, and some of his friends, we are not directed to pray for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, but for the episcopal, and the episcopal in the sense we have described, that is, a tulchane episcopate, a mere sham, not having a vestige of anything peculiar to the office of the episcopate. And for such an episcopal church the Dean and his teachers and friends affect to believe that a grave company of divines in convocation assembled taught, and in fact enjoined, all the members of our Church to pray. A bold affectation of faith, certainly, and most audaciously maintained ; for the Dean quotes with approval the statement, ' It appears to me a verbal shuffle, and something more, to say the " Church of Scotland WHOSE AEE THE FATHEKS? Chap. V. § 23. was then, as now, Presbyterian." ' But the Dean and his friend, whom he calls learned, shall be answered by Dean Groode : — 23. ' The Archdeacon (Churton) adds, " True, these bishops-designate were not consecrated till a few years later ; but when the law of the land had recognised their estate, and the men were known and appointed, it appears to me a verbal shuffle, and something more (unintentional, of course) to say that the Church of Scotland was then, as now, Presbyterian.^^ So that the Archdeacon would have us suppose that the law of the land had then authorised the episcopal form of Church government, and that bishops were accordingly appointed, and their con- secration only in a state of abeyance. No description could be further removed from the facts of the case. The state had been in the habit of appointing these titular bishops since 1571, for the very purpose of their voting in parliament ; and, so far from the law of the land recognising their estate as governors of the Church, it had established Presbyterianism in 1592 as the form of Church government to be followed, and had not in 1604 annulled that arrangement. And so little was the appointment made on the understanding of a future con- secration that, when such consecration was proposed by King James in 1610, it was objected to at first by the " bishops " themselves, on the ground that the Church of England might claim some power over them. In fact, it is evident that consecration would never have been thought of, but from the circumstance, which happened subsequently, of King James's accession to the throne of England. ' I regret that the Archdeacon should have used the somewhat offensive phrase of a " verbal shuffle, and something more ; " and in the present case he is peculiarly unfortunate in his appHcation of it, when his own cause rests solely upon the use of the name of bishop, where the thing had no place. The reality is precisely what the Bishop (of Manchester) has described it to be, and the Archdeacon is only able to throw dis- credit upon the statement, by parading before the reader what turns out to bean empty shadow. His tulchane bishops are men of straw, that may do very well to frighten young birds, but will not have the slightest effect upon old ones. The facts of the • case he in a nutshell. There were no bishops in 1604 (Dean Goode gives this date of the canon, but Dean Hook 1603) in the Church of Scotland, having either episcopal consecration or the episcopal office, or even any immediate prospect of one or the other. There were no orders but Presbyterian orders. The Church was under the government (subject, of course, to the King) of a General Assembly, consisting of presbyters and laymen, the represen- tatives of the local presbyteries, by which the affairs of the different dis- tricts into which the country was divided were directed ; to which the " bishops " were subject ; these " bishops " not being allowed, previous to 1606, to be, by right, even the moderators of the synods held in their dioceses. ' If this is not a Presbyterian form of Church government, will the Archdeacon say what he calls it ? And, be it observed, whatever name may be given it, it ceiiainly is a non-episcopal form, and destitute of Chap. V. § 24. AN APOLOGY REQUIRED. 299 episcopal orders ; so that the purpose for which the canon has been adduced, namely, to show that our Church recognises, as a church, one which is destitute of episcopal orders, is equally answered, whatever name be applied.' — A Reply to Archdeacon Churton, 4'C. on the term * Church of Scotland' in the 66th Canon, ^c. by W. G-oode, pp. 9, 10. 24. It is much to be desired that Dean Hook would forthwith delete from his Church Dictionary the unaccountable applica- tion of the statements of Bancroft to the Scottish Church, which in truth were meant only to apply to a few members of the Church of England, together with the false conclusions founded thereon; as also the strange misconceptions respecting the language of James T. and its entire bearing. If he should ever do this, perhaps he will therewith give an explanation, and make an apology to the Scottish Church and to the Christian world for the publication of such things. 300 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. VI. §§ 1, 2. CHAPTER VI. THE ORDINAL, AND ESPECIALLY THE FIRST ONE, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF, AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE TEACHING OF THE REFORMERS BEFORE THEY DREW IT UP, AND THE TEACHING OF OUR CHURCH AUTHORITIES AFTERWARDS, DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, SHOWN TO BE MOST INIMICAL TO THE TEACHING OF THESE ANGLICANS ON CLERICAL ORDERS, AND FOR THE MOST PART ADMITTED TO BE SO BY DEAN HOOK AND OTHER TRACTARIANS. ]. The first Ordinal of our Reformed Church, with its collateral evidence, proves beyond a doubt that it never was constructed to be a house or habitation for these Anglicans of the present age ; that viewed as a living structure these Anglicans are as Babylonish bricks or Romish cement in it, which give an unsightly, unreal appearance to the building ; and that an entire church constructed of such materials could not be regarded as a Christian Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets ; but rather as a synagogue of strangers, founded on the vain tradition of mortals. 2. It must be admitted, however, that the second Ordinal, which is the one now in use, differs from the first. Still, the Church, in its main outlines, is the same as reformed and re- constructed in the year 1552. The change in the Ordinal, and the conditions imposed for the first time in the year 1662, of episcopal ordination before anyone could be admitted into her ministry, made no fundamental change, as is plain from the fact that our thirty-sixth Article affirms alike of the first Ordinal, which had been in use for 113 years, as of the second, by which it was replaced, that all consecrated or ordered according to it were ' orderly and lawfully consecrated and ordered.' In the last Act of Uniformity, all subscribers to the Articles were to construe this thirty-sixth, and take it to extend to the present Ordinal. That the amount of difference between the Chap. VI. §§ 3-10. COMPARISON OF ORDINALS. 301 two Ordinals may be appreciated and understood, the main points of each shall be given in parallel columns. Ordering of Priests, The parts of Holy Scripture selected in each for the Epistle and Gospel. The Ordinal of 16i9. 3. Acts XX. 17-35.— 'Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (bishops), to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.' — V. 28. 5. 1 Tim. iii. 1-16.—' This is a true saying. If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop, then, must be blameless, &c.' — V. 1, 2. 6. Matt, xxviii. 18-20.—' And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising 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 : and, lo ! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.' 8. John x. 1-16. 10. John XX. 19-23.— 'Then said Jesus to them again. Peace be unto you : as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Re- ceive ye the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins ye remit, they are re- mitted unto them : and whose so- ever sins ye retain, they are re- tained.' The Ordinal of 1662. 4. Eph. iv. 7-13.— 'And he gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers: &c.'— V. 11. 7. Matt. ix. 36-38.— 'When Jesus saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He may send forth labourers into his harvest.' 9. John X. 1-16. 302 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. VI. §§ 11-26. 11. ' When this prayer is done, the bishop, with the priests pre- sent, shall lay their hands severally upon the head of everyone that receiveth orders, &c.' 13. ' Receive the Holy Ghost ; whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven : and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained ; and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of His Holy Sacraments. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' 12. * When this prayer is done, the bishop, with the priests pre- sent, shall lay their hands severally upon the head of everyone that receiveth the order of priesthood, &c.' 14. ' Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now com- mitted unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained : and be thou a faith- ful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His Holy Sacraments. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.' The Form of Consecrating a Bishop. 15. ' Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposition of hands ; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.' 16. 'Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God, now com- mitted unto thee by the imposition of our hands. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And re- member that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands ; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and sober- The texts as given for the Epistle and Gospel in the old Ordinal for a priest, compared with those given in the new Ordinal for a bishop. Priest. 17. Acts XX. 17-35. 19. 1 Tim. iii. 1-16. 21. Matt, xxviii. 18-20. 23. John XX. 19-23. 25. Johnx. 1-16. Bishop. . 18. Acts XX. 17-35. 20. 1 Tim. iii. 1-7. 22. Matt, xxviii. 18-20. 24. John XX. 19-23. 26. John xxi. 15-17. Chap. VI. §§ 27, 28. CHANGE OF TEXTS IN THE OEDINALS. 303 27. Nothing can be more plain from the first Ordinal than that the ordination of a priest and a bishop was, in the minds of its framers, one and the same. The texts so specially chosen by Dr. Wordsworth, as we have seen, and applied exclusively to bishops as successors of the apostles, are here applied to priests. It is true the same texts in the present Ordinal are now applied to bishops. Dean Hook says : — ' Our Church .... refers us to those texts of Scripture occurring in the history of the Acts, and the apostolical epistles, which are usually urged for the proof of the episcopal order.' — Episcopacy^ Ch.Dict. Well, be it so ; but the fact that the Church previously had applied identically the same texts, and that for the space of 113 years, to the office of a presbyter just as certainly shows that, in her mind, the office of a presbyter and of a bishop was the same. And this, we shall find, was the doctrine taught and held by all our leading ecclesiastical writers of the latter part of the sixteenth century. So conscious were the Tractarians of this that in their Catena Patrum on apostolical succession they have significantly passed over the authors of that period. In the seventeenth century, chiefly through the instrumentality of Archbishop Laud, of unhappy memory, it must be admitted a great change came over many in our Protestant Eeformed Church, which culminated in its overthrow for a season. At the Eestoration, such changes were efiected in the outworks of the Church as in some measure to alter its character, but not in reality to change its constitution and principles ; and yet this change, slight though it was, is the foundation on which these Anglicans ground, or profess to ground, their principles. Dean Hook says : — ' The Reformation was completed, and the principles of Anglicanism were fully established, before Elizabeth was taken from the Church to which she had acted as a nursing mother. But it was not till the epoch of the Restoration that they were fully recognised by Convoca- tion, and accepted by Parliament.' — Discourses hearing on the Contro- versies of the Day^ p. 32. 28. The Dean, instead of viewing our Church from ' the mountains ' of Scripture, to use the language of the Fathers, views it from the seven hills in the vicinity of the Tiber, from 304 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. VI. § 29. which point of view the aspect is entirely changed. This will account for the following sentiment, as expressed by him : — ' The lax reign of Edward was necessary to allow the Protestant principle to be freely promulgated and fairly discussed through the length and breadth of the land. And when it was proceeding to ex- cesses, it received a timely check from the hand of Mary.' — Ibid. p. 29. When it (the Church, its bishops and rulers) was proceeding to excesses, * it received a timely check.' In other words. Arch- bishop Cranmer, Bishops Eidley, Latimer, and Hooper, when they were proceeding to excesses, were ' timely ' roasted alive for the preservation, or rather the restoration, of the heresy of Dean Hook and these Anglicans generally. A very hot remedy truly ! But, though hot, yet, according to the Dean, it was timely; the check neither came too soon nor too late, but just when it was needed, that is, timely. The Dean, a little before, in the same sermon, says : — * We only discern the guiding hand of a merciful Providence more clearly when, after these considerations, on referring to the pages of history, we see that the English Reformers, if they had not been checked and controlled by circumstances, would have followed Luther, not only where he was Scriptural, but also in his error.' — P. 28. But what was his error ? The Dean shall tell us : — ' But placed by circumstances in opposition to the bishops of his own Church, he failed to observe that the administration of the sacraments is connected with the commission given by the Divine Head of the Church to those who act in his name — a commission which has been handed down from generation to generation, by the apostolical succes- sion. He failed to see that, as the Bible is the depository of the truth, so the Church is the depository of grace.' — P. 26. 29. We have no wish to perplex the Dean or any of his brethren when we ask who of our Keformed Church during the sixteenth century saw what Luther, it seems, failed to see, viz. that *the Church is the depository of grace;' and if any did see it, pray where and when have they made a note of their marvellous vision ? The Dean, by the use of the term Church, does not mean the laity ; and to call the clergy by that name is a misnomer, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture and our Liturgy. By the term Church he means for the most part the bishops; but these, for 126 years, were by our Church Chap. VI. §§ 30, 31. THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY. S05 authorities confounded with and regarded as being, according to their view of Holy Scripture, substantially the same as pres- byters. He admits that — * The first English Reformers were inclined to sympathise with those of the Continent ; the Elizabethan Reformers, having, with the exception of the true-hearted Parker, almost all of them been sojourning abroad during the Marian persecution, returned to England with foreign pre- dilections and prejudices. And it required nothing less than the stern will and the strong hand of Elizabeth to compel the bishops, who bore rule in our Church in the first years of her reign, to act as bishops ought to act, and, while inculcating the Protestant principle, to pre- serve the framework of the Church. From them she obtained rather a cold acquiescence than a cordial support.' — P. 31. 30. The arbitrary conduct of Elizabeth to some of our bishops and her popish innovations in our Eeformed Church, for which the Dean is so thankful, and for which he extols her, on his own showing, were in violation of the laws of the land, and the order and authority of the Church. He says: — ' But it was not till the epoch of the Restoration that they (the principles of Anglicanism) were fully recognised by Convocation, and accepted by Parliament.' — P. 32. This arbitrary woman compelled the bishops to do things which were neither recognised by Convocation nor accepted by Parliament, which did not take place until after the reigns of James and Charles in the year 1662. It was this arbitrary interference with the bishops on the part of the sovereign, and their but too ready acquiescence to submit, that occasioned the very name of bishop to be hated and repudiated with abhorrence in Scotland, and by many in this country. We ought, however, to acknowledge with thankfulness that this reproach is washed away, and that the bishops of no country in the world, or any age of the Christian Church, were ever held in higher esteem than those of our own Church, at the present day. 31. But before returning to the Ordinal, we must come to the point for which the apparent digression has been made, namely, the perpetration of the Act of Uniformity, so precious in the estimation of these wretched Anglicans, but so disastrous to the fair fame of our Protestant Reformed Church, that, although her heart was not changed by that Act, and other X 306 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. VI. § 32. changes made about that time, yet her demeanour to her sister Keformed Churches, and her apparent preference for the harlot of Eome, must be regarded as a blot upon her character. Of that Act we shall speak in words borrowed from an arch- deacon, and given with approval by Canon M*Neile in his Church and the Churches : — * A strange voice passed through England, a voice which spake of unity ; but it was soon stifled by the tumultuous cries of opposite parties clamouring in rivalry for uniformity. And ere long all hope was blasted by that second, most disastrous, most tyrannical and schis- matical, Act of Uniformity ; the authors of which, it is plain, were not seeking unity, but division. But this strait-waistcoat for men's consciences could scarcely have been devised except by persons them- selves of seared consciences and hard hearts — by persons ready to gulp down any oath, without scruple about more or less. Verily, when I think of that calamitous unprincipled Act, of the men by whom it was enacted — Charles the Second, and the aristocracy and gentry of his reign — of the holy men against whom it was enacted— it seems almost a prologue to the profligacy and infidelity which followed close upon it. . . . Yet how grievous was the wound in the Church at the time ; how grievous it is still at this day in its enduring effects. Some two thousand ministers, comprising the chief part, it seems scarcely questionable, of the most faithful and zealous in the land, were silenced in one day, were severed out of one Church for the sake of uniformity. On that, our English Bartholomew's day, the eye wandered over England, and in every fifth parish saw the people scattered abroad as sheep having no shepherd.' 32. It must be admitted that these men effected other changes in the Church at the Eestoration, which these Anglicans, with their views, have reason to look upon with favour, and but for which they would not have had the shadow of an excuse for remaining in the Church. It should be borne in mind, however, that the dogmatic teaching of the Church, as made known in her Articles, has not been affected by these later changes ; that her definition of a Christian Church and her recognition of Presbyterian Ordinations are still the same. In fact, her con- stitution and the main features of her character are the same as when reformed and purified about the year 1552. It is base in the extreme that these Anglicans of this nineteenth century should make so much of these changes as in their minds to regard and represent her as a daughter or younger sister of the ' whorish bawd of Babylon,' and to represent her as repudiating all her ' Christianly Keformed ' sister Churches, whom fche once Chap. VI. §33. PKESBYTERSHIP A GIFT. 307 loved and rejoiced to recognise. How foul a libel this is upon our Church may be inferred from almost every extract as given in the second part of the Catena Patrum, taken from our martyred bishops, and other illustrious defenders of our Church. 33. We thought it necessary to say thus much respecting the changes effected in the year 1662, and the admissions of these Anglicans of the state of things before that period. We are now prepared to examine the principal points of the first Ordinal, and to prove from it, and other legitimate evidence, that, although in 1662 some changes were effected in the Church, yet it was not so changed as really to make it what these Anglicans represent it to be ; while, for the space of 126 years previously, the doctrine taught respecting the bishop, and acted upon for 113 years in the Ordinal, absolutely ignored that order as distinct from the presbyter. The reader is especially called upon to notice the words used in the ordination of a priest, and those used in the consecration of a bishop in the first Ordinal, as given in this chapter, sects. 13, 15. It must be observed that these words used in the con- secration of a bishop are peculiar to our own Church. The quotation from 2 Tim. i. 6, 7, perhaps was never so used in any ordinal before. Their use is significant, and their meaning in this connection easily explained. When St. Paul applied these words to Timothy, he had received the grace or gift which Dr. Wordsworth explains as * the grace or gift of holy orders,' which interpretation is somewhat similar to the one as given by the framers of the Ordinal. But it is important that this should be confirmed and illustrated. In an important document, having the imprimatur of all the authorities both of Church and State, we are told that — ' Beside the power of the sword, there should also be continually in the Church militant certain other ministers or officers, which should have spiiitual power, authority, and commission under Christ, to preach and teach the word of God, &c This said power and administra- tion is called in some places of Scripture a gift and a grace .... according to the saying of St. Paul (1 Tim. iv. 14), 'Neglect not the gift, &c.' and also Eph. iv. 8, ' and gave gifts unto men ' (gifts of office), by which words it appeareth evidently .... that St. Paul accounted and num- bered this said power and office of the pastors and doctors among the X 2 308 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEES ? Chap. VI. §§ 34, 35 proper and special gifts of the Holy Giiost. . . . The truth is that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinc- tions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and priests (presbyters) or bishops ; nor is there any word spoken of any other authority before mentioned.' (59. 2, 5.) 34. There can be no mistake as to how these men understood the term gift or grace, and as to the class of persons to whom they believed it to be committed, namely, to one, and one only ; making no distinction as of Divine appointment between a bishop and presbyter. But it may be said that, although these men framed the Ordinal, yet as the above sentiments were pub- lished in 1536, and the Ordinal in 1549, their opinions might become considerably modified. Their views on popish doctrine underwent an entire change, but on clerical orders it would seem that there was no change beyond that they ceased to regard ordination as a sacrament, in consequence of which their theories on the office of the Christian ministry became identical with those of Calvin, with the single exception that they no- where appear to recognise lay presbyters (see sees. 38, 41 below). The leading Eeformers considered the term presbytery in the following phrase of Scripture, 'laying on of the hands of the presbytery,' to use the language of Archbishop Potter, as ' refer- ring to the office to which Timothy was ordained, and not to the persons who ordained him.' This was, undoubtedly, the opinion of Jerome, the most learned and able biblical scholar of all the Fathers ; and when it is borne in mind that of all the Christians of the age in which he lived he was the best acquainted with the ecclesiastical doctrine and opinions both of the Eastern and Western Churches, we may well pause and enquire respecting the most ancient teaching on this point, and these Anglicans should listen to it, and, according to their own canon, implicitly believe it. We may well assume that the practice of promoting persons to the office of a presbyter or bishop was universal in the Church, and that of necessity they must have language to express it ; and what more natural and suitable than to adopt that of Holy Scripture ? 35. We find this to be especially the case with Eusebius, in his Histoiy of the Church. Speaking of the learned Origen, he says, ' He had not yet obtained the laying on of hands — or the Chap. VI. §§ 36, 37. PEESBYTEKY OE OFFICE OF PEESBYTEE. 309 ordination— of the presbytery, or the office of a presbyter {t7]s tov irpsa^vTsplov 'xsipoTovlasf).'' Again, when he speaks of his ordination, he says, * He received the laying on of hands, or the ordination of the presbytery, or the office of a presbyter {irpsa-^uTspLov x^i'podsauip) at Csesarea, from the bishops of that country.' — Lib. vi. cap. xix. xxiii. pp. 425, 430. In the first Greek phrase the laying on of hands is not necessarily expressed, but it is expressed in the latter phrase, and the latter term ex- plains the former, and is applied both by Jerome and Chrysostom in ecclesiastical usage to denote laying on of hands in ordination. (Z9- 43 ; 34. 36.) In this early history of the Church it is certain they understood the words as relating to the office to which Timothy was ordained, and not to the persons who or- dained him. Eusebius frequently uses the term in question to denote the office of a presbyter. The term occurs in part of a letter of Cornelius, Bishop of Eome, about 251, giving an account of Novatus, or Novatian. The words are : — * He was honoured with the presbytery, or office of a presbyter, and that by favour of the bishop placing his hands upon him to the order of the presbytery, or office of a presbyter.' — Lib. vi. cap. 43, p. 470. 36. Socrates, another Greek Church historian, uses the same nomenclature in the ordination of the clergy. Describing the promotion of Proclus, he says : — * Atticus promoted him to the order of the diaconate (haKoriag), and being worthy of the presbytery, or office of a presbyter {Trpeajjvrepeiov), as is said, he was promoted by Sisinnius of Cyzicum to the episcopate (tTTicKOTT^v).' — Lib. vii. cap. 41, p. 386. 37. But the most valuable witness of antiquity is the Peshito- Syriac version of the New Testament, made at the close of the first, or the beginning of the second, century. This invaluable version renders the Greek term irpsa^vispiov (' presbytery '), 1 Tim. iv. 14, by the same term it renders sTTvaKOTrrj (* office of a bishop '), 1 Tim. iii. 1. There are only two other instances in which the term irpsa/Surspiov occurs in the New Testament, and the Syriac in both instances renders it by the term elders or presbyters (Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5). The ancient Syriac translator, with the other ancient authorities, most certainly considers the term in the text in question to denote the office of 310 WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS? Chap. VI. § 38. a presbyter or bishop, and not a company of them. Bishop Hall confirms this view. He says : — * Calvin himself interprets the place, not of the men, but of the office ; following herein Jerome, and Anselm, Haimo, Lyra, and others.' — Episcopacy hy Divine Right, pt. ii. sect. xv. Sedulius and Primacius are considered to maintain the same view. (41. 7 ; 51. 5, 6.) 37. We have most ample proof that our reformers were conversant with the teaching of these men, and, on this point, adopted it. Nicholas de Lyra, one of the writers above referred to, was the author of a commentary on the Holy Scriptures, which he completed in the beginning of the fourteenth century. This ponderous work was printed in the year 1508, and again in 1529, and it appears to have been a household book with all the Eeformers, both English and Foreign. The former are constantly quoting it. See 63. 2, and 64. 4, as a specimen of a great number of instances. Of Luther it has been well said — Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset. * If Lyra had not played his lyre, Luther would not have danced.' On the words, ^ with the laying on of the hands of the presby- tery ' (1 Tim. iv. 14), he says : — * The term presbytery is the honour or office of a presbyter, and the word presbytery is here used for the word episcopate, as under the convertible name of bishop or episcopate is comprehended the presby- tery or office of a presbyter.' Again, on the words, ' Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands ' (2 Tim. i. 6), he says : — * That is the grace of the pontifical honour which is said to be stirred up when for the act of preaching great and uncommon fervour appears to proceed from it.' 38. Calvin, a great authority with our English Eeformers, states on the above words : — * For what is said in the first epistle of the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, I do not understand as if Paul were speaking of the college of presbyters. By the expression I understand the ordination itself; as if he had said, act so that the gift you received by the laying on of hands, when I made you a presbyter, may not be in vain.' Chap. VI. § 38. DIFFEEFNCE OF THE ORDINAL. 31 1 Erasmus held the same view, and alleged it to be that of the ancients. We may be quite certain that the first Ordinal was framed in accordance with these views. It is not necessary that this should be the right interpretation, but it serves our purpose as the true key to the language of the Ordinal, and especially the use of the phrase of Scripture, * Stir up the grace or gift.' When the presbyter was consecrated a bishop, these words were ap- plied to him. Our Eeformers, as we have shown, regarded the office of a presbyter to be this gift or grace. They had no ad- ditional office as of Divine appointment to confer, and therefore, when promoted to be a bishop, they called upon him to stir up the gift or grace he already had. Dean Hook considers Timothy to have been a bishop when these words were addressed to him. (Chap. IV. 259 above.) The fact is that in this Ordinal it was supposed that the pres- byter had received the full degree of the ministerial office, viewed from a Scriptural point of view. Still there was the higher office of a bishop in the Church, and probably had been from the time of the apostles ; in the earlier ages of the Church he was a primus inter pares, and from the third century had independent power over presbyters, and was regularly conse- crated to his office. This office our Eeformers wished to retain, and framed an ordinal of their own for the promotion of bishops, in which, however, as we have seen, they studiously avoid con- ferring, to use the language of Dr. Wordsworth, any grace of Holy Orders, but call upon the person promoted to stir up what he already had. We have already noticed how in the ordination of priests, the framers of the Ordinal applied those texts to their office which in the present Ordinal have been applied to bishops. This maybe seen by referring to sects. 17, 18, &c. of this chap- ter. He will also notice (sect. 15, 16) the difference of the words of consecration of a bishop in the old Ordinal from those now used in the new. * Eemember thou stir up the grace of God, which is given thee by this imposition of our hands, &c.' In the old Ordinal it is : ' Eemember thou stir up the grace of God, which is (already) in thee, by imposition of hands ' (when thou wast ordained presbyter). 312 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. VI. §§ 39, 40. 39. The reader should note well the important document to which we have already referred. It is there distinctly stated that there are but two orders, and that presbyters or bishops, making no distinction between them, make the second order, and that the gift or grace conferred in ordination is nothing else but the office of a bishop or presbyter. (59- 5.) Most of those who signed their names to this document, Cranmer in particu- lar, were the same persons who framed the Ordinal. It was then with reason and judgment that they avoided conferring the gift or grace, that is, as explained by them, the office of a bishop, twice over, but in promoting a presbyter or a bishop to the office of a bishop, as now held in the Church, they called upon him to stir up the grace he already had. ' As for the con- secration of bishops, by a new imposition of hands, it doth not,' says Bishop Burnet, ^ prove them a distinct office ; being only a solemn benediction, and separation of them, for the discharge of that inspection committed to them.' 40. But before proceeding further, we should especially notice what an outrageous use Mr. Perceval, one of Dean Hook's au- thorities on apostolical succession, has made of the document we have above referred to. That there may be no mistake, we have placed side by side Mr. Perceval's extracts (59. 3, 7, 10) from the document beside fuller extracts (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11) from the same document, with his own preliminary re- marks coming before sect. 3, where he calls these men, who then believed the seven sacraments, the doctrine of transubstantiation, &c. &c. — * our Protestant Fathers.' Nothing could be further from the truth. The date he gives to the document is 1536. If the reader will turn to 60. 1, 2, 3, he will see the testi- mony of the learned John Lambert respecting clerical orders, which in fact is the same as that borne though out the Catena. But he will also notice his denial of the doctrine of transubstan- tiation (60. 4, 5), his examination by Cranmer in the presence of King Henry VIII., his condemnation (sect. 6), and finally his most horrible punishment as a martyr (sects. 7, 8). This part has been inserted in the Catena for no other purpose than to show what sort of men they were whom Perceval had the auda- city to call Protestants, The reader must note well how sig- CuAp. VI. § 41. PKESBYTERS ONCE MADE BISHOPS. 313 nificantly he stops short of the part where presbyter and bishop are affirmed to be one order, according to the truth of the New Testament. See 59. 10, and notice how he has left out sect. 11. The very office in which he believes the succession to be handed interruptedly down is ignored, yet he so quotes from the document as to give his readers the impression that in it his doctrine of apostolical succession is taught. For he says : — ' Nothing can be more contrary to the truth, as far as the Church of England is concerned, than the allegation which forms the ground of this objection, namely, that our Protestant Fathers, in the sixteenth century, were either ignorant or unmindful of this doctrine, as the following documents will show.' 41. Another important record, to which we shall refer, ex- presses the views of the authorities of our Church when they had partially adopted the principles of the Eeformation. This was about the year 1548. Certain questions were asked respect- ing bishops and priests, as to which were first in the Church, and whether priests in the first instance made the bishop. Archbishop Cranmer said that both were one office in the be- ginning of Christ's religion. Other bishops and doctors ex- pressed the like sentiments, and some of them quoted Jerome, approving of his account of the first origin of bishops. But we refer the reader to 61. 1-13, for full information on these points. Having made himself acquainted with what is there said respecting the origin of bishops and their consecration, as to whether it was necessary or not, let him ask himself. Could these men have entertained the modern notions of these Angli- cans respecting the office of a bishop, and the consequences dependent thereon, and have so expressed themselves respecting his origin and his office ? &c. &c. It will be seen from the answer given that these bishops and doctors had not as yet entirely relinquished all their Romish doctrine ; they had, how- ever, rejected the authority of the pope, and with him the Romish doctrine of apostolical succession, for, according to the authentic teaching of Rome, as we have seen, the pope was the only recog- nised successor of an apostle. A few years after these questions had been put and answered, the Ordinal was framed, and Cranmer, as archbishop, and 314 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. VI. § 41. leading English Eeformer, was the prime mover in the under- taking. The preface, from which we shall give an extract, is generally ascribed to him : — * It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons.' These Anglicans quote, requote, and quote again, this sentence. But pray, what does it serve them ? Is this order of bishops such as would satisfy them ? No such thing. This order of bishops, so far as it is distinct from that of presbyters, and has rule over them, is maintained, as we have seen, to be of human origin, and is expressly so maintained by Cranmer, the prime mover in preparing the offices for our Eeformed Church. What kind of bishops these were, we infer from the Ordinal itself, as we have already explained in connection with their consecration. ' At this time our Eeformers,' says Dean Hook, ' were inclined to sym- pathise with those of the Continent;' 'and when the Protestant principle was proceeding to excess, it received a timely check from the hand of Mary.' Now it is notorious that that great divine Calvin and his brethren were the men' by whom our English Reformers were chiefly influenced, and their doctrines were those to which prominence was given in the writings and public teaching of our clergy, down to the time of Laud ; also, when King James changed from being an ignorant Calvinist to be a rabid Arminian, and a persecutor of his former faith. Calvin, in his greatest and most important work. The Institutes^ expressed the like sentiments of the extract in question. He says : — * That the twelve had one among them to direct all is nothing strange. Nature admits, the human mind requires, that in every meeting, though all are equal in power, there should be one as a kind of moderator to whom the others should look up. There is no senate without a consul, no bench of judges without a president or chancellor, no college without a provost, no company without a master.' — Book iv. chap. vi. 8. And, again, he says : — * All, therefore, to whom the office of teaching was committed, they called presbyters, and in each city these presbyters selected one of their number to whom they gave the special title of bishop, lest, as usually happens, from equality, dissension should arise.' . . . * In Chap. VI. § 42. KISSING THE POPE'S TOE. 315 another place he (Jerome) shows how ancient the custom was (of chosing a bishop). For he says that " at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, as far down as Hereclas and Dionysius, presbyters always placed one, selected from themselves, in a higher rank, and gave him the name of bishop.'" — Bk. iv. chap. iv. 2. These Anglicans might just as well claim Calvin as holding their views on the order of bishops, because, as in the preface to the Ordinal, he admits bishops, in the sense which he explains, to have been from the times of the apostles, certainly from the time of the Evangelist Mark. 42. The Eoman Catholics have pointed out what they con- sider the defectiveness of this Ordinal in the consecration of bishops. But perhaps we shall be met by the fact that Courayer, a Eoman Catholic writer, in A Dissertation on tkeValidity of the Ordinations of the English, &c. acknowledges the validity of the consecration of bishops. The Tractarians have favoured us with a new edition of this book, in which our Church is repre- sented as heretical and schismatical ; he evidently looks upon our orders and sacraments after the same manner as Augustine did upon the orders and sacraments of some of the heretics in his day, which we have noticed in Chap. IV. 250. Surely the Tractarians must have been exceedingly anxious to have a little recognition from one of their elder brethren, and display not a little humility in accepting it on such terms. If all these elder brethren, with the pope at their head, would but acknowledge, not only the validity of the orders, but the catholicity also of the English Church, would not these Anglicans kiss the pope's toe ? especially as the thing itself, from their point of view, has at least two things to make it attractive. First, the practice is seasoned by an antiquity which they generally prefer, neither being too ancient nor too modern, commencing in the time of Leo I., but still when, as it is said, the Church was undivided. Secondly, the toe of the pope is not really kissed, but an attractive cross outside the slipper; for Dean Hook, in his Church Dictionary, informs us that — ' The custom of kissing the pope's feet is very ancient ; to justify which practice it is alleged that the pope's slipper has the figure of the cross upon the upper leather ; so that it is not the pope's foot, but the cross of Christ, which is thus saluted.' — The Pope, 316 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. VI. §§ 43, 44. Alas for these Anglicans ! The pope, by his naughty Encyclical Letter, has for some time to come dashed their hopes, and blighted their prospects of any such recognition by their elder brethren, the Romanists. 43. We have said Courayer acknowledges the orders of the Church of England. But that is not all. He also acknowledges the validity of the orders of a non-episcopal Church. We shall give his own statement in full : — *The question, then, has been only of the validity of the sacraments; and the position reduced to these terms labours under no difficulty ; the facts and the reasons concur alike to prove that the changes which are made in the forms of the sacraments cannot render them null, at least when the substance is not altered ; and that there is no essential altera- tion in those wherein there is still retained what is determined by Scripture, or by a certain and uniform tradition, whatever alterations are made in the rites which have been added. This is clear by the conduct observed with regard to the baptism administered by the English, or by the pure Calvinists. The whole form has been altered therein, excepting the invocation of the Holy Trinity : the prayers, the unctions, the exorcisms, everything has been either changed or sup- pressed : their baptism is nevertheless received. And why these different weights and measures as to their ordination?' — A Dissertation on the Validity of the Ordinations of the English, ^c. by Courayer, ch. X. pp. 183, 184. These Anglicans must esteem small favours of great value when they can publish to the world this faint and cold recogni- tion of this their popish quasi-friend, who denominates them schismatics and heretics, and denies that their Church is catholic, and very properly denies it, if he uses the term in any such sense as it is applied to the papal system. The Presby- terians get nearly as much help from Courayer as these Anglicans do ; and surely, at best, he must be but a very poor witness for them, for he bears testimony, such as it is, to their heresy and schism, and to the validity of the ordinations of the Calvinists. 44. We have seen what was the unmistakable teaching of our Reformers before they framed the Ordinal; we shall now, in a very condensed form, show what their successors, during the sixteenth century, taught on the same subject, referring to the second part of the Catena for fuller statements. Chap. VI. § 44. ADMISSIONS OF WHITGIFT. SI 7 John Bradford held, and the popish archdeacon admitted, that there was no difference between a bishop and a presbyter in Scripture. (64. 2.) Becon, chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, most distinctly held the same opinion. (68. 2.) Bishop Pilkington so expresses himself on the point as to admit the same thing, and also teaches that ' the privileges and supe- riorities which bishops have above other ministers are rather granted by men for maintaining of better order, &c. than commanded by Grod in his Word.' (69. 1-4.) Dean Nowell is very explicit on the point. (7Z- 3.) To which may be added the authority of both houses of Convocation. (See 7Z. at the commencement.) Bishop Jewel teaches that originally a bishop and a presbyter were the same, and holds that the distinction between the two, as it subsequently existed, was of human origin and appointment. This he maintains in various parts of his waitings. (73. 1-4, 10, 11 .) Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, when disputing, not with a Roman Catholic, as was the case with Jewel, but with a most zealous anti-episcopalian, who believed and maintained that another discipline was ordained of God, and was binding on all Christian Churches, held that neither that nor any other government was unalterably binding on the Churches of God, and at the same time accepted the general teaching of Jerome respecting the origin of bishops as dis- tinguished from presbyters. (74. 14, 15, 19, 21-25.) Whitgift, though disputing with the great enemy of episco- pacy, teaches and admits things utterly incompatible with the expressed opinions of these Anglicans ; and though he was the great enemy and bitter persecutor of the Puritans of his day, yet these Anglicans of the present time cannot but regard him as being a Puritan himself, at least in his views of clerical orders. Fulke, the learned defender of the Protestant translations of Holy Scripture against the papists, most distinctly holds that the difference between a bishop and a presbyter, as it now exists, was not of Divine but of human origin. (75. 13, 14.) He states, also, that Jerome held the same opinion respecting the bishop as ^rius did, which he accepts as true. (Sect. 15.) Whitaker, one of the most learned and illustrious defenders of our Church, maintains the same views on the origin of the 318 WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS? Chap. VI. §§ 45, 46. authority of the bishop as now exercised in the Church. (78- 11, 25-27.) Archbishop Bancroft went a little beyond his predecessors, and gave utterance to sentiments respecting the origin of the bishop which startled some of his brethren, especially Dr. Eaynolds, of whom Bishop Hall thus speaks : — ' He alone was a well-furnished library : full of all faculties, all studies, of all learning.' ' The memory and reading of that man were near a miracle.' — Wood's Athence Oxoniensis, p. 14. This able man charges Bancroft with introducing a new doctrine, and makes an elaborate answer to his statements, and represents him as expressing opinions opposed to those of both the Eegius professors of divinity in the two universities and to those of Bradford, Lambert, Jewel, Pilkington, Humphrey, Fulke, and to those of all the Keformed Churches, &c. (81. 1-6 ; more especially sect. 4.) 45. Five years after Bancroft had published his sermon, which called forth the above remarks, he published a volume in which his doctrine of the episcopate was considerably modified, and in which, in effect, he claims Eaynolds to be on his side. Bancroft was anxious to go as far as he could to uphold the office of a bishop in contradistinction to that of a presbyter, but comes entirely short of the modern Anglican assumptions. We think him not far from the truth on the office of a bishop, as main- tained in this latter production ; and in order that the reader may have the opportunity of judging for himself, we have given the important part of the book containing it. (80. 18-27.) Stillingfleet has given very full testimony in relation to this point, which will be found 90. 7-13. 46. It is impossible to have evidence more decisive than this on the point in question. It might be asked. Is there no evidence to be quoted on the other side during the sixteenth century ? Cannot these Anglicans, who boast so much of the Divine authority of the bishop, and regard him as a successor of an apostle, in a sense in which a presbyter is not, find some one or more authorities who held their opinions ? We can find no such person, and we believe there is no such authority to be found. The Tractarians, in their Catena Patrum on the apos- tolical succession, have omitted, for very necessary reasons, all Chap. VI. §§ 47, 48. THE SECOND ORDINAL. 319 the Eeformers of the sixteenth century. But they shall speak for themselves : — *In selecting them, it has been thought advisable, as in the two previous Catenas [including the one on apostolical succession], not to include the writings of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, because the particular complexion of their opinions is the very subject keenly debated and claimed by opposite schools of opinion at the present day. It has been thought safer to show that the succession of our standard divines ever since their times understood them to hold that view of doctrine which it has been the endeavour of these tracts to recom- mend.'— Tract 78, p. 1. 47. These Tractarians are here writing deceitfully, or, as Dr. Newman would call it, 'economically.^ They pass over the Eeformers of the sixteenth century, and why ? They do not give us the real reason. Here is Tractarian, or Anglican, re- serve. The real reason is they cannot quote a single Reformer of our Church of the sixteenth century who held their doctrine of apostolical succession, or anything like it. Having concealed the true reason, they account for their omission as follows : — * It has been thought safer [for their heresy] to show that the suc- cession of our standard divines, ever since the time of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, understood them to hold that view of doctrine which it has been the endeavoiu of these Tracts to recommend.' — Ibid, In plain English, these Tractarians endeavour to make the impression on their readers that the authors they have quoted in their Catena Patrum on apostolical succession express the sentiments of the Reformers of the sixteenth century. Nothing could be further from the truth, for it is absolutely false. We here remark that, although the authors they have selected from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries differ in their views on clerical orders from those of the sixteenth, yet none of these, though very varied and numerous, hold or maintain the doctrine of apostolical succession as held by Dean Hook, Dr. Wordsworth, and others of these Anglicans ; but this will form the subject of a distinct chapter. 48. This is the place to consider the Ordinal of the seven- teenth century, prepared when many of our Church undoubtedly had become more episcopal in their views of church government. But when one and the same Article given in the sixteenth 320 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. VI. §§ 48, 49. century is made to affirm identically the same things of the Ordinal of the seventeenth as it did, and now does, of the sixteenth, for it even now applies to both, we are certainly not authorised to expect that there would be any great or funda- mental difference between them. The main point of difference is in the words of the consecration of a bishop. Both forms are given in sect. 15, 16 of this chapter. In the old Ordinal, the newly consecrated bishop is called upon to stir up the gift or grace which he had previously received when he was ordained presbyter, precisely as in the case of Timothy. But in the last Ordinal, the newly consecrated bishop is called to stir up the grace or gift which he had just that moment received. In the former case, the distinction between a bishop and presbyter was but slight, in the latter it is made plain and decisive. There can be no question but that at the time the second Ordinal was framed there were many besides the disciples of Laud who believed the bishop to be distinct from the presbyter, and as having rule over him, and that by Divine appointment. The excellent Bishop Hall zealously maintained this view, and wrote in defence of it. This is no doubt the view held at the present day by the great majority of our clergy, and conse- quently the present Ordinal is more consonant with their views. It forms no part of the design of this book to controvert that opinion. We believe that a moderate episcopacy is more in accordance with Scripture and antiquity than any other form of church government. Our own views on this point will be given in a distinct chapter. At present it is sufficient for our purpose to show that the doctrine of apostolical succession, as held by these Anglicans, has no foundation in the present Ordinal. The Ordinal of itself does not teach it. But, strange to say. Dean Hook connects the doctrine with the Ordinal : — * The solemn office of thus conferring the grace of God by the im- position of human hands, which would clearly be blasphemous, except there existed a commission from God to do so, which commission, without the apostolical succession, cannot be proved, unless by miracle.' — Ch. Diet. Ordinal, 49. This is indeed a most random statement. It must surely have been made without reflection, and in ignorance of the Chap. VI. § 50. ROMISH APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 321 extent of its application. In this case Papists as well as Pro- testants are chargeable with blasphemy if they profess to confer the grace of God, or the office of a presbyter, without * apostolical succession.' But what does the Dean mean by this phraseology ? He shall tell us : — * A perfect and unbroken transmission of tlie original ministerial com- mission, from the apostles to their successors, by the progressive and perpetual conveyance of their powers from one race of bishops to another.' But, as we have already seen, apostolical succession, as held by Rome, is altogether different. Their authentic teaching is that— * The Roman pontiff succeeds to the apostles in apostleship because he possesses jurisdiction over the whole world, and over all Christians, net by succession from any mortal, but by office, as occupying St. Peter's chair.' — Apostolic Succession Explained hy a Priest of the Order of Charity^ p. 32. On the papal chaif becoming vacant, no one has the apos- tolical o"ffice, and no one professes to confer it. The candidate for the office being elected, consecrated, or set apart to the vacant chair, he is believed to have the apostleship, * not by suc- cession from any mortal, but by office, as occupying St. Peter's chair.' If that mode of receiving the so-called apostleship is satisfactory, surely the like mode would not be inapplicable to the receiving of the presbytership, not by succession from any mortal, but by office, as occupying the presbyter's chair. And this, in fact, is the mode in most Christian Churches, our own not excepted, in which the ministerial office is believed to be received. Both Romanists and Protestants are chargeable with blasphem}^ one in the way the pope is promoted, the other in the way the presbyter is promoted. In both cases it is believed that the office, in its essential character, or the grace peculiar to it, is directly of God, atid not necessarily by man. 50. But the Dean is most seriously at fault with the dogmatic teaching of his own Church. He believes that, in our own Church, persons are commissioned by Divine authority to confer the grace of God by the imposition of human hands. Here, then, is a sacrament in the strictest sense of the term, as defined by our Church ; but in her 25th Article it is affirmed of orders that 322 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. VI. § 51. they ' have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of Grod.' Imposition of hands, or any other visible mode of conferring grace in ordination, is not ordained of Grod. And to this Article the Dean has subscribed. Rogers, the first expositor of the Articles, and who wrote in 1607, on this Article, says : — ^ The Church of England, and of other places reformed, do acknow- ledge an order of making ministers in the Church of God, where all things are to be done by order. But that order is a sacrament, none but disordered papists will say.' ' Where can it be seen that either orders, as some, can make one, or seven sacraments ; or priesthood, as others think, is a sacrament ? What element hath it ? What form ? What promise ? What institution from Christ ? '—Pp. 258, 259. Hear how papists themselves spoke on this point in the Council of Trent :— ' Gregory the Ninth saith, it (imposition of hands) was a rite brought in, and many divines do not hold it to be necessary, howsoever others be of the contrary opinion. It appeareth, also, by the decretal of Innocentius the Third, in this point, that unction was not used in all churches. And the famous canonists, Hostiensis, Johannes Andreas, Abbas, and others, do affirm that the pope may ordain a priest vnth. these words only, " be thou a priest ; " and (which is of more importance) Innocentius, father of all the canonists, saith that, if the forms had not been invented, it had been sufficient if the ordainer had used these words only, " be thou a priest," or others equivalent, because they were instituted by the Church afterwards to be observed. For these reasons Cornelius gave council not to speak of necessary ceremonies, but only to condemn those who hold them to be superfluous, or pernicious.' — PauVs History of the Council of Trent, p. 594, ed. 1629. The laying on of hands is represented as unessential to ordi- nation even by the Maynooth Text-book, where we read :— * I answer, thirdly, that this last (imposition of hands) is not essential. 1st. Because it has never been used in the Greek Church. 2nd. Because neither has it been always in use in the Latin Church. For neither in rituals, nor councils, nor in the writings of those who have discoursed upon Divine offices and ordinations, is any trace (vestigium) of it to be found.' — De Ordine, p. 46. 51. It is true our Church does lay on hands, which is in accordance with an apostolic practice^ and that of almost all Christian Churches. But if she believed that ordination was a Divinely appointed sacrament, and the laying on of hands the outward sign of the same, still, according to her dofjmatic Chap. VI. § 52. OEDINATION CONFIKMS GEACE. 323 teaching, the outward sign would not confer the inward grace, for her statement in the 25th Article is, ' They (sacraments) be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace.* In this light Archbishop Whitgift explains this part of the Ordinal under consideration : — * In which words (1 Tim. iv. 14) the apostle signifieth that God doth bestow his gifts and spirit upon such as be called to the ministry of the word, whereof imposition of hands is a token, or rather a confirmation ; and therefore, saith Mr. Calvin, that "it AVas not a vain ceremony; be- cause God did fulfil with His spirit that consecration which men did signify by imposition of hands." And surely, as that is no vain cere- mony, though it be done by men, so these be no vain words, though they be spoken by men.' (74. 12.) If the reader will refer to 74. 10-13, he will see the immedi- ate context of the above extract, and will notice how the ordainer had been charged with blasphemy, and how it was answered by Whitgift, who assuredly must be considered, for the most part, as speaking the mind of the Church of which he was the arch- bishop. Fulke too has, by anticipation, contradicted the Dean, and repudiated his notion respecting the necessary transfer of grace in ordination, by whomsoever the rite is performed. (See 75- 2-5, but especially 5.) Let M. Martin represent the Dean, and that learned presbyter Fulke will represent the general opinion of our Church, and most emphatically repudiate, by anticipation, his teaching. Overall, whom the Dean describes as an * eminent man, and of most decided views on church government,' says, * That the apostles had power, through imposition of hands, to give the Holy Ghost by visible signs,' but affirms that this was no essen- tial part of the ministry, and * could not be communicated by the apostles unto any others.' — OveraWs Convocation Book, p. 164. 52. But we have another point to consider in this random statement of the Dean. He maintains that it would be blasphe- mous to attempt to confer the grace of Grod without a comnyssion from Grod, * which commission, without apostolical succession, cannot be proved without a miracle.' We think the Dean will want a miracle to prove that any class of men, anywhere in the world, have the commission of which he speaks, that is, if they Y 2 324 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. VL § 53. cannot have it without his apostolical succession. According to the Dean's teaching, and that of his brethren, the commission is handed on from the apostles, not through presbyters, but through bishops, who are equal to apostles. We read in the New Testa- ment of the ordination of presbyters, but we do not read of the ordination or consecration of a presbyter to the office of a bishop, or of any ordination or appointment to the apostolic office, in such a way as to lead us to suppose that the apostolic office must he perpetuated. But this is the point to be examined. The Dean refers to Timothy as a case in point. He says, *That Timothy, as soon as he was made bishop of Ephesus, by the great apostle of the Grentiles, but not before, had this power of ordination, is allowed by St. Chrysostom himself.' — Ch* Die. Ordination, Hilary the Deacon and Augustine, or some one under his name, hold that Timothy was ordained a presbyter. Had they affirmed that he was ordained an evangelist, they would have been nearer the truth. The question is, at what time was he ordained ? St. Paul, in his epistle, says, ' As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Mace- donia' (1 Tim. i. 3), and in the same epistle we read of the ordination of Timothy. Was he ordained the local bishop of Ephesus just before the apostle left him there ? Had such been the case, it seems unaccountable that the apostle, having a dis- tinct knowledge of such an event, should have said, ' I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus.' But at what time did St. Paul leave him there ? Suppose we give as late a date as possible, and admit that his being at Ephesus was subsequent to any such event recorded in the New Testament, and that St. Paul ordained him but a little time before he finished his course. Even then this serious difficulty occurs, how could Timothy, for so many years previously, fulfil the work of an evangelist without any ordination, without being set apart to that holy office ? 53. The Dean has referred to Chrysostom. We shall do so now, for the double purpose of refuting the Dean and answering our own question : — * Luke, who informs us that he (Timothy) was " well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystraand Iconium." (Acts xvi. 2.) He be- came at once a disciple and a teacher. . . . Paul, it is said, " took Chap. VI. § 54. TEANSFER OF THE APOSTLESHIP. 325 and circumcised him" (Acts xvi. 3), thoiigli he was of adiilt age, and so trusted him with his whole economy.' — Argument to Ist Epis. of Tim. The general opinion is that he was ordained at Lystra, and Chrysostom confirms the same. Timothy was left at Ephesus to perform the office of an evangelist, as he had done in other places. (See 34. 14.) Thus St. Paul, in his second epistle to him, says, ' Do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.' (2 Tim. iv. 5.) 54. Dr. Wordsworth attempts to prove that persons were pro- moted to the apostolic office by adducing other instances. In his notes on Acts xiii. 1-3, he says : — * In the passage now before us, which describes the first ordination to the apostolic office after the day of Pentecost, we hear the voice of the Holy Spirit himself. " The Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Barnabas and Saul are ordained to the apostleship. Henceforth they are called " apostles," and perform apostolic acts. They are equal in dignity to the original Twelve, who had been chosen by Christ upon earth. Paul says of himself, that he is not " a whit behind the very chiefest apostles," .... Here is a strong testimony for episcopacy, as distinguished from the theory of the Papal Supremacy on the one side, and from Presby- terian parity and Lay Ordinations on the other. In fine, this subject derives a solemn importance from the considerations :— ' 1. That the Son of God was sent by the Father to be the apostle and bishop of our souls. (1. Peter ii. 25.) ' 2. That^ when on earth, He chose the Twelve. (Matt. x. 1,) ' 3. That, when he had ascended into heaven. He appointed Matthias to succeed to the place in the apostleship. from which Judas, by trans- gression, fell. (Acts i. 24-26.) '■ 4. That after the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost chose Paiil and Barnabas to the same office. (Acts xiii. 1-3.) * 5. That the bishops of the Church are the successors of the holy apostles ; and that their office includes within itself the two inferior orders of priests and deacons.' Again, in his Introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, p. xxviii. he says :— * Here, then, and in other places, He (Christ) has shown the necessity of a Christian ministry ; and He has also taught the world what the due organisation of that ministry is. As we have seen. He declared the continuity of the apostohc office by the election of Matthias ; and He proclaimed the duty of extending it, by calling Barnabas and Paul to the apostleship. He constituted elders in every church by their hands. He instituted by the agency of the apostles the holy order of deacons. Thus He has delivered a Divine exhortation from heaven to 326 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. VI. §§ 55, 66. all Churches, to take good heed to maintain the threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons ; and to seek for His blessing by a right use of that ministry in extending His kingdom throughout the world.' 55, The practice which these Anglicans have of building much upon a small or no foundation is perilous in the extreme. We think it has been demonstrated in this book that the apostleship of the Twelve was not perpetuated. It is certain that authors of the greatest reputation, and the highest standing in our Church, do not believe that it was continued. Least of all do they believe that Paul and Barnabas became apostles, in the same sense that the Twelve were, from the circumstance of their being sent on a missionary tour by their brethren, as directed by the Holy Grhost. For Dr. Wordsworth to take such liberties with our Lord and Master, and to make Him the author of his own misconceptions, seems to border on profanity. 56. The case of Matthias does not affect the question. That ofPaul and Barnabas does. We now proceed to examine it. That those who laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas had not the apos- tolical office is sufficiently obvious. Here Dean Hook's miracle is required, to which we have referred above. Dr. Wordsworth says: — ' The Holy Ghost made a special revelation to the Church concerning them, and they are said to be sent forth by the Holy Ghost. And God authorized their mission by miracles.' — J^otes on Acts, xiii. 3, 4. From the circumstance of Paul and Barnabas being sent on this mission, it is most probable that from that time they were called apostles. But in what sense were they apostles ? Dr. Wordsworth says : — * Barnabas and Saul are ordained to the apostleship. Henceforth they are called " apostles," and perform apostolic acts. They are equal in dignity to the original Twelve, who had been chosen by Christ upon earth. Paul says of himself that he is not " a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." ' According to this statement, Barnabas was equal to Paul, and both, from the circumstance of their being thus sent, after the manner described, from Antioch, were equal to the apostles sent Chap. VI. § 57. MISSION OF PAUL AND BAENABAS. 327 by Christ himself. Now, in this case, both Paul and Barnabas were sent by men. But St. Paul himself affirms. that he was not sent by man. He also declared, ^ Am I not an apostle, have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ ? ' In neither of these senses was Barnabas an apostle. (See 2i9« 63.) St. Paul, as there ex- plained, obviously belonged to the first kind of apostles, and St. Barnabas, as obviously, to the second kind, and to which any properly appointed presbyter might belong. Clement of Alex- andria affirms that Barnabas was one of the seventy disciples, or apostles, as the Fathers call them. (9. 3.) Other Fathers, of less importance, maintain the same thing. But if we accept this as the truth, these Anglicans obtain no help therefrom, as they consider the seventy to represent presbyters only. 57. But before we examine the setting apart of Saul and Barnabas, on which so much is founded, it is suitable we should let Dr. Wordsworth have the assistance of a brother, who claims ' the special custody of doctrines,' and by virtue of the assump- tion of the apostleship with its power and authority ought to give most valuable help. At the consecration of Bishop Colenso, that remarkable man, the Bishop of Oxford, preached the sermon, and, believing that Dr. Colenso was about to receive the veritable apostleship with its power and authority, he called into exercise all his power, both natural — such as he might possess before his consecration as a bishop — and his spiritual power— such as he received in his supposed apostleship — -to ground on Holy Scrip- ture the right and power to confer the apostleship of the Twelve on Dr. Colenso, The text he selected is, * The Holy Grhost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And, when they had fasted and prayed, aud laid their hands on them, they sent them away.' (Acts xiii. 2, 3.) The main point of the sermon is to show that the teachers and prophets of the Church of Antioch ordained, or consecrated, Barnabas and Saul to the apostleship of the twelve. The Bishop states : — * The voice of God summons two of that company to a special work. They had learned before this that His work was to be wrought by earthly instruments ; that He had appointed the apostleship ; and even as the first Twelve filled up their number so did they now add these to that company of witnesses of Jesus.' — -P. 10, S28 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. VI. § 58. After describing the office of the apostleship, the Bishop of Oxford remarks, ' Here, then, was the work to which the two were separated, and this was the office in which it was to be fulfilled.'-^P. 15. Now of what kind was ^ the work ' to which the Holy Ghost had called Barnabas and Saul ? The term * work ' is indefinitely used in Scripture ; in one instance it includes the office of an apostle : ' He gave some, apostles .... for the work of the ministry.' (Eph. iv. 11, 12.) The Bishop gives this text, and several others where the term is used, evidently to produce the impression that the work to which Barnabas and Saul were separated on that occasion was the apostleship of the Twelve. Happily for us, St. Luke has explained his own language. For he has recorded, * And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of Grod for the work which they fulfilled^' (Acts xiv. 26.) The work, whatever it was, they had fulfilled, Barnabas and Saul, on a former occa- sion, had a ministry to perform at Jerusalem : for thus we read, * And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministry.' (Acts xii. 25.) In modern transla- tions, the Greek aorist is rendered by a pluperfect tense, * had fulfilled,' or 'accomplished.' The identical Greek word and tense is rendered by the pluperfect in Luke vii. 1, ' When he had ended all his sayings.^ 58. It is needless to remark that, when the Apostle Paul returned to Antioch, he had not ended, fulfilled, or accomplished, the work of his apostleship. We, of course, prefer St. Luke's explanation of his own language rather than the Bishop's per- version of it : we abide by the statement of Luke, a real evan- gelist, rather than by that of Dr. Wilberforce, an assumed apostle. Hear what an undoubted apostle says of Saul, though he calls him by another name, * Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man.' (Gal. i. 1.) But hear what Dr. Wilberforce says, 'Saul (Paul), an apostle of men, and by man,' for he maintains that these teachers and prophets of Antioch, men of a second order, as compared with the Twelve Apostles, conferred the apostleship pn St. P^ul. The Bishop states : — - < *^ J have called them," yo must " separate" them. Though all the Chap. VI. § 59. OPINIONS OF MASON AND POTTEE. 329 power is from Me, yet it is by your hands that I will array them with it.'— P. 10. St. Paul himself maintained that it was not b}^ the hands of any of the apostles that he received his apostleship, but the Bishop makes it out that he received it by a class of men inferior to the apostles. 59. The Bishop of Oxford is much more eloquent than erudite. We shall, therefore, confirm our remarks by extracts from the writings of two men of considerable erudition, Archdeacon Mason and Archbishop Potter, who ought not to be unaccept- able to these Anglicans, as they often quote their sentiments with approbation. Mason distinctly states : — ' It is certain that they did not ordain Paul and Barnabas bishops. For Paul, being an apostle, could not receive any episcopal grace from man, as hath been declared. Wherefore this imposition of hands was not to give them any new power, but, as the text saith, " To set them apart for the work whereunto the Lord had called them," Avhich when they had fulfilled, they " sailed back to Antioch, whence they had been commended to the grace of God." It is not said they sailed to Antioch, where they were made bishops, or where they received episcopal grace, but whence they had been commended (with fasting and prayer) to the grace of God. To which truth Suarez the Jesuit giveth testimony affirming that this imposition of hands was only precatory, and denying that Saul and Barnabas were here ordained either priests or bishops, which seemeth also to be the opinion of Aloysius de Leon, and other late writers.' — Of the Consecration of the Bishops of the Church of England^ ^c, p. 33, Archbishop Potter states : — ' Neither was St. Paul inferior to the rest of the apostles in this mark of honour ; for he often asserts himself to be an apostle not of men, nor by man, but immediately, and without the intervention of men, to have been appointed by Jesus Christ, in opposition to those who denied him to be an apostle, as was shown in one of the former chapters. But then it will be asked for what end Paul and Barnabas received imposition of hands. To which it may be answered that this rite was commonly used both by the Jews and primitive Christians in benedic- tions ; Jacob put his hands on the heads of Ephraim and Manaaseh when he blessed them : and, to mention only one instance more, little children were brought to Christ that he should put his hands on them, and bless them. Accordingly, it is probable this imposition of hands on Paul and Barnabas was a solemn benediction on their ministry of preaching the Gospel in a particular circuit, to which they were then sent by the Holy Spirit's direction. Hence it is called, in the next chapter, a recommendation to the grace of God for the work of minis- 330 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. VI. §§ 60, 61. tering the Gospel to certain cities, which they are there said to have fulfilled. So that this rite was not their ordination to the apostolic office, because the end for which it was given is here said to be fulfilled, whereas their apostolic office lasted as long as their lives. And, there- fore, Paul and Barnabas seem only now to have had a particular mission to preach the Gospel in a certain and limited district, in the same manner as Peter and John were sent by the college of apostles to Samaria to confirm the new converts, and settle the Church there.' — Discourse on Church Government, ch. v. p. 202, 60. To this we add that, if Paul and Barnabas, on this occa- sion, were ordained to the apostolic office, then Paul was reordained after the same manner to the same office, and at which time Silas was also ordained an apostle, and Jerome and Theodoret include him among apostles. (Z9. 64 ; 39. 28.) Let it be observed, after they had finished the work to which they had been called, it is said ' they sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been 7'ecommencled to the grace of God, for the work which they fulfilled.' (Acts xiv. 26.) Having returned to Antioch, and rehearsed to the Church all that God had done by them, and after having remained some time, a further missionary tour was undertaken, and w^e are told * Paul chose Silas and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of Grod.' (Acts XV. 35-40.) How did the brethren recommend them unto the grace of G-o(l in the former instance ? We are told that they ^ fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them.' We have reason to conclude that they did precisely the same things in this instance. These Anglicans must be put to desperate shifts when they can bring no better instances of persons being ordained to the apostolic ofiice subsequent to the day of Pentecost than those adduced. It is evident that, neither by miracles nor otherwise, are they able to connect their boasted succession with the apos- tles. It breaks down at the very commencement. 61. We have already adverted to the striking contrast there is between the eloquence and erudition of the Bishop of Oxford. A remarkable instance shall now be given of the defectiveness of the latter. He has published a dozen ' addresses to the candidates for ordination.' In the last address, entitled Obedience to Ordinary, &c., in a single duodecimo page, where, in all the book, Chap. VI. § 61. MISAPPLICATION OF THE FATHERS. 331 accuracy and correct information were required, there is a tissue of error and misconception. We shall first give the page, and then prove the statement : — * Those of you who have read with any care the writings of St. Ignatius must remember how frequently repeated are his exhortations on this head, as, for instance, to the Church at Smyrna, " Let all follow the bishop as the apostles" (3. 49, 50), and again, in his letter to Polycarp, " Give heed unto the bishop, that God may give heed to you." (3. 4, 5, 6.) And to the same effect speak the succeeding fathers ; amongst whom, as bearing remarkably on the special point with which we are now concerned, I may remind you of TertuUian's words, " Dandi quidem (baptismum) habet jus, summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus : dehinc presbyteri et diaconi ; non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate''^ (8. 11); in which words he expresses the then universally admitted principle that the priesthood and diaconate derived their authority from the apostolical commission, given to the episcopate, which accordingly he traces up to St. John himself, where, speaking of the succession of bishops, he says, " Habemus et Joannis alumnas ecclesias .... Ordo . . . episcoporura ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit auctorem.' (8. 12.) And St. Irenseus asserts that Hyginus, Bishop of Eome, "had the ninth lot of episcopal succession from the apostles," and that " to Linus, when they were founding and ordering the Church, the blessed apostles delivered the episcopate for administering the Church." ' The same principle pervades others of the earliest writers ; as, for instance, where St. Jerome, that stout maintainer of the rights of presbyters, expressly declares, " Thence it has come to pass that without the command of the bishop neither the presbyter nor deacon has the right of baptising " (29. 21) ; and St. Ambrose adds, " Though the presbyters may have done this, yet is the beginning of their ministry from the highest priest — a summo sacerdote^^ (30. 12), an expression explained, as we have seen, by Tertullian to mean the bishop.' — Pp. 241, 242. From the manner in which the Bishop of Oxford introduces his remarks respecting Ignatius, we at least suppose that he had read his writings with some care; but judging from the use he has made of them, we are in great doubt upon the point. A mere cursory reading of the epistles of Ignatius would convince an intelligent reader that he nowhere assigns the place of the apostles to the bishop, but uniformly to the presbyters. When he does assign a place to the bishop, it is that of Grod. The extract, when rightly quoted, as far as it goes, confirms our statement. For Ignatius does not say, ' Let all follow the bishop as the apostles,' but 'Let all follow the 332 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. VI. §§ 62, 63. 'presbytery as the apostles.' But of tlie bishop he says, ' All follow the bishop as Jesus Christ the Father.' (See 3. 49, 50, and also Chap. IV. 27.) The other quotation from Ignatius is correct, and is recorded in those writings of Ignatius which are generally admitted to be genuine. (See 3« 4-6, and Chap. IV. 36.) 62. The first statement taken from Tertullian, translated, is: — * The right of giving (baptism) indeed hath the chief priest who is the bishop : then the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the authority of the bishop.'' This extract, given by the Bishop of Oxford without the context, and as prefaced and supplemented by his remarks, serves his purpose admirably, but changes the character of Ter- tullian's testimony. The Bishop states ; — * In which words he (Tertullian) expresses the then universally admitted principle that the priesthood and diaconate derived their authority from the apostolical commission, given to the episcopate.' In those words Tertullian makes no such statement, but in immediate connection with those words in effect denies it. He teaches that the bishop is allowed to have the power for the honour of the Church, but maintains that every layman has the right to baptise, and that the rights conceded to the bishop have been conceded for the peace of the Church, on the ground of expediency. See 8. 11, and the reader can have no doubt of the nature of Tertullian's teaching respecting the rights of bishops, though he may think him wrong in his teaching. Bishop Kay, in his Ecclesiastical History Illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, states : — * In this passage (from which the Bishop of Oxford made his quota- tion), the inherent right of the laity to baptise is expressly asserted.' — P. 349. It is believed Tertullian wrote his Tract on Baptism before he became a heretic. 63. The Bishop of Oxford gives another extract from a different part of Tertullian's writings, written after he had become a heretic. The passage translated is : — Chap. VI. § 64. TERTULLIAN EXPLAINED. 333 * We have the foster churches of John. . . . the line (ordo) of bishops traced or recounted to its origin wiU terminate in John the Author.' Bishop Kay remarks : — * But how clearly soever the distinction between bishops and the other orders of clergy may be asserted in the writings of Tertullian, they afford us little assistance in ascertaining wherein this distinction con- sisted. By the expression Ordo Episcoporum, he did not mean the Order of Bishops, as distinct from priests and deacons, but the succession of bishops in the churches founded by St. John.' — Ibid> p. 234. Tertullian has no reference whatever to a commission being handed on from the apostles through the bishops. Succession, as described by himself, was in no respect essential to a church being considered apostolic, as he teaches that a church is not the less apostolical without it, provided it has the doctrine of the apostles. (See 8. 9.) We shall best appreciate the extract from Tertullian by considering it in connection with the context, both of which shall here be given : — ' If it is manifest that that is truer which is earlier, and that is earlier which is from the beginning, that which is from the beginning is from the apostles, then it will be equally manifest that that which has been delivered by the apostles will be the most sacred with the Churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians derived from Paul, by what rule the Galatians were corrected, what the Phillippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians read, what also the Romans close by sounded forth, to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel, sealed also with their own blood. We have also the foster churches of John : for if Marcion rejects his Apocalypse yet the line of bishops, recounted to its origin, will terminate in John the Author.' — Adversus Marcionem, lib. iv. cap. V. p. 406. What Tertullian means by the term author may be seen on a comparison with the use of the term in the same connection in other extracts from his writings. (8. 7, 8.) 64. Irenaeus affirms the very same things of presbyters as of bishops, and includes Hyginus, the person the Bishop names, among presbyters. (See 6. 17, also 3, 11, 12, 15, 16.) What Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Epiphanius mean by succession, and the use they make of it, may be seen by referring to other parts of this book: Chap. IV. 47, 53, 65, and 182. Jerome has repeated the exact sentiments of Tertullian, but. 33* WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. VI. §§ 65, 66. as in his case, so in that of Jerome's, the Bishop has left un- quoted the most important part of the testimony. Jerome, so far from holding a bishop of his day to be distinguished by having authority over presbyters by apostolical commission, expressly maintains that he was so distinguished ' rather for the sake of his honour than the necessity of law.' What the Bishop has omitted to state may be seen on referring to 29. 21. See also Chap. IV. 209, 210, where this part of Jerome's testimony has already been noticed. 65, But the Bishop's quotation from Ambrose is the crowning blunder. On referring to 30- 12, it will be seen, first, that Ambrose does not refer to baptism at all, but to the washing of feet, which he regarded as a religious rite ; and, secondly, that the term high-priest, as the context shows, refers only to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bishop, after having concocted this extraordinary page of episcopal utterance, on the strength of it goes on to remark : — * All of these details, therefore, lead us back to what was then the universal estimate of the bishop's office, namely, that it was derived from the direct appointment and mission of Christ himself, and so was the fountain and head of the derived authority and mission of deacons and priests.'— P. 243. Now what are the details to which, the Bishop refers? Manifestly the extracts from the Fathers, as headed and tailed by himself, which entirely change their character and meaning ; and on no better foundation than this does he ground his assumptions for the extraordinary powers he exclusively claims for bishops as of Divine right. 66. It is plain from the concessions of Eoman Catholic and other authors that the form of ordination has become very much developed since the times of the primitive Church. And it will be found, on instituting a comparison between the Jewish mode of installing a high-priest and the consecration of a bishop, that there is almost an exact correspondence. We shall con- clude this chapter by a brief examination of some of the ancient ordinals on points bearing upon the subject of this book. Some of these Anglicans lay great stress on the phrase, ' Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost,' as used in our Ordinal. But its use in this Chap. VI. §§ 67, 68. ANCIENT FORMS OF OEDINATION. 335 way can be shown to be of modern origin, and what the chief authorities of our Church understood by its use in ordination is distinctly expressed by Archbishop Whitgift. (74. 10, 11.) He seems shocked at the thought of anyone professing to confer the Holy Grhost. 67. Bingham has given a very ancient form of ordaining presbyters, and maintains that the phrase in question is of recent origin. (See 91. 13-15; see also 24:> 2.) Courayer says : — * How prevalent soever may have been the opinion of the schoolmen, who have maintained that these words, BeceiVe the Holy Ohost, ^c. are the form of ordination, it is difficult not to yield to the reasons which Morinus and Martene bring to refute it, and of which the moat con- vincing are that these words have never been in use among the Eastern Christians, and that the use of them in the Latin Church is of very recent date. " No ancient Latin rituals (says Morinus) have these words in them ; they appear nowhere : even in many of the more modern ones no mention is made of them Among the Latins it is scarce four hundred years since they began to be used ; as for the Greeks and Syrians, they neither use them now nor ever did use them. By no means, then, can they be said to belong to the substance of ordination." Martene is of no different opinion on this subject from the learned Morinus. " Those words," says he, " Receive the Hohj Ghost, Avhich before the aforesaid preface are uttered with the imposition of hands by the consecrator himself, in which the schoolmen of later times place the form of episcopal ordination, were unkno^vn to all antiquity ; so much so, indeed, that they are scarcely found in any pontifical that is four hundred years old." These assertions are sup- ported by all the proofs that can be desired in a case of this nature, since of all the Oriental and Latin rituals published by Morinus, Mabillon, and Martene, there are not above two or three, and those modern enough, in which these words are contained.' — Dissertation on the Validity of the Ordinations of the English, ^c. chap. vi. p. 96. QS. Mr. Perceval, in the appendix to his Apology for the Doctrine of Apostolical Succession, among several forms of ordination, has given us that of the Greek Church used in the consecration of a bishop, in which the ordaining words are these : — * By the vote and consent of the most holy metropolitans and arch- bishops, beloved of God, and of the holy presbyters, the Divine grace, which healeth that which is weak, and supplieth that which is wanting, promotes N. the presbyter, beloved of God, to be a bishop of the see of N. which is under the protection of God. Let us pray for him, that the grace of the Holy Spirit may come upon him.' ' All the congregation say,^ &c. &c. — P. 126. 336 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. VI. §§ 69, 70. It would be difficult, as we have seen, to obtain any form, or vestige of any form, in the New Testament of ordaining a presbyter to the office of a bishop ; and in the various forms of ordination, as given by Mr. Perceval in his appendix, there is much more allusion to the Jewish high-priest than to any other representative character in the New Testament. Thus, in the office for consecrating a bishop in the Eastern Clmrches, the promoted bishop is said to ' undertake the pontifical dignity.' Allusion also is made to the consecration of 'high -priests.' — P. 127. He is also said to have received 'The grace of the high-priesthood.'— P. 128. 69. ' The most ancient office for consecrating a bishop in the West now known to be extant is, I beheve, that in the Missale Francorurn, which is supposed to be about the date of a.d. 550. It consists merely of an address to the people, and the following prayer J " O God of all honours, God of all dignities, which minister to Thy glory in the sacred orders ; God who, instructing Thy servant Moses with the affection of a secret friend, among other documents of heavenly culture comniandedst the chosen Aaron to be clothed in a mystical garment at the sacred [offices], that succeeding posterity might gather sense of understanding from the examples of the ancients, that no age might be wanting in instruction of doctrine ; and since that kind of significations obtained reverence among the ancients, while we have rather trial of the realities than enigmatical figures : for the habit of that earlier priesthood was adorned for the service of our mind, and the glory of the high-priest- hood is commended to us, not by honourable garments, but by the splendour of souls ; for the things which then pleased the carnal vision required rather that which was to be understood by them. I'herefore, upon this servant N, whom thou hast chosen to the ministry of the high-priesthood, we beseech thee, O Lord, largely bestow this grace, that whatsoever those garments signified by the brightness of gold, and splendour of jewels, and variety of all sorts of work, the same may shine in his conversation and actions. Complete in Thy priest the chief of Thy ministry, &c. &c." '--Pp. 129, 130. 70. The practice of using gorgeous vestments in the promo- tion of a presbyter to the office of a bishop is borrowed directly from ancient Jewish usages, as contained in the Old Testament. (See Z5. 2.) Evidence of this kind prompts the question. How is it, if these ancients were at all conscious of the views of these Anglicans, that a presbyter could be promoted to the office of an apostle, that they should rather wander to Moses in the desert for a precedent to grace the promotion of a presbjrter Chap. VI. § 71. JEWISH OEDINATION. 357 than to anything recorded in the New Testament ? The answer is that, as they had adopted the custom of promoting a presbyter to the higher office of a bishop, as exercised subsequently to apostolical times, and being conscious of no New Testament precedent for such a rite, they borrowed one from the Jews, which has now been obsolete for upwards of 1,800 years. 71. The custom of the Jews in ordaining their presbyters gave rise for the most part to the canons of the primitive Church. It is only necessary to state the practice as recorded by Maimonides, and given in the writings of the learned Light- foot, and the reader himself will be enabled to institute the comparison : — * After what manner is the ordaining of elders (presbyters) for ever ? Not that they should lay their hands upon the head of an elder, but only should call him rabbi, and say to him. Behold, thou art ordained, and thou hast power of judging, &c. Anciently, everyone that had been promoted to be an elder promoted his disciples also. But this honour the wise men indulged to old HiUel, namely, decreeing that no person should be ordained to be an elder but with the hcense of the president. But neither is the president to ordain any person unless the vice-presi- dent assist him, nor the vice-president unless the president assist him. But as to what belongs to the other societies : it is lawful for one man to ordain with the allowance of the president, but let him have two more with him ; for it is not an ordination imless by three ; nor do they ordain elders out of the land.' — ^Vol. ii. p. 686. On all this Selden remarks that the office of presbyters, and the manner of their ordination, whether by imposition of hands or forms of speech, depended not upon any Divine institution, but arose from the custom of their ancestors, and human right. — Lib. ii. cap. vii. sect. 4, p. 182. 338 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES? Chap. VII. §§ 1, 2. CHAPTER VII. A PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE THEORY OF THIS ANGLICAN TEACHING IN REGARD TO THE CHURCH AND ITS MINISTRY, IN THE CLAIMS ASSERTED FOR THE SAME BY THE BISHOP OF OXFORD. 1. Let it be borne in mind that, if bishops are successors of the apostles in the sense explained by these Anglicans, certain inevitable results follow therefrom, one of which is that the Church, clergy as well as laity, must submit to the teaching, the judgment, and the authority, of these so-called successors of the apostles, as if they were the holy apostles themselves. Now, this is the very thing claimed by the Bishop of Oxford in his last charge to his clergy. He does not, of course, mention bishops by name, but speaks of the Divine authority of the Church, yet he does not mean by that term ' a congregation of faithful men,' as defined in our Nineteenth Article, but the rulers of the Church ; although the term is never used, in that sense, in Holy Scripture. 2. The Bishop asks two important questions, both of which are to be understood in a strong affirmative sense : — 'And how could the Church fulfil this office unless, of a truth, God were personally with her ? Unless her whole system be supernatural, unless a Divine breath inspire her judgment, how could she discern the truth amidst the conflicting claims of many writings, &c. ? ' — Charge^ 1863, pp. 60, 61. The Bishop here, no doubt, claims the promise, ' Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world ' (Matt, xxviii. 20), and applies to his purpose the text, * And he breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost ' (John xx. 22). In both cases he adopts this modem Anglican explanation of the texts, as we have explained in Chap. I. 36-54, in de- fiance of the all but universal consent of the Fathers of the first four centuries. These Anglicans have far outstripped their early Chap. VII. § 3. LAUD AND THE BISHOP OF OXFOKD. 339 preceptors, the Bishop not excepted. As a proof of this, we shall call in the aid of Archbishop Laud to correct the Bishop. Eome had made a similar claim for her system, to which Laud gave an answer. See 89. 2, 3, and 5, but especially sect. 3, which the Tractarians adroitly left out of their Catena Patrum on apostolical succession. His answer shows that, in his judg- ment, and that of antiquity, Grod promised to be as much with his believing people generally as w^ith the bishops. 3. We readily admit that, if apostolical succession is what these Anglicans would persuade us it is, then the Bishop's claim for his Catholic Church might have some show of reason. But after having carefully and fully considered their attempts to prove the doctrine in question, it must be considered that they have most signally failed. The so-called doctrine is a delusion, an insult to common sense, and a libel on the holy apostles by misrepresenting them. Without this succession, then, the assumptions of the Bishop for his Catholic Church fall to the ground. We say * his,' because he, as we shall see, includes the corrupt systems of Christianity called the Koman Catholic and Greek Churches, and excludes all ' Christianly Eeformed ' and Evangelical Churches not supposed to have this Anglican apostolical succession. We must, nevertheless, examine these utterances which have produced so great sensation both among Protestants and Eoman Catholics. We shall give the whole of the Bishop's language at one view, which is to form the subject of our remarks : — ' For it is, we are told, " not without fair reason considered " that it ia " an unhappy thing on the whole for the English Church to have pre- served its chain of episcopal consecrations unhroke^ ; " because, as we gather, if it wanted this, instead of trusting to its membership in the Church Catholic, and receiving its Bible, its creeds, and believing in the teaching of the Spirit, instead, that is, of believing in the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, in the Holy Catholic Church. Thus, for ex- ample, we shall in the long run be unable really to maintain the Divine authority of Holy Scripture if we give up the Divine authority, in its proper place, of " the Holy Catholic Church." The two are absolute correlatives. In our sense of the words we could have no " Bible " if we had no Church ; if, that is to say, the primitive and as yet undi- vided Church had not, under the breath of the Divine Spirit, settled for us its canon, and if the Church universal had not maintained it Although, when the Bible is once giveu the Church must receive ita z2 340 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. VII. § 4. teaching implicitly, as the Word of God, yet in priority of time the Church was of necessity before the Bible. For it is the record of God's dealings with, and revelations to, the Chiirch, and the thing recorded must in time precede its record. That it did so, in fact, we know. The Church of the Old Testament was founded on that day when God made a covenant with Abraham ; but four hundred and thirty years passed away, patriarch after patriarch lived and died in the faith, before Moses set his hand to those inspired books, the earliest in Scripture, which bear his name. It was not otherwise with the Church of the New Covenant. That was born on the day of Pentecost ; but it was many years before the earliest Gospel, that probably of St. Matthew, was given to the Church. Moreover (as we have seen) to have that fixed canon of Holy Scripture which defines what is " the Bible," the Church must receive it ; and upon this authority of its reception it must propound the Bible to each separate soul as the Word of God. There can, in the strife which is forced upon us, be no intermediate position between the dull naturalism to which so many are tending and a simple faith in God's presence with his Church, and so a hearty belief alike in her sacraments, her creeds, her orders, and her Bible, as the separate portions of the great system of instruments through which her God, her Saviour, and her Sanctifier are present with and working in her.'— Pp. 55, 58-^61. 4. It may be especially noticed how, in the above extracts, the Bishop has confounded Divine things with human, heavenly with earthly, and, contrary to the Creeds of the Holy Catholic Church, alike believes in the Holy Spirit, in the Holy Scriptures, and in the Church, in orders, and in sacraments ; and also how he puts the Church before the Scriptures in point of time, and regards the Church of equal, if not of superior, authority to them. These are points of the gravest importance, and, if in- correct, as we believe they are, demand correction and refuta- tion. We should, indeed, be glad if we could be certain of the Bishop's meaning in some of the above extracts. We are not a little perplexed with this sentence, ' Instead, that is, of believing in the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, in the Holy Catholic Church.' Why this ' therefore ? ' Of this we can only conjecture, and therefore pass it over, but shall more especially notice his faith in the Church. The Bishop avows * a heaxty belief in the Church's Creeds.' And yet the Article on the Church in the two Creeds he in effect contradicts, and certainly holds a faith opposed to the Article as there given. Our version of the Apostles' Creed relating to the Church is, ' I believe in the Holy Chap. VII. 4. BELIEF IN THE CHUECH. 341 Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church.' Perhaps some English readers would understand this part of the creed as stating a belief in the Church, and would read it thus : ' I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.' This, however, would be to make the mistake the Bishop has done. The proper meaning is, ' I believe the Holy Catholic Church.' In fact this is what the Grreek version of the creed expresses, 'I believe the Holy Catholic Church.' This part of the creed is expressed exactly in this way in King Edward VL's Catechism, 1553. The Nicene creed confirms this meaning of the article, ' I believe in the Holy Grhost, . . . and I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church.' The early Fathers repudiated faith in a Church. Eusebius, Bishop of Emessa, in the middle of the fourth century, states that he and others did not — ' Believe in the Holy Catholic Church, but they believed in God, that the Church is not the author of salvation, that man is not of the Church, but the Church takes its beginning from man.' (20. 1.) The learned Euffinus, in his exposition of the Creed, re- marks ; — ' The preposition "in" is not added that it might be said in the Holy Church : but that the Holy Church is to be believed, not as we believe in God, but as a congregation gathered to God, &c. So, then, by this syllable "m" the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and Divine things are separated from human.' For a much fuller statement, see 32. 2. Augustine con- sidered that the Creed made the same important distinction between things Divine and things human. When speaking of the Church, he says : — ' We ought to believe the Church, not, however, to believe in the Church, because the Church is not God, but the house of God.' — In Vigilia Fenticostes, sermo i. torn. x. col. 993. Again he says : — * It is of great importance whether anyone believes that Christ is He Himself, and whether he believes in Christ. For the demons believe that Christ is He Himself : demons do not, however, believe in Christ. For he who beheves in Christ also hopes in Christ, and loves Christ. For if he has faith without hope, and without love, he believes that Christ is, but does not beheve in Christ.' — De Verbis Domini in Evang. secundum Joan. s. Ixi. tom. x. col. 228. 342 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEKS ? Chap. VII. §§ 5, 6. Augustine is here interpreting Scripture not by its own phraseology, but by that of his Creed. We may not blame him for not knowing that in Hebrew we might say, ' I believe in Grod,' and ' I believe in Moses,' and that the self-same style is trans- ferred to the New Testament. We learn, however, with certainty, that Augustine did not, and could not, believe in the Church. 5. Paschasius, a deacon of Rome, wrote a book on the Holy Grhost. Of the book and its author, Grregory the Grreat spoke very highly. In this book we learn that a heretic taking a similar view of this part of the Creed to that of the Bishop of Oxford, not having faith in the Divine authority of the Church, but regarding it as a company of fellow-creatures, explained the phrase, ' I believe in the Holy Grhost,' in the same way as he explained the phrase, ' I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,' which Paschasius considered to be a blasphemous persuasion. He says : — * He who believes in the Church believes in man. For man is not of the Church, but the Church began to be from man. Desist, there- fore, from this blasphemous persuasion to think that thou oughtest to believe in any human creature : since thou must not in anywise believe in an angel or an archangel.' For fuller information see 4:8a 6. Such is the united testimony of the ^primitive and as yet undivided Church,' which the Bishop represents as being then ' under the breath of the Divine Spirit.' What a contrast between the faith of the Bishop of Oxford and the yet undi- vided Church of antiquity I The Bishop jumbles together Creator and creatures. Divine persons and human things, alike believes in the Divine authority of Scripture and in the Divine authority of the Church ; which latter proposition in plain English means in the Divine authority of himself and all canoni- cal bishops, those of the Eoman and Greek Churches, so called, not excepted. On the contrary, the yet undivided Church exercised a most discriminating faith, distinguishing between what related to the Godhead and what related to mortals, and sacraments ; not confounding the Creator with his creatures, but separating Divine things from human. Paschasius, as we have Chap. VII. §§ 7, 8. FAITH IN HUMAN THINGS. 343 seen, regards it as blasphemous persuasion to think that we are to believe in any human creature such as he considers the Church to be. 7. Without laying any particular stress upon the absence or presence of the preposition ' in,' it is certain the early Christians regarded the Church and its authority very differently from the Bishop of Oxford ; and had he lived in those early times, and had he been as devoted in the dissemination of his novelties as he is now, he must have been rebuked, if not put out of the Holy Catholic Church. He speaks of having ' a hearty belief alike in the Church's sacraments, her orders, and her Bible.' We ask how many sacraments are we to have a hearty belief in ? Two or seven ? In how many orders ? In two, or three, or more ? Such is the peculiar style of the Bishop's charge, and, looking as it does so much towards Rome, we are compelled also to ask. What Bible are we to have a hearty belief in ? He tells us that if — * The primitive and as yet undivided Church had not, under the breath of the Divine Spirit, settled for us its canon : and if the Church universal had not maintained it, &c.' And to this he appends the following note : — ' Of course the Anglican Church, though a true branch of the Church Catholic, yet as only a branch, could not settle such a matter as the canon of Holy Scripture.' — P. 59. 8. The Bishop, as all these Anglicans do, includes the Roman Catholics, and excludes all Christian Churches not having the supposed apostolical succession. It is true that our Church and all Christianly Reformed and Evangelical Churches have one Bible, and it is equally true that the Romanists have another, which includes the uncanonical books of the Apocrypha. The Bishop says * settled for us the canon.' Then he considers the canon was settled. And he goes on to say, ' and if the Church universal had not maintained it,' that is, Roman Catholics and others. We cannot but infer that the Bishop includes the Romish orders, sacraments, and apocryphal writings, as the objects of faith. It is bad enough to require us to have ' alike hearty belief in 344 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. VII. §§ 9-11. our orders ' as in our Bible. Enough has been said in this book to lead us to think that in our orders there may be much that is human, but our Bible we believe to be Divine ; but to have a hearty belief in Eomish sacraments, in Eomish orders, and in Komish uncanonical books ! against this we protest. 9. The Bishop, in the sentence a little above, speaks very loosely about Hhe breath of the Divine Spirit.' Apostles had the Holy Spirit, and, according to this modern Anglican teaching, they handed on their undiminished power and authority to the bishops, which he calls the Church, and, in this sense, the Church is supposed to stand in the place of the apostles, and, under the breath of the Divine Spirit, to have settled the canon. It is painful to find that we have in our Protestant and Evan- gelical Church a bishop who, to use the language of good Bishop Hall, 'wrongs Scripture by hanging all the authority of the canon upon the sleeve of the Church.' — No Peace with Rome, sect. xiv. 10. We especially request the reader to consider with attention the way in which Euffinus has spoken of the canon, and its being received in his time. Not a word about its resting on the Divine authority of the Church, not a syllable that it was settled under the breath of the Divine Spirit by the successors of the apostles. So far from this, he, in immediate connection with that subject, places the Church among Grod's creatures, as a thing not to be believed in, but to be believed as existing. (32. 2.) 11. Athanasius has also given us a list of the canonical books of Holy Scripture, and his reasons for doing so, which we shall do well to consider, and see its bearing on the teaching of the Bishop of Oxford respecting the ' Divine authority of the Church ' in regard to the canon. Athanasius says : — * But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of our- selves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation : and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should afterwards read other books — those called apocryphal — ^led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books : I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and Chap. VII. § 12. ATHANASIUS ON THE CANON. 345 advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying, " Forasmuch as some have taken in hand," to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the Divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word delivered to the fathers ; it hath seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by the brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to bring before you the books included in the canon, and handed down and accredited as Divine ; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may correct those who have led him astray ; and that he who continues steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remem- brance.' Here follow by name the canonical books both of the Old and New Testaments, and then he adds : — * These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsteth may be satisfied with the words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to them, neither let Jiim take aught from them But for greater exactness, I add this also, considering it necessary so to vn:ite ; that there are other books besides these, not indeed included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who are come of late, wishing for admonition and instruction in godliness. The wisdom of Solomon, and the wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Doctrine of the Apostles and the Shepherd. But the former (the can- onical books as received by us), my brethren, are included in the canon, the latter being [merely] read ; nor is there any mention of apocryphal writings. But this is an invention of heretics, writing them to favour their own views, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, and producing them as ancient writings, that thereby they might find occasion to lead astray the simple.' — Festal Epistles, Fragment of Epist. 29, pp. 137, 138, Library of the Fathers. 12. Athanasius is asked by his brethren to give his opinion on the number of the canonical books of Holy Scripture, probably from the circumstance of his being a leading bishop, and an illustrious Christian of those times. He, on his own authority, and in his own name, undertakes the task, not for a moment supposing that he was under the breath of the Divine Spirit in what he did in any other sense than every good man may be considered to be when he does what is acceptable to Grod. And so far from the Church at that time assuming the so-called Divine authority in settling the canon of Scripture after the 346 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. VII. §§ 13-16. infallible manner the Bishop intimates, it is certain this great Athanasius and his brethren did not know, certainly did not acknowledge, any such delusion. Verily, the Bishop has made a claim for his Catholic Church which was absolutely unknown to early antiquity. 13. To show how uncertain this figment of apostolical suc- cession is, on which the Bishop rests so much for the claims of his Church, in addition to what has already been stated, we shall refer to some of the martyrs and leading defenders of our Church, by whom succession is most distinctly denied to be any necessary mark of a Church. John Bradford, martyr. (64. 1, 2.) Hooper, bishop and martyr. (65- 6-8.) Philpot, martyr. (66- 2, 3.) Bishop Jewel. (73. 13-19.) Fulke. (75. 9, 10.) Whitaker. (78. 3, 22, 23.) Bancroft. (80. 17.) 14. Archbishop Laud is another witness against the doctrine of apostolical succession as held by these Anglicans, but it would be a mistake to include him among the above witnesses without some qualification. The texts on which nearly all these Angli- cans ground their belief that the apostleship was transmissible are by Laud, on the authority of some of the Fathers, applied to believers generally. (89. 3, 5.) Again, he contends that a local visible and continual succession is no necessary mark of the true Church. (89. 6, 7.) From this we learn that, however alien his general teaching was to the real doctrines of our Church, yet he is far surpassed by his pupils. 15. Our next authority is the learned Bingham, a host in himself, and an authority often quoted by these Anglicans when it suits their purpose. (91. 17.) 16. The next point to be considered is the Bishop's putting the Church before the Word of God in point of time. The whole passage to which attention is directed will be found at sect. 3 of this chapter. The Bishop says, ^The Church of necessity is before the Bible.' Of course it is. Human beings, and not the Holy Grhost, made the parchment or vellum, and prepared it for the reception of significant signs to represent to the eye the Word of God. Human beings, and not the Holy Ghost, committed these signs to the parchment or vellum, arranged the books in a given Chap. VII. § 17. THE WORD BEFORE THE CHURCH. 34-7 order, and bound or stitched them together, and thus the Bible was produced. Call those human beings the Church whose main interest it was to have the Bible, and of course in that sense the Church was before the Bible. But surely the Bishop, on the occasion of addressing so many learned fellow-presbyters, would not trifle with them by narrating so trite a truism. He must mean to say something more than this, and we have proof of it in the following remarks: 'Although, when the Bible is once given, the Church must receive its teaching implicitly as the Word of Grod.' Again he remarks, ' For the Bible is the record of God's dealings with and revelation to the Church, and the thing recorded must in time precede its record.' By the term Bible it is certain the Bishop means the Holy Scriptures or written Word of Grod. The Word of Grod, when spoken or communicated to his servants, is the same whether recorded or not. The ' revelations to the Church,' of which the Bishop speaks, were the Word of God communicated by His inspired servants to His people. But that Word of God received no additional authority by the mere circumstance of its being subsequently written by the Church. The Word of God did not write itself; it was not com- mitted to parchment by the Holy Ghost. This was done, of course, by human hands, but not necessarily by those of an in- spired man. St. Paul did not generally write his epistles by his own hand ; the hand might be that of a mere amanuensis, which would neither add to nor diminish from what was written. The Bishop says, ' That (the Church of the New Covenant) was born on the day of Pentecost ; but it was many years before the earliest Gospel was given to the Church.' By what means was the Church born ? By the Word of God through St. Peter, as accompanied by the Holy Ghost. (See 1 Cor. iv. 15.) The Word of God then of necessity was before the Church. In the ancient Peshito-Syriac version of the Gospels, each is prefaced by a statement showing where and in what language each evangelist 'uttered and preached' his Gospel. But written or unwritten, these Gospels were equally the Word of God. 17. The Bishop speaks as if the Church or people of God must have been without His Word until the time of Moses. But he 348 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. VII. § 18. means the written Word ; yet even that is not true. The most competent and well-recognised Biblical critics admit that the Book of Job was written long before the time of Moses ; this is admitted by the sceptic Eenan. Most certainly Abraham was not before the Word of Grod, for we read, * Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my command- ments, my statutes, and my laws.' (Gren. xxvi. 5.) Abraham must have had a canon of the Word of Grod, and if such a poem as that of Job, acknowledged to be the finest in the world, in all probability was written about this time, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Abraham had a written revelation. 18. It must be conceded that the Bishop has not got much credit to his Catholic Church or himself by this abortive attempt to raise from the dead this old popish argument, viz. that the Church was before the Scriptures, and that the autho- rity of the Word of Grod depends on the Church which our Protestant forefathers tried, condemned, executed, and con- signed to the grave, two or three centuries ago. He, however, in attempting to act the part of a resurrectionist, in this case has caused a good deal of gossip both among Papists and Protestants, but, not having succeeded, has done no great harm, except to himself as a bishop of a Protestant and Evangelical Church. A bishop of our Church should, more than all other men, have hands clean from popery, and have no peace with Rome until Rome becomes pure. But we must show, as we have intimated, the exact treatment which this doctrine of the Bishop received at the hands of our Protestant forefathers. It should be noticed that the Bishop puts the Church before the Grospel by referring to the Grospel of St. Matthew, as given subsequently to the Church, and also how the Bishop makes the Church add to the authority of Scripture, and holds that the Divine authority of the Scriptures and the Divine authority of the Church are cor- relatives. To all which Tyndale, the apostle of England, gives a most complete and satisfactory answer. (58. 15-17.) Rogers, who made the first exposition of the Articles of our Church, not long after they were framed, answering certain * popish assertions,' has by anticipation answered the popish assertions of the Bishop, which answer he has confirmed by Chap. VII. §§ 19, 20. USHEK ON THE CHURCH. 349 stating the testimony of all the Eeformed Churches: for he says, * Of this judgment be the Churches Eeformed.' Here he includes all evangelical Christendom of those days. (82. 27- 30.) The next authority to which we shall refer is the learned Whitaker, a most able and successful champion against popery. Let the reader place the Bishop with his arguments and illustra- tions among the papists with their arguments and illustrations, which in fact are identical, and we shall leave him to his own reflections. (78. 19-21.) 19. The testimony of the very learned Archbishop Usher on these points is most valuable. He says : — ' This testimony of God's Spirit in the hearts of his faithful, as it is proper to the Word of God, so it is greater than any human persuasions grounded upon reason or witnesses of men ; unto which it is unmeet that the "Word of God should be subject, as papists hold [and the Bishop of Oxford], when they teach that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church. For by thus hanging the credit and authority of the Scriptures on the Church's sentence, they make the Church's word of greater credit than the Word of God. Whereas the Scriptures of God cannot be judged or sentenced by any ; and God only is a worthy witness of himself, in his Word and by his Spirit ; which give mutual testimony one of the other. * Show some further reasons that the authority of the Scriptures doth not depend upon the Church. First, to believe the Scripture is a work of faith ; but the Church cannot infuse faith. Secondly, any authority that the Church hath, it must prove it by the Scripture ; therefore the Scripture dependeth not upon the Church. Thirdly, if an infidel should ask the Church, how they are sure that Christ died for them ? if they should answer because themselves say so, it would be ridiculous.' — Substance of Christian Religion^ p. 9. 20. For the third time, and finally on these points, we shall call in the aid of Archbishop Laud, the erring preceptor of his still more erring sons, to correct them on the points in question. What we are about to quote from Laud will apply to all we have quoted from the Bishop's charge, as given at sect. 3 of this chapter. In what, then, is to be added from the writings of Laud, the reader will have to put the Bishop in the place of * Fisher the Jesuit,' the arguments and assumptions of each being alike, and he has only to consider well the arguments of Laud, and he must conclude that Fisher the Jesuit is most triumphantly answered, and by anticipation, therefore, the Bishop of Oxford, whom he accurately represents : — 350 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEES ? Chip. VII. § 20. * You cannot be right that resolve faith of the Scriptures, being the Word of God, into only tradition. For only, and no other proof, are equal. To prove the Scripture, therefore (so called by way of ex- cellence), to be the Word of God, there are several offers at divers proofs. For, first, some fly to the testimony and witness of the Church and her tradition [as the Bishop of Oxford], which constantly believes, and unanimously delivers it. Secondly, some to the light and the testimony which the Scripture gives to itself; with other internal proofs which are observed in it, and to be found in no other writing what- soever. Thirdly, some to the testimony of the Holy Ghost, which clears up the light that is in Scripture, and seals this faith to the souls of men, that it is God's Word. Fourthly, all that have not imbrutished themselves, and sunk below their species and order of nature, give even natural reason leave to come in, and make some proof, and give some approbation upon the weighing and the consideration of other argu- ments. And this must be admitted, if it be but for pagans and infidels, who either consider not or value not any one of the other three, yet must some way or other be converted, or left without excuse, and that is done by this very evidence. ' For the first : the tradition of the Church, which is your way [and that of the Bishop of Oxford] : that taken and considered alone, is so far firom being the only that it cannot be a suflScient proof to believe by Divine faith that Scripture is the Word of God. For that which is a full and sufficient proof is able of itself to settle the soul of man concerning it. Now the tradition of the Church is not able to do this. For it may be iurther asked why we should believe the Church's tradition. And if it be answered, we may believe because the Church is infallibly governed by the Holy Ghost [" under the breath of the Divine Spirit settled the canon"] ; it may yet be demanded of you how that may appear. And if this be demanded, either you must say you have it by special revela- tion, which is the private Spirit you object to other men ; or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture, as all of you do. Ajid that very offer, to prove it out of Scripture, is a sufficient acknowledgment that the Scripture is a higher proof than the Church's tradition, which (in your grounds) is or may be questionable till you come thither. ' Again, if the voice of the Church (saying the books of Scripture, commonly received, are the Word of God) be the formal object of faith, upon which alone absolutely I may resolve myself: then every man not only may, but ought, to resolve his faith into the voice or tradition of the Church : for every man is bound to rest upon the proper and formal object of the faith. But nothing can be more evident than this, that a man ought not to resolve his faith of this principle into the sole testimony of the Church. Therefore neither is that testimony, or tradition alone, the formal object of faith. The learned of your own part grant this : although in that Article of the Creed (I beUeve the Catholic Church) peradventure all this be contained (I believe those things which the Church teacheth) yet this is not necessarily under- stood, that I beUeve the Church teaching as an infallible witness. And if they did not confess this, it were no hard thing to prove. Ckjlp. VII. § 20. SCEIPTUEE KNOWN BY SCRIPTUEE. 351 * It seems therefore to me very necessary that we be able to prove the books of Scripture to be the Word of God, by some authority that is absolutely Divine. For if they be warranted unto us by any authority less than Divine then all things contained in them (which have no greater assurance than the Scripture, in which they are read) are not objects of Divine belief. And that, once granted, will enforce us to yield that all the Articles of Christian belief have no greater assurance than human or moral faith, or credulity, can afford. An authority, then, simply Divine must make good the Scriptures' infalli- bility, at least in the last resolution of our faith in that point. This authority cannot be any testimony or voice of the Church alone. For the Church consists of men subject to error; and no one of them since the apostles' times hath been assisted with so plentiful a measure of the blessed Spirit as to secure him from being deceived ; and all the parts, being all liable to mistaking, and fallible, the whole cannot possibly be infallible, in and of itself, and privileged from being deceived in some things or other. * So then this is agreed on by me, that Scripture must be known to be Scripture by a sufficient, infallible, Divine proof. And that such proof can be nothing but the Word of God is agreed on also by me. Yea, and agreed on, for me, it shall be likewise that God's Word may be written and unwritten. For Cardinal Bellarmine tells us truly that it is not the writing or printing that makes Scripture the Word of God ; but it is the prime, unerring, essential truth, God himself, uttering and revealing it to his Church, that makes it verbvm Dei, the Word of God. And this Word of God is uttered to men, either immediately, by God himself. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — and so it was to the prophets and apostles — or mediately, either by angels, to whom God had spoken first : and so the law was given, and so also the message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin : or by the prophets and apostles, and so the Scriptures were delivered to the Church. But their being written gave them no authority at all in regard of themselves. Written or unwritten, the Word was the same. But it was written that it might be the better preserved, and continued with the more integrity, to the use of the Church, and the more faithfully* in our memories,' — A Relation of the Conference between W. Laud and Mr. Fisher the Jesuit^ sect. 16, pp. 39, 40, 42, 43. 352 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES ? Chap. VIII. §§ 1, 2. CHAPTER VIII. AN ESPECIAL EXAMINATION AND DETECTION OF CERTAIN FORGED LINKS OF THE TRACTARIAN CATENA PATRUM ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 1. It has been demonstrated how utterly alien the teaching of these Anglicans on the doctrine of apostolical succession is to all the leading authorities of our Eeformed Church during the latter half of the sixteenth century. The question is, How does the case stand in regard to the leading authorities of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and part of the nineteenth centuries ? During that long period of time, there is ample scope for quoting authorities. In the Tracts for the Times, No. 74, this im- mense field has been well explored, and the result is we have a Catena Patrum of forty-three links or authorities, which purport, according to the above tract, to give the ' Testimony of writers in the later English Church to the doctrine of the apostolical succession.' — No. 74, p. 1. 2, We have not attempted to examine the writings of all the forty-three authors quoted ; but in investigating tne subject of this book, we came in contact with several, and these we have included in the third part of the Catena Patrum. All in this part, with the exception of Rogers (8Z.) and Field (84.), have been included in the Tractarian Catena Patrum on apostolical succession. These two authors, though not distinctly of the sixteenth century, nor cited in the above Catena, yet, for their singular value and importance, have been included in the third pdrt of our Catena. The evidence of Rogers has been anticipated in other chapters of this book ; and with respect to Field, it should be observed that the Tractarians have generally included him in their Catenas, but on the subject of our book he is most decidedly against them. His testimony is recorded in 84. which we especially commend to the consideration of the reader. Chap. VIII. § 3. TKACT NO. 74. 353 It cannot be considered unfair to suppose that the Tractarians have done the best they could, in making a selection out of the vast number of authors that have lived during two centuries and a half. We have no other work, that we know of, which attempts, to the same extent as Tract 74 does, to give autho- rities on the doctrine in question. This tract, then, is of singular importance in the present discussion, for if these Anglicans have no better chain of authorities to hang their doctrine upon, their case is desperate indeed. It is extremely doubtful if any one of the forty- three authorities held the doctrine in all its fulness and bearings like the Anglicans of the present day. So far from the testimonies given in the said tract being a chain on which might hang this Anglican doctrine of apostolical succession, many of the links, as we shall see, ignore it, and make state- ments, and construct arguments, that are absolutely destructive of the doctrine in question; and this is done by authorities whose names are as familiar to us as household words. The Catena is a chain of the most worthless character ; for the links, as we shall see, are of such a quality that, in very many in- stances, they are destructive to each other. We must not, how- ever, do any injustice to the authors of this Catena, by hanging on their chain what they, according to their own written state- ment, never intended it to bear. They say : — * The doctrine in dispute is this : that Christ founded a visible Church as an ordinance for ever, and endowed it once for all with spiritual privileges, and set His apostles over it, as the first in a line of ministers and rulers like themselves, except in their miraculous gifts, and to be continued from them by successive ordination ; in consequence, that to adhere to this Church, thus distinguished, is among the ordinary duties of a Christian, and is the means of his appropriating the Gospel blessings with an evidence of his doing so not attainable elsewhere.' — Tract No. 74, pp. 1,2. 3. For anything stated in this thesis, it might embrace the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This comes very far short of the doctrine of apostolical succession, which has already been discussed in this book. Here is not a word respecting the ex- clusive claims of episcopacy, or the indispensable necessity of episcopal ordination to the validity of the Christian ministry, and many of the authors whose writings are quoted concede A A 354 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. VIII. §§ 4-7. these points, and others contend for a governing power, without determining in whom it is vested. Temperate as this thesis is, they have very significantly passed over the authors of our Church of the sixteenth century, for they say : — ' In selecting them it has been thought advisable, as in the two pre- vious Catenas (one of which is on the doctrine of apostolical succession), not to include the writings of the Reformers of the sixteenth century. . . It has been thought safer to show that the succession of our standard divines ever since their times understood them to hold that view of doctrine which it has been the endeavour of these tracts to recommend ; and that no other can be taken without contradicting both that illustrious succession itself and its judgment concerning the Reformers.' — Tract No. 78, p. 1. 4. This is a Tractarian fashion of falsifying our Eeformers. We are not dependent upon their successors for a knowledge of their teaching on the subjects under discussion; their opinions are faithfully recorded in their own writings which have come down to us ; and such evidence is given of its nature in the second part of our Catena that no amount of shuffling or deceit can undo it. 5. We shall now briefly examine fourteen links of the Catena, as made use of by the Tractarians to establish their doctrine of apostolical succession, following the order in which they stand in that Catena. 6. The first is Bishop Bilson, who, it is plain, held such a view of the apostleship that, in his mind, it was confined to the apostles themselves, and that, in fact, with them it ceased, ' and no like power reserved to their successors after them.' (See 95.) 7. The next authority in order is Hooker, whose testimony and general arguments on the point under consideration are most decisive against Tractarians, and against these Anglicans, their numerous progeny ; so decisive that either the honesty or knowledge of those who quote him on that side of the question may well be doubted. Bishop Warburton has well said : — ' The great Hooker was not only against, but laid down principles that have entirely subverted, all pretences to a Divine unalterable right in any form of church government whatever. Yet, strange to say, his work was so unavoidable a confutation of Puritanical principles, which, by the way, claimed their presbytery as of Divine right, that the Church- Chap. VIII. §§ 8, 9. HOOKER MISREPRESENTED. 355 men took advantage of the success of their champion, and now began to claim a Divine right for episcopacy on the strength of that very book that subverted all pretences to every species of Divine right whatsoever.' — Controv. Tracts^ p. 467. Anyone consulting the extracts as given from Hooker in 83. will at once be convinced of the truth of Warburton's remark. 8. Hooker maintains also that the seat of all power is in the Church visible, inclusive of the laity, of course, and, in accordance with this view, he represents the authority of the bishops ' as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them.' (See 83. 12, 13, 15.) As to the morality of making such a use of Hooker to favour Tractarian beres}^, we shall not venture to speak, but give the published opinion of Dean Groode : — * What is Mr. Keble's explanation in his preface to Hooker ? That Hooker ^'- shrunk from the legitimate result of his own premisses;" " he did not feel at liberty to press unreservedly, and develop, in all its consequences, that part of the argument which they [i. e. Laud and others] regarded as the most vital and decisive : the necessity, namely^ of the apostolical commission to the derivation of sacramental grace and to our mystical communion with Christ.'''' Such is the treatment awarded to one of our most learned and judicious divines. To offer any defence of Hooker against such charges would be a waste of words indeed. But there is one question which I would seriously ask of the author of the *' Catena," namely. How he can reconcile it with fair deahng, when it is notorious, and confessed by his own party, that Hooker did not follow out " his own premisses " (to use their phrase) so as to maintain their doctrine, but expressly repudiates it, to select a passage so worded as to lead a cursory reader to think that Hooker held it, and put it as a proof of Hooker's advocacy of their doctrine in their " Catena" of witnesses for it ? In what position does such a fact leave their boasted " Catenas?" ' — Divine Rule, ^-c. vol. ii. pp. 279. 280. 9. Archbishop Bancroft comes next. He calls Papists false prophets, and ranks them with Arians and libertines, but forbears to call Puritans by that name, and though he did not like them yet he thought them too good to be put in the company of Papists, &c. What different views he must have had of the Papists and Puritans to these Anglicans of the present day. (See 80. 1, 2, 4.) He speaks with approbation of the Eeformed Churches, none of which had bishops, and he considered it an A A 2 356 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. VIII. §§ 10-12. honour that all of these Churches should have clapped their hands for joy at the reformation of the English Church : and he appears to have been much pleased with the testimony of Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer concerning the Book of Common Prayer. (80- 11-13.) It is true he maintained something in advance of his brethren respecting the authority of the bishop (80. 8, 9), which awoke considerable opposition on the part of some. The learned Eaynolds charged him with introducing a doctrine which, as yet, had never been maintained by any of the Eeformers, or the leading authorities of our Church, whose names he gives. (See 81> 1-6.) 10. We come now to Bishop Andrewes, who, no doubt, was in advance of his times respecting his views on the authority of bishops as exercised by Divine right. But he condemns these Anglo-catholics by anticipation, for he says : — * And yet, though our government be by Divine right, it follows not either that there is no salvation or that a church cannot stand without it. He must needs be stoneblind that sees not churches standing without it : he must needs be made of iron and hard-hearted that denies them salvation. We are not made of that metal, we are none of those iron- sides : we put a wide difference betwixt them.' — Respons. ad Ep. 2 Molincei Int. p. 176. (See also 86. 1, and 91. 25.) 11. Bishop Hall comes next for our consideration. It is sur- passing strange that the Tractarians should have dragged this doctrinal Puritan into their Catena. It is true he wrote a book on the Divine Right of Episcopacy, but repudiated with abhor- rence any thought of unchurching the other Eeformed Churches which had no such government, and to which he expressed the most cordial attachment, while at the same time he maintained that there should be * no peace with Eome.' How he thought, and spoke, of Laud may be seen by referring to Ch. IV. 249. The sentiments of Bishop Hall, and those of these Anglicans, are diametrically opposed to each other. (85. 1-4.) 12. The next in turn is Archbishop Laud, the father of the Anglican heresy. But he, who of all other authorities should have helped them most, is point blank against them ; especially on the subject for which they quote him. Had the quotation been honestly made, and not garbled, his writings would have Chap. VIII. §§ 13, 14. HORSLEY AND ALFORD. 357 borne testimony against them. Let anyone read the extract from the book of Laud as given in the Tractarian Catena, and as quoted in 89. 2, and supposing the whole truth to be there stated, he must have the impression that Laud is maintaining the exact doctrine of these Anglicans, viz. that Christ, in certain texts, has promised certain things exclusively to the apostles, and those who are supposed to succeed them in the same office ; but let the same person read on the opposite side of the page, as given in 89. 3, the passages which the Tractarians omitted, and it will be seen how grossly they have falsified the real teaching of Laud. Surely, when they boast so much about their apostolic this, and their apostolic that, we cannot fail to be reminded of the apostleship of Judas. 13. Laud, by thus extending the promise, ^ Lo! I am with you &c.' to believers generally (89. 3, 5), has rendered useless five other links of the chain, viz. Bishops Sanderson, Taylor, Jeb, Mant, and Mr. Nelson, all of whom rest their doctrine of aposto- lical succession upon that text. Bishop Horsley, another forged link in the Catena on apostolical succession, whom we have yet to consider, maintains that the text in question was addressed, 'not to the disciples only, but to a promiscuous multitude of disciples.' Again he says : — '■ Indeed, if this appearance of the five hundred recorded by St. Paul was the same with that on the Galilean hill recorded by St. Matthew, which is the opinion of the most learned critics and divines, and is highly probable, &c.' — Second Sermon on the Resurrection, pp IGl, 162. 14. Dean Alford, on Matt, xxviii. 16-20, writes: — ' We are therefore obliged to conclude that others were present (beside the eleven). Whether these others were the " 500 brethren at once" of whom Paul speaks does not appear.' * Go ye therefore and teach, ^c. Demonstrably, this was not understood as spoken to the apostles only, but to all the brethren.' ' To understand " with you'^ only of the apostles and their (?) successors is to destroy the whole force of these most weighty words. Descending even into literal exactness, we may see that " teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you " makes " them^' into " yow," as soon as they are " made disciples.'' The command is to the Universal Church — to be performed, in the nature of things, by her ministers and teachers, the manner of appoint- ing which is not here prescribed, but to be learnt in the unfoldings of Providence recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, who by his special 358 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. VIII. §§ 15-17. ordinance were the founders and first builders of that Church, but whose office, on that very account^ precluded the idea of succession or renewal.^ 15. In the very book from which the Tractarians gave their garbled extracts, Laud maintains that — * Other Protestants agree with the Church of England in the chiefest doctrines, and in the main exceptions, which they jointly take against the Roman Church; as appears by their several confessions.' (89. 1.) Laud, in effect, denies Koman Catholics to be a Church, except in such a sense as Palmer and Pritchard may in their essence have been men, while in their conduct they were monsters. Laud also emphatically denies the kind of succession held by these Anglicans. (See 89. 4, 6.) Laud had, indeed, in many things departed from the faith of his Church, but his disciples have departed still further from the great founder of their heresy. 16. The next misplaced link in the chain is Archbishop Bramhall. He, after having given his own views of episcopacy, endorses those of Bishop Andrewes. Both these bishops con- demn by anticipation the general teaching of these Anglicans, who deny the Church of Scotland, and churches similarly con- stituted, to be Churches of Christ. (86- 1, 2.) 17. x\nother misplaced link is Mason, who has written a learned book in defence * of the consecration of the bishops of England, with their succession, &c.' He says ; ' Seeing a pres- byter is equal to a bishop in the power of order, he hath equal intrinsical power to give orders.' (87- 1.) Mr. Palmer has made, as necessity compelled him, enormous concessions respect- ing the bishop, by a Divine institution, being superior to a presbyter ; yet he holds that he is superior in having exclusively the power of ordination, and this is the only absolute distinction he believes to exist between a bishop and a presbyter. Yet Mason relinquishes this, and these Anglicans ought to admit him as an authority, as their brethren, or fathers, the Tractarians, have placed him as a witness to apostolical succession in their Catena Patrum on that subject. While Mason admits a chronological succession of bishops both in the Komish Church and our own, yet he denies that it is an uninterrupted one, and adduces evidence in proof thereof. He denies Rome to be a true Church of Christ, and maintains, according to Irenaeus and Chap. VIII. § 18. PEARSON, STILLINGFLEET, AND CLAUDE. 359 Gregory Nazianzen, that succession of doctrine is of the highest importance, which he denies to the Church of Eome. (87, 2-7.) Bishop Pearson makes a statement fatal to this Anglican succession. He says : — ' The household of God is built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, who are continued unto us only in their writings, &c.' (88.) 18. Perhaps of all the links which the Tractarians have forged for their chain, Stillingfleet is the most marked. It is true his views became modified toward the close of his life, and as he held a more influential and responsible position in the Church. The extracts given in 90. are from his Irenicum, one of his earliest productions. The Tractarians in their Catena give an extract from the preface of his book entitled The Unreason- ableness of Separation, &c. &g. To which several late letters are annexed, of eminent Protestant Divines abroad, concerning the Nature of our Differences, and the way to compose them. A comparison of the two books will show that in the latter he had become more decided in his views regarding the authority of the bishop in contradistinction to the presbyter. But the fact that he quoted with approval the letters of three non- episcopal French divines, to whom he alluded in the title-page of his book, in which letters sentiments are expressed not at all compatible with these modern Anglican notions, shows how little he had in common with the Tractarians who make use of him. We shall only quote from one of the three, which may suffice as a specimen also of the other two letters, as they all relate to one and the same subject. The letter of Claude, the eminent defender of the Keformation, is the one selected. He says : — ' You do me a great deal of honour to desire that I should tell you my thoughts of the diiFerence that has troubled you so long, betwixt those they call episcopal and those they name presbyterians. Although I have already explained myself about this divers times, both by letters which I have written upon this subject to several persons and in my book, too, of the Defence of the Reformation, where, speaking of the distinction betwixt the bishop and th« priest, I have said expressly that I do not blame those that observe it as a thing very ancient, and that I would not that anyone should make it an occasion of quarrel in those places where it is established. ' Wherefore our churches have always looked upon and considered 360 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. VIII. §§ 19, 20. yours, not only as a sister, but as an elder sister, for which we ought to have a kindness accompanied with respect and veneration, and for which we do present most ardent prayers unto God without ceasing. .... It is enough for us to know that the same Divine Providence which, by an indispensable necessitj'-, and by the conjuncture of affairs, did at the beginning of the Reformation put our Churches under that of the presbytery, has put yours under that of the episcopacy ; and as we are assured that you do not despise our simplicity so neither ought we to oppose ourselves against your pre-eminence. So that, my lord, we utterly disapprove and see with grief certain extremes whereinto some of the one side and the other do cast themselves. The one looking upon episcopacy as an order so absolutely necessary that without it there can be no ecclesiastical society, nor lawful vocation, nor hope of salvation ; and the other looking upon it with indignation as a relique of anti- christianism. These are equally heats and excesses, which do not come from Him that calls us, and which do offend against the laws of wisdom and charity.'— Pp. 439, 441, 442. Of the book from which our extracts are given, Stillingfleet, speaking of himself in the third person, said : — * I believe there are many things in it, which, if Dr. St. were to write now, he would not have said : for there are some things which show his youth and want of due consideration, others in which he yielded too far, &c.' It is not easy to ascertain the amount of change Stillingfleet's views underwent between the time he published his Irenicum and his book on The Unreasonableness of Separation ; but we are certain that it was not considerable ; and no amount of change would make that which was true in his first book false in any subsequent one, and as the extracts we have made relate much more to facts than theories, we refer the reader to them with confidence, and leave him to his own reflections. (90. 1-13.) 19. Archbishop Sharp plainly shows that he is a misplaced link in the Tractarian Catena Patrum on apostolical succession, by his affirming that, if he were abroad, he would willingly com- municate with the Protestant Churches, where he should happen to be. (92-) 20. Archbishop Wake is still more out of place in the Tracta- rian Catena than Archbishop Sharp, for he not only acknowledges non-episcopal churches as Churches of Christ but describes all those who refuse to do so as iron-hearted, and those who assert Chap. VIII. § 21. WAKE AND BINGHAM. 361 that they have no true and valid sacraments, and that thej are scarcely Christians, he ranks among insane writers. (93. 1, 2.) Under which description come Dean Hook and Dr. Wordsworth, with these Anglicans generally. The mad or insane writers to which Wake more especially refers are the nonjurors, many of whom are given in the Tractarian Catena Patrum on apostolical succession, and are described as confessors. These men refused to withdraw their oath of allegiance from King James II. in consequence of which they were deprived of their ecclesiastical dignities, and other persons were promoted to their places. These nonjurors maintained that they were the only true bishops of the Church of England, that they had not been deposed by any ecclesiastical council, and that those who suc- ceeded them were unjust possessors of ecclesiastical dignities, were rebels against the State, as well as schismatics in the Church ; and that all, therefore, who held communion with them were also chargeable with rebellion and schism. Surely these nonjuring confessors bear too strong a testimony even for the Tractarians, for, if their testimony is worth anything on subjects of this nature, the whole Church of England is schismatical and without any true bishops. But it is said, when these non- jurors died, those who occupied their places schismatically and seditiously ceased to do so in consequence of their death, and became true bishops of the Church of England. This circum- stance perplexed Archbishop Whately ; his mind, with all its power and logical acumen, could not comprehend how this could be. This is one instance of the inventive faculty of those who are determined to preserve the succession at all hazards and under all difficulties. 21. But these Tractarians must be ignorant as well as wily, or how could they have placed so destructive a link in the chain as Bingham, who admits that our great Church authorities never considered episcopacy as a necessary note of a church, and justifies his opinion by quoting Bishop Andrewes. (91. 24, 25.) He denies that orders are indelible (91. 20-22), and if they are delible, how do these Anglo-catholics get a safe-conduct for their succession ? But the most trying thing to these inno- vators in the Church of England is that this great authority. WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS? Chap. VIII. § 22. SO profound in patristic learning, rigidly maintains opinions singularly fatal to their teaching on apostolical succession. (91. 16-19.) 22. The last forged link we have to notice is Bishop Horsley, who, like Archbishop Wake, destroys some of the strongest links, especially those authors who assume that St. Peter handed on the keys to others, for Horsley, with Tertullian, and others, maintains that they never passed out of St. Peter's hands. (94. 1-3.) Chap. IX. §§ 1, 2. NOTES OF A CHUKCH. 363 CHAPTER IX. THE OBJECTS CONTEMPLATED BY THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN ITS BELIEVING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH STATED AND CONSIDERED, IN CONTRAST TO THOSE OBJECTS TO WHICH THE FAITH OF THESE ANGLICANS IS DIRECTED IN THEIR BELIEF IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH. 1. If these Anglicans represent the Church of England by their views on the nature of a Christian Church generally, the question might well be asked. To what churches does the Church of England consider herself to be united, as forming with them the Catholic Church ? To the Reformed Evangelical Churches, or to the Roman and Grreek systems of superstition and error ? Are the marks or notes which the English Church gives of what she considers a true church in accordance with those of the latter, or with those of the former ? ' And with which has she manifested her sympathy, and avowed herself to be in fellow- ship, by her leading pastors, her learned authors, and her dis- tinguished defenders, more especially those who were chiefly engaged in compiling her Liturgy, and framing her Articles, and those who were the defenders of the same for many years after? To the Reformed Churches, or to the unreformed Churches? True answers to these questions will show the anomalous position of these Anglicans who so zealously avow themselves to be the true representatives of our Church. 2. It will be well to state first what are the marks or notes of a Church of Christ as given by these Anglicans, and then the marks or notes given by the Church of England herself, and her authors generally. Dean Hook says : — ' The great majority of Christians — ^the Roman, Greek, and Eastern Churches — ^regard episcopacy as indispensable to the integrity of Christi- anity.' ... * Again : by all apostolic churches the apostolic succession is maintained to be a sine qua non for the valid administration of the eucharist, and the authoritative remission of sins.' — Art. Anglo-catholic Churchy Ch. Diet, ' The apostolical succession of the ministry is 364 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IX. §§ 3, 4. essential to the right administration of the holy sacraments.' — Apos- tolical Succession, ibid. * Without this (uninterrupted succession), all distinction between a clergyman and a layman is utterly vain, for no security exists that heaven will ratify the acts of an illegally constituted minister on earth. Without it, ordination confers none but humanly derived powers.' — Succession, Apostolical, or Uninterrupted, ibid. 3. Mr. Palmer states the matter thus : — * The great external sign of such a continuance of ordinations in any church is derived from the legitimate succession of its chief pastors from the apostles ; for it is morally certain that, wherever there has been this legitimate succession, the whole body of the clergy have been law- fully commissioned. This succession from the apostles is a certain note of a Church of Christ, unless it be clearly convicted of schism or heresy It has been shown above that the apostolical succession of the ministry is a note of the true Church, and of all the parti'^ular churches of which it is composed, so that no community which is with- out this succession can be a Church of Christ.' — Treatise on the Church of Christ, pt. i. chap. viii. vol. i. pp. 142, 143. 4. The next book from which we shall quote is one to which we are referred by Dean Hook as an authority on apostolical succession : — * The Christian ministry lies at the foundation of the Christian Church. The apostles were to institute a ministry which was to con- tinue by succession " to the end of the world ; " we have the same right to change the sacraments, and to pretend that they are temporary and mutable, as we have to change the constitution of the Christian ministry as settled by apostolic practice. Here the institutions of the apostles must be gathered from their practice, from their authoritative acts. The ministry is of Divine authority, and rests solely on a Divine commission (" No man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." — Heb. v. 4). This commission must be derived from Christ, the source of all power in the Church, by a suc- cession of persons authorised to transmit it. In no other way can it be derived. Admit that this succession has been interrupted — admit that the mode of transmitting the ministerial commission may be changed, may be placed in other hands than those in whom the apostles placed it, and you render null the promise of Christ, " Lo ! I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." You suffer the gates of hell to prevail against the Church, for you wrest from it its Divine character ; you make its ministers and its sacraments human officers and human ordinances * Episcopacy is unchangeable, because it is the originally constituted mode of conveying that commission without which there can be no visible ministry, no visible sacraments, no visible Church. The power of ordination must remain with the first grade of the ministry, now called bishops, because with them it was placed- by the apostles, Chap. IX. §§ 5, 6. AKTICLE ON THE CHUKCH. 365 divinely commissioned to found the Church, to constitute its ministry, and to provide for the continuance of this ministry to the " end of the world." ' — Rose's Commission and Consequent Duties of the Clergyy The Appendix, pp. 189, 190. 5. These writers make their uninterrupted succession an essential note of a Church, and one without which there could be no Christian Church. Let it be observed that this succession is believed to be dependent on bishops exclusive of presbyters. But it is notorious, as we have seen, that the compilers of the Liturgy and the framers of the Articles regarded the office of bishop, as distinct from the presbyter, to be of human appoint- ment ; that they most cordially esteemed the Eeformed and non-Episcopal Churches as sister Catholic Churches, and were anxious to have a sort of general and harmonious confession of faith, in which all the Eeformed Churches might agree, and which ultimately was effected. (See 82. 1-4.) Circumstanced as these men were in regard to the non-episcopal churches, which they esteemed as true Churches of Christ, and having before them their own recorded statements respecting the origin of the episcopal office, if they had held this Anglican succession, and attached the same importance to it, could they, in framing an article containing the notes of a Christian Church, have so deliberately ignored it ? The nineteenth article, relating to this subject, thus defines a church : — ' 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.' Not a word about bishops, not a syllable respecting this un- interrupted succession. Surely this silence is fatal to the novel pretences of these Anglicans. 6. Dr. Wordsworth has also given what he considers to be the notes of a Church of Christ, aud as they are taken from the recognised documents of the Church of England, it is only fair to record his testimony : — ' Q. By what name is the Church called in this condition upon earth ? '-A. It is called the Visible Church. 366 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IX. § 7. ' Q. Why is it so called ? * A. Because it is a visible " congregation of faithful," or believing persons, "in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same," and which enjoys the right use of Ecclesiastical Discipline.'' — Theoph. Aug. pt. i. chap. ii. p. 14. To the phrase Ecclesiastical Discipline a note is appended, a part of which is as follows : — * Homily for Whitsunday, Part II. * The true Church hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known : pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith.' Then King Edward's Catechism is quoted to the same effect, and a reference to the conferences between Eidley and Latimer. The passage is given in 62. 2. Dr. W^ordsworth then goes on to remark : — * Hence it appears that, although in her nineteenth article, cited above, the Church of England has specified only the two marks of sacraments and the Word of God, yet she does not regard them as sufficient of them- selves to constitute a visible Church without the additional note of discipline and government, concerning which it may be well to cite the words of Cassander on the Augsburg Confession, art. vii.' — Ibid. pp. 14, 15. 7. It should be noticed that the ground upon which he rests * the additional note of discipline and government ' is not at all to be compared with that of the article which omits it ; and it appears to have been oniitted designedly, perhaps among other things in imitation of the seventh article of the Augsburg Con- fession, to which Dr. Wordsworth has referred. But here we shall refer to Kogers, the first expositor of the Articles, who wrote soon aftei* they were drawn up. Explaining as he does almost every article, and every proposition of each article, in accordance with the published articles of nearly all the Reformed Churches, he quotes a part of the seventh article of the Augsburg Confession, which shall here be given : — * Now the Church is a congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is Chap. IX. § 8. TESTIMONY OF ROGERS. 367 purely taught, and the sacraments rightly administered ; and unto the true unity of the Church, it is sufficient to agree upon the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments.' — ^P. 165. Kogers, after giving proof from God's word as to the marks of the Church, &c. says : — * The Christians in all Reformed Churches acknowledge these things. Some (and they also, many of them, very godly men) add ecclesiastical discipline for a note of the visible Church. But because the said discipline in part is included in the marks here mentioned, both we, and, in effect, all other well-ordered churches, over-pass it in this place, as no token simply of the visible Church. . . . ' The errors and adversaries unto this truth. — We renounce, therefore, as altogether unsound and antichristian, the opinions, 1. Of the Papists [Puseyites, Tractarians, and these Anglo-catholics], who both deny the pure preaching of God's Word and the administration of the sacraments among Protestants (including all the Reformed Churches) to be the marks of Christ, his visible Church, and affirm the tokens hereof to be antiquity, unity, universality, succession, &c. as doth Stapleton, Bristow, Bozius, Hill, and Alabaster.' — Pp. 174-176. Rogers, in his own name and that of the Reformed non- Episcopal Churches, renounces, by anticipation, the exclusive spirit of these Anglicans, who may well be ranked among the Russians, the Papists, and the Puritans. (82. 23-26.) Rogers, it is certain, did not consider the Church of England as maintaining that discipline of any kind was a necessary mark of a church. (82. 12.) Nowell, in his Catechism, which received the sanction of both Houses of Convocation, shows that in his mind discipline was not a necessary note of a church, and he appears to make an apology for the Church of England being without it. (72. 1.) He very properly shows that there ought to be discipline, and explains who should administer it ; but the administrators are so described as to include the non-episcopal churches. (72- 2.) Hooper states, 'The true Church is known by these tiuo marks, &c.' (65. 1.) To these two Archbishop Sandys adds discipline. (67. 1.) Jewel so defines the notes of a church as to exclude any particular form of discipline as being a necessary mark. (73. 7-9.) 8. But suppose it be admitted that discipline is a necessary mark of a church, it does not follow that it must be of such a kind as these Anglo-catholics require, namely, a power of 368 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IX. §§ 9, 10. governing transmitted from the apostles to the bishops of the present day by an uninterrupted succession. None of our Eeformers and Church defenders maintain any such thing, nor has Dr. Wordsworth adduced anything from them to support the peculiar teaching of his school. The part of the homily to which we are referred, when taken with the context, affords no sanction to papal discipline, or its imitation, this modern Anglicanism. (77- 2.) 9. The general notes of a church, as given by the Eomanists, and as now maintained by Anglican Komanisers, were rejected with abhorrence by all the Eeformed Churches. One of these, a sister Church to our own, shall speak for the rest. * Article IS of the Notes hy which the true Church is discerned from the false. From the Confession of the Church of Scotland. * Because that Satan from the beginning hath laboured to deck his pestilent synagogue with the title of the Church of God, and hath inflamed the hearts of cruel murderers to persecute, trouble, and molest the true Church and members thereof; ... it is a thing most requisite that the true Church be discerned from the filthy synagogues by clear and perfect notes, lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace to our condemnation the one for the other. The notes, signs, and assured tokens whereby the immaculate spouse of Christ Jesus is known from the horrible harlot, the church malignant, we affirm are neither antiquity, title usurped, lineal descent, place appointed, nor multitude of men approving an error. The notes, therefore, of the true Church of God, we believe, confess, and avow, to be, first, the true preaching of the word of God, in the which God hath revealed himself unto us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles do declare. Secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, which must be annexed unto the word and promise of God, to seal and confirm the same in our hearts. Lastly, ecclesiastical discipline, uprightly minis- tered, as God's Word prescribeth, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.' — Harmony of Protestant Confessions^ p. 226. 10. We have stated what these Anglicans consider to be the essential notes of a Church of Christ, one of which is having bishops, in contradistinction to presbyters, who have received a commission from Christ, through the apostles, by an uninter- rupted succession. We now shall consider the notes given by the Church of England herself, and by her reformers, defenders, and learned authors generally, both negatively and positively. Chap. IX. §§ 11, 12. CRANMER, RIDLEY, AND LATIMER. 369 As to the Church herself, she has defined the notes to be two only, as we have just seen in her nineteenth article. The learned Bingham, who is a great authority in matters of this nature, declares that ' Episcopal Churchmen, in all their disputes with the Papists, never require more than these two notes of a church.' (See 91. 24, 25.) In the preface to a treatise called Confutation of Unwritten Verities, which Cranmer wrote, or which was compiled out of his manuscript notes, we have the following : — * Such gross ignorance (I would to God it were but ignorance indeed) is entered into their heads, and such arrogant boldness possesseth their hearts, that they are bold to affirm no church to be the true Church of God but that which standeth by the ordinary succession of bishops, in such pompous and glorious sort as now is seen. For if there be, say they, no such outward and visible church, how shall any man know whether he be of the Church of Christ, and in the right behef, or no ? To this I answer that, if our faith should be stayed upon the outward, glistering, and pompous church, not ruled nor governed by the deter- minate counsel of God in His Word written, we should never be certain thereof, but ever wavering and doubting; which is the gate and ready pathway to desperation, from which God defend His chosen flock ! ' — Works of Cranmer ^ vol. ii. p. 11. ' If we shall allow them for the true Church of God, that appear to be the visible and outward church, consisting of the ordinary succession of bishops, then shall we make Christ, which is an innocent lamb without spot, and in whom is found no guile, to be the head of ungodly and disobedient members. . . . But if we allow the pope, his cardinals, bishops, priests, monks, canons, friars, and the whole rabble of the clergy, to be this perfect Church of God, whose doings are clean con- trary, for the most part, to the will and commandment of Christ, left and expressed in His Word written, then make we Him a sinner, and His Word of no effect. For as sweet agreeth with sour, black with white, darkness with light, and evil with good, even so this outward, seen, and visible church, consisting of the ordinary succession of bishops, agreeth with Christ.'— J^^'cZ. p. 13. This is indeed a severe rebuke of the Anglicans, who make succession of bishops a note of a Church of Christ, and at the same time admit the Eomish succession to be a true one. 11. Bishop Eidley, too, is no friend of theirs. He gives such notes of a church as are applicable to any of the Eeformed Churches, while he denies the Church of Eome to be a Church of Christ. (62. 4-9.) 12. Bishop Latimer's statement is equally strong* (63. 1») B B 370 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEKS? Chap. IX. §§ 13-16. Bishop Hooper is both negatively and positively point blank against this Anglican notion. (65. 1, 2.) Archbishop Sandys denies the Popish Church to have the notes of a Church of Christ, which these Anglicans admit that system of superstition to have, and he gives such notes as would be equally applicable to any Evangelical Eeformed Church. (67. 1,2.) 13. Dean Nowell, who, it is certain, made no particular dis- tinction between a bishop and a presbyter (7Z. 3), ivs equally decided against this popish notion of uninterrupted succession being an essential note of a Christian Church. (7Z. 1, 2.) This authority should be of peculiar value to these Anglo-catholics, as his Catechism, from which the extract is given, passed both Houses of Convocation. Bishop Jewel, the illustrious defender of our Church, and, according to Whitaker, a most successful one (78. 9, 10), is, of all the testimonies we have to give, the most decisive against these Anglicans on the point in question. (73. 6-9, 16, 25, 26.) 14. Archbishop Whitgift, the great opponent of such Puritans of his day as claimed a Divine right for their presbytery, admits of only two notes of a Christian Church, as given in our nine- teenth article, and he supports his testimony by a similar one from Calvin and the Eeformed Churches. (74. 1-4, 23-25.) The learned Whitaker, another Jewel in the defence of our Church against the Papists, has written very fully respecting the notes of a Christian Church, and his testimony is very strong against the assumption both of Papists and, by anticipation, of these Anglicans. (78. 2-8.) 15. Hooker, a host in himself against these Anglicans, most fully held that no definite form of church polity w^as laid down in Scripture as binding on all churches : — * The necessity of polity and regiment in all churches may be held without holding any one form to be necessary in them all.' (83. 2, 5, 8,9.) 16. Bishop Andrewes does not make even episcopacy, much less uninterrupted episcopal succession, an essential note of a church. (See 86. 1 ; 91. 25.) Good Bishop Hall was shocked at being charged with not holding the Reformed Churches to be Chap. IX. §§ 17, 18. PRESBYTERIANS UNCHURCHED. 371 Churches of Christ, though he held very strongly the Divine right of episcopacy. (85- 1-4.) Archbishop Bramhall, though a High Churchman, did not hold those churches which were without episcopacy to be on that account no true churches. (86. 1, 2.) Stillingfleet not only gives his own testimony but with it many others, some of whom we have already referred to. (90. 7-13.) 17. It is impossible to have authorities more influential and important on the point in dispute, while at the same time their testimony, united and harmonious as it is, is most conclusive and final. These Anglicans are a bold and daring class of men, and withal not over-scrupulous when they venture to invent a note of a church, or borrow one already invented from the Papists, and ascribe to our Church this private opinion, or borrowed alien notion, which she does not acknowledge, and which her earliest and greatest authorities repudiate with abhorrence. 18. If apostolical succession is what these Anglicans affirm it to be then nothing can be more certain than that all churches not having it are no Churches of Christ, and this they generally maintain. Dean Hook's view on this point may be shown in a somewhat practical form, by bearing in mind that he gave no answer to a very definite question asked upon this point. Sir A. Agnew, M.P., addressed the following letter to the Times : — ' Sir, — A few days ago I accidentally opened a book entitled A Church Dictionary, by the Rev. Walter Farquhar Hook, D.D., Yicar of Leeds, sixth edition, with a preface by the author, dated Sept. 20, 1852. I there read the following passage : " Presbyterian. — A Protestant sect which maintains that there is no order in the church superior to presbyters, and on that account has separated fi:om the Catholic Church. This sect is established by law in Scotland, where there nevertheless exists a national branch of the Catholic Church, under canonical bishops. The establishment of a sect cannot, of course, convert that sect into a church — for instance, if a Socinian sect were established in England, it would not be a whit more a church than it is at present." * One sweeping sentence thus unchurches Wesleyans, Independents, Baptists, the numerous branches of the Presbyterian Church in the United Kingdom, the National Protestant Chiurch of France, all the Calvinistic Churches in the four quarters of the globe, as well as the Established Church of Scotland. And from these few words the young Enghsh divine learns all that the Rev. Doctor thinks a Churchman need B B 2 372 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS? Chap. IX. §§ 19-21. know of so large a section of the Christian world I sincerely hope that, should this letter meet the eye of the Dean of Chichester, he may be induced in 1859 publicly to modify the opinions he deliberately published in 1852. Should he, however, either reassert them, or by silence give consent, I trust that some still higher authority will assure us that it is not in the spirit of the article I have quoted that the Angli- can Church think or write of the Churches of the Reformation, and that this is not the orthodox teaching of the Protestant Church in England in the nineteenth century.' 19. What the Dean denies to the Church of Scotland, he admits of the Church of Eome. His views are most extra- ordinary. He is not unconscious of the many and grievous errors of the so-called Church of Eome. Its errors, as classified and numbered by himself, are just two dozen and seven. {Romianisinii, Ch. Diet) Can the Dean ascribe any one error in doctrine to the Church of Scotland as tested by our own Articles ? We believe not. They have no bishops, and therefore no succession in this Angli- can sense, and for this sole reason they are pronounced to form no part of the visible Church of Christ. 20. The Church of which the Dean is a presbyter enjoins us to pray for the Church he excommunicates, as a part of the Holy Catholic Church ; her Eeformers and chief defenders for many years maintained that the distinction between a bishop and a presbyter, as it now exists, was of human appointment ; that no one form of church government was enjoined in the New Testament as binding on all persons and in all times ; that two notes of a Church of Christ are only required (nineteenth article), and that bishops and succession form no necessary note of a church. It is true that, at a later period, there were those who conscientiously held, and very many who now hold, that bishops are necessary for the well-being of a Church, but not for its existence. 21. How a presbyter and doctor of divinity in such a church could acknowledge the Eomish system as a Church of Christ, notwithstanding all the errors he considers it to hold (and had he not been a Tractarian, he might have increased the number), and deny the same thing to the Church of Scotland, is a thing beyond ordinary comprehension, and must be set down as one Chap. IX. §§ 22, 23. CHEISTIAN CHURCHES UNCHURCHED. 373 of those religious idiosyncrasies which may be known as facts, but for which no reason can be given. 22. We shall now give Mr. Palmer's testimony upon this point. He says : — ' In particular, the exclusion of Presbyterians from the visible Church is regarded as a harsh and uncharitable proceeding ; and yet a moment's calm reflection, one would think, might remind such objectors that it is somewhat uni-easonable to expect from members of the Enghsh Church an admission so fatal to themselves, as the lawfulness of separating from a National Church in full communion with their own, and subvert- ing its episcopacy and its established order, under pretence that the whole system is antichristian. If such a proceeding was justifiable in Scotland, it must be equally so elsewhere ; and thus the real meaning of the demand so modestly made on us, to adopt Scottish Presbyterianism as a branch of the Christian Church, is to exact a similar concession in favour of every English dissenting denomination ; to justify separation from the Church of England, and subversion of her established consti- tution. ' With reference to the minor sects calling themselves Protestant, it would be impossible, consistently with the maintenance of any principles of unity, order, or faith, to allow that they constitute part of the visible Church of Christ. ' The imputation of vncharitahleness, which must be endured by those who are obliged to draw conclusions so unpalatable to particular sects, can have but Httle effect in inducing them to approve what the Word of God condemns; and if their view be in some degree exclusive, it is surely less so than that which is taken by their opponents in general. The exclusion of the Presbyterian and Dissenting communities from the Church — bodies comparatively insignificant in point of numbers — seems far less harsh than the condemnation of the whole Koman and Greek Churches, which are probably more than twenty times as numerous.' — Treatise on the Church of Christy preface, pp. xii. xiii. 23. The reader will now have a fair specimen of the way in which these Anglicans regard the Eomish Church and the Ee- formed Churches, and other orthodox religious communities not supposed to have the succession. We shall only make one remark on this extract from Palmer. On what a different prin- ciple he numbers the members of the Church of Christ from Athanasius and his brethren, and to what a different conclusion he comes ! (See 17. 8 ; 19- 4 ; 25. 10 ; 30. 5.) We shall now show how our Reformers and leading Church authorities speak of the Eomish Church and of the Reformed non-Episcopal Churches ; and it will be fc^een that the views of 374^ WHOSE AKE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IX. § 24. these illustrious men are just the opposite of those of these Anglicans. In this case we shall simply refer to the Catena, without making any extracts therefrom. Tyndale, 58> 1 ; Eidley, 6Z. 4-9 ; Latimer, 63. 1 ; Bradford, 64- 5 ; Philpot, 66- 3, 4 ; Sandys, 67. 1 ; Becon, 68. 1-5 ; Pilkington, 69. 8-1 1 ; Jewel, 73. 23-25, 30 ; Fulke, 75. 6, 7 ; Eogers, 82. 31 - 33 ; Whitaker, 78. 7, 8, 17 ; Homily, 77. 1-9 ; Bancroft, 80. 1, 12, 13 ; Field, 84. 4, 10; Laud, 89. 4 ; Bingham, 91. 16. But the strongest proof we can have of the estimation in which the Church of England regarded the so-called Church of Kome is contained in certain forms of prayer as authorised both by Church and State, extracts from which are given in 76. 1-7. In these prayers will be found the strongest sympathy with the Eeformed Churches, and a sincere belief that the Eomish Church was antichrist, a synagogue of Satan, &c. &c. But although the Eomish Church has not changed, and some of the Eeformed Churches are still orthodox, as the Church of Scotland is believed to be, yet now these Anglicans embrace the former as a Church of Christ, and with no little animosity and unkind feeling repu- diate the latter. 24. Mr. Palmer in part concedes that the leading authorities of our Church denied the Eomish Church to be a part of the Catholic Church after the Eeformation. His words are : — * There are different opinions as to whether the Roman remained a part of the Catholic Church after the Reformation ; and Jewel, Field, and others deny it, with some degree of probability.' — Treatise on the Church of Christy part i. ch. xi. sect. ii. vol. i. 217. This is rather adroit on the part of Mr. Palmer, for the sake of his so-called apostolical succession to treat us to half a truth, when the whole truth is that both these men maintained that the Eomish Church had ceased to be a Church of Christ long before the Eeformation. Eespecting Jewel, this is plain from his own writings ; the nature of the argument and the illustrations he uses shows that what he calls 'the right of our succession' was not derived through the Eomish Church, for though in earlier days it was the source of truth, and the channel of a true succession, yet having long ceased to be so, our Eeformers reverted to the original source. Chap. IX. §§ 25-27. EARLY ROMISH APOSTACY. 375 the Holy Scriptures. (See 73- 25, 26.) This in substance is what Bingham teaches. (91. 16.) 25. From Field's own statement we have no ground for sup- posing that in his mind he believed the Church of Rome ceased to be catholic, or true, at, or after, the Eeformation, and not before. The reader, by consulting 84. 10, may form an opinion for himself on the point in question. It is plain from the state- ment there given that Field endorsed and vindicated the teach- ing of Calvin respecting the character of the Romish Church. A quotation from Calvin on this point will throw considerable light upon our subject : — * Although I admit, in respect to the time of Bernard, that all things were so corrupt as to make it not unlike our own. But it betrays a want of all sense of shame to seek any excuse from that middle period, namely, that of Leo, Gregory, and the like, for it is just as if one were to vindicate the monarchy of the Cassars by lauding the ancient state of the Roman empire ; in other words, were to borrow the praises of liberty in order to eulogise tyranny.' — Institutes, book iv. ch. vii. sect. 22. 26. It is certain most of the leading writers and authors of our Church believed that the Church of Rome had ceased some hundred years before the Reformation to be catholic and apostolic. The testimony of Ridley, in the prospect of giving up his life for the truth, is very strong on this point. (62. 7-9.) The Homily mentions a definite period when the Romish Church ceased to be apostolic, which from the present time would be twelve hundred years. (77. 3.) That it ceased to be apostolic long before the Reformation is maintained by Fulke, 75. 6, 7; Rogers, 82. 31-33; Whitaker, 78. 8, 17, and many others. 27. The next point to be noticed is the way in which our Church and her leading authorities regarded the Reformed non- Episcopal Churches, in contrast to these Anglicans. We have already seen that the Church, in her fifty-fifth canon, enjoined prayer for the Presbyterian Church of Scotland ; that, in giving the notes of a church, in her nineteenth article, she not only omitted succession as being a note, but did not mention discipline, or any form of government. A part of the twenty-third article, as bearing upon this point, is most important : — 376 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS? Chap. IX. §§ 28-30. ' 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.' Professor Hey, in his Commentary on the Articles ^ says : — '■ The expression " Who have public authority given unto them in the congregation " seems to leave the manner of giving the power of ordaining quite free : it seems as if any religious society might, con- sistently with this article, appoint officers, with power of ordination, by election, representation, or lot ; as if, therefore, the right to ordain did not depend upon any interrupted succession.' — Led. on Div. vol. iv. p. 166. 28. Bishop Tomline, a High Churchman, states : — * Bishop Burnet thinks that the framers of this article had in view the state of some of the Reformed Churches upon the continent, and there- fore " they left this matter open and at large for such accidents as have happened, and such as might still happen." The words of the article are. And those we ought, ^c. No particular mode of ordination is here declared to be a necessary object of faith, nor are any persons specified by whom ministers are to be ordained to their sacred function ; it is only asserted, in general terms, that they are to receive their appoint- ment from the authority prescribed by the Church to which they belong ; and as this proposition is not contrary to any precept of Scripture, which will appear more fully hereafter, its truth will be allowed by all who admit the necessity of an established ministry.' — Exposition of the Thirty- nine Articles, Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. pp. 379, 380. 29. But the most important authority is Eogers, whose expo- sition of this article is pretty fully given 8Z. 34-57. It must be especially noticed how he corroborates the doctrine of the article by that of the Eeformed Ch arches generally. It is certain the churches whose Confessions he cites were recognised as sister churches, not only by Eogers himself, but by the Church of England generally, or he never would have published, as chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft, such a book, much less have dedicated it to him. Bancroft commanded that it should be disseminated in his province. Rogers has given the history of the origin of these Confessions. (82. 2-5.) What Cranmer could not accomplish in his day was effected in the time of Bishop Jewel, who drew up the English confession. 30. The following is a list of the Confessions : Augsburg, Chap. IX. § 31. EEFORMED CHUECHES, CATHOLIC. 377 Sueveland, Basle, Helvetia, Saxony, Wirtemberg, France, England, Belgia, Bohemia, Scotland. These Confessions were recognised and referred to as having authority by most of the leading members of our Church. Archbishop Whitgift, against Cartwright, in proof that there was ' no certain and perfect kind of government prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures, to the Church of Christ,' refers to Calvin and * the judgment of the Keformed Churches.' (74- 2, 3.) Archbishop Grindal spoke of the agreement of our Church with the Helvetic confession, and appeared to take a lively interest in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and expressed his fear lest the Queen should extirpate the pure confession of the Grospel; at which time, however. Dean Hook affects to believe that the Holy Catholic Church had ceased to exist in that country. (79. 1, 2.) Archbishop Bancroft spoke with favour of the Confession, or apology, as he calls it, of Bishop Jewel : 'which,' he says, * shortly after was set forth to the justi- fying of our doctrine, with the reasons of our mislike of popery, hath ever since obtained principal commendation amongst all apologies, and confessions, which hitherto have been set forth by any Church in Christendom.' (80- 11.) Kaynolds refers to the judgment of these Keformed Churches as of weight and authority among those of his own Church. (81. 4.) Field maintains the catholicity of the Reformed Churches, and the validity of their orders. (84. 2, 5, 7-9.) 31. We have now seen how these Anglicans deny the Reformed non-Episcopal Churches to be Churches of Christ, and admit that the Romish Church is a Church of Christ, and how our Church, in her authorised statements, admits the former to be true churches, but denies that the latter is a true church. It would be preposterous to suppose that the English Church, with her branches in various parts of the world, composes the whole of the Catholic Church ; possibly no one of her members conceives this to be the case. What part then of the professing Christian communities in the various parts of the world can she recognise as forming part of the Catholic Church of Christ, without any 378 WHOSE AKE THE FATHEKS ? Chap. IX. § 32. compromise of her principles ? For tlie sake of argument, let us suppose that these Anglicans really had some foundation, either in the authorised declarations of the Church or in the recorded opinions of her chief authorities during the sixteenth century, from the Reformation to the close of that period, for their private opinions, and that they in some measure represented the Church ; it is plain, in that case, she might recognise the Romish and Grreek systems of superstition. Some of these Anglicans have formed what they term ' The Eastern Church Association,' and we learn that, in some way or other, it began with the Bishop of Oxford. For, in the Clerical Journal of October 27, 1864, we are told : — * The Rev. Dr. Eraser gave an interesting account of the origin of the association, observing that it began through a letter written by the English Chrysostora, the Bishop of Oxford — for the English Church had its Chrysostom at Oxford.' 32. But we learn from a foreign newspaper — the Moscoiu Gazette — that a meeting was held at the S. P. Gr. offices, in Pall Mall, * on the subject of a union with the Eastern Churches,' on November 15, 1865. Prince N. Orlofif, who was present on the occasion, in his letter in the above-named paper, informs us that ' the Bishop of Oxford presided ' on the occasion, and we are informed that, among other clergy. Dr. Pusey and Dr. Words- worth were present. * The Bishop of Oxford urged that, deferring all dogmatical debater, we should proceed to celebrate the Lord's Supper by intercommunion, if such were the wish of the chiefs of our Church. Prince OrlofF moved among other things: " 1. That works should be published in England, setting forth the history, doctrine, and present condition of the Anglican Church, with a view to proving that it is not a Protestant, but a Catho- lic Church, and, accordingly, related to the Eastern Church." ' These Anglicans would be glad to get rid of all that is Pro- testant in doctrine, and to revert to the doctrine of the English Church anterior to the Reformation. But will the laity and clergy generally approve of such a step ? Surely not. It is painfully manifest what some of -these Anglicans would do if they could. The old Tractarians, when they changed the doctrines to which they had subscribed, in many instances went to Rome. We admire the honesty and sincerity of such men. Chap. IX. §§ 33, 34. 'KEUNION OF CHRISTENDOM.' 379 however we may be sorry for their ignorance and superstition. The present race of Tractarians — these Anglicans — however, would bring the systems of superstition, called the Latin and Greek Churches, into the English Church, or conform its doctrine to them. May Grod Almighty, of His infinite goodness and mercy, prevent our Church from having such an Ichabod written upon her ! 33. Had such a meeting been held to promote visible com- munion with the Church of Scotland and similar churches, there would have been ample precedent and principle, as recog- nised by our Church, for the basis of such a movement. One of the two special marks of a true church which our Church requires is the preaching of the pure Word of Grod. Is it con- ceivable that the Latin and Grreek Churches so called have this mark ? That the Church of Scotland has it in the real spirit and meaning of the articles is not to be doubted. Moreover, we are enjoined to pray for this Church by name in ouriifty-fifth canon, just as we are to pray for our own Church. To have negotiated with the Church of Scotland for visible intercom- munion would have been in exact accordance with the spirit and practice of our Reformers, as also with the Articles they framed for the clergy, except in so far as they have been marred by that miserable Act of Uniformity, which does not really affect the constitution of the Church any more than a thick coating of villainous plaister does the building in which the Church assembles. In the latter case it can be removed, as we see daily, and so in the former, and the sooner the better. 34. The Bishop of Salisbury, in his last charge, under the head of * Reunion of Christendom,' so expresses himself as to show that on his part he is anxious to form a junction with both the Roman and Grreek Churches. He says : — ' And here, again, I would remind you of what I have already said, that we must act with the greatest wisdom, as for other causes, so all the more from the circumstances of our isolation. Isolation ! This, indeed, tells of our condition as a church, which, however necessary, however appointed for us, is associated with the thought of past cor- ruptions, of some perhaps undue reliance on the arm of ilesh, and of present weakness ; and the consideration of it ought, therefore, to cause us sorrow, and yearnings for reunion with our separated brethren 380 WHOSE ARE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IX. § 35. I think also tliat no one can have read the Avork of M. Renan without feeling that he, by his infidel encroachments on the inheritance which we share with the Church of France, has, by creating the sympathy which attends upon a united resistance to a common danger, contributed something towards removing the barriers which have long parted us from that celebrated communion, and so towards re-awaking in the Universal Church the blessed spirit of " truth, unity, and concord." Be it ours never to forget the solemn words of Count de Maistre : " If Christians should ever draw towards each other — and every considera- tion might urge them to do so — it seems that the first advance w^ould most naturally be made by the Church of England." ' The attempts also which Convocation has sanctioned, to enter into friendly relations with the Eastern Church, synchronise, we cannot but observe, with our late controversies.' — Charge, 1864, pp. 4:2-4:4:. 35. Here is a bishop mourning over the isolated position of the Church of England, as well he may when regarding it from his own point of view. Eejecting all the Eeformed Churches and all Christian communities not supposed to have his apos- tolical succession, and being rejected both by the Latin and Greek Churches, he sighs for communion, not with the Pro- testant Church of France, but the Popish one, and is yearn- ing for the time when our Church, Protestant, Eeformed, Evangelical, and Scriptural, as it has been so long considered to be, shall revert to the darkness and superstition of bygone days, that she may be a meet sister to those other two, and thus dis- grace apostolical religion, and afflict the world by three sj^stems, or three branches of one system, of superstition and ignorance, instead of two systems, or two branches of one system ; and the ostensible reason for this extraordinary union is to frighten and withstand a Frenchman : reminding one of the superstitious age when one army frightened and put to flight another by a regiment of ca^s. Let us for a moment conceive what action would be taken by these three branches of one and the same system of superstition, called the Catholic Church, against Eenan and such like. Bishops, attired in all the frippery of the most extravagant episcopal habits, their heads crowned with mitres, each with a staff in hand, and placed in fore front of the army of the so-called Catholic Church, as the pretended apostles and infallible guides of the same, might foam and fulmiuate, curse and excommunicate, by a voice which might riug through- out the world ; but unless Eenan and such like were in some Chap. IX. § 36. CHURCH MISREPRESENTED. 381 measure affected by a touch of the ancient Egyptian super- stition, all such scarecrowism would be worse than useless. 36. The Bishop of Oxford ridicules those of our clergy who recognise certain Nonconformists as being of the true Church of Christ. Why should they not recognise them ? On their own confession they hold the faith, and all the faith, which our Church absolutely requires: church government, as we have seen, not being necessarily regarded as an object of faith so as to affect the validity of a church. But the Bishop's remarks shall be given in his own words, in a speech at a meeting of the Curates' Additional Aid Society, as reported in the Clerical Journal of November 10, 1864. He says : — * I am confident that the way to be on the most friendly terms with all those Nonconformists around us with whom it is worth while being on friendly terms — and it is worth while being on friendly terms with every honest and true man — I say that the most certain means to be on good terms with them is to speak out our own truth fearlessly and kindly, and let them perceive the difference between us. If you go mystifying and shilly-shallying them, and saying that they are just the same as we, and " my dear brother, there is no difference between us " — if so, why in the world don't we share the tithes with them? (Laughter.) It seems most monstrous hypocrisy to go and say, " Be- loved brethren, we are all one ; but you shall not come into my pulpit." (Applause.) Now how much better to go to the man and say, " If you love the Lord Jesus Christ, I honour and love you because you love Him ; but I differ from you upon great and important matters. I do not love you the less because I differ from you ; but I am charged to teach not a certain amount of truth mixed with a certain amount of error. I am charged to teach the truth of Christ as I have received it, without addition or subtraction, even though I win the universe by adding or subtracting from it." This is the only ground which can thoroughly secure a mutual and good understanding between honest Christian men ; and there must be that understanding, unless each party is to put on the grimaces of agreement and then turn aside for the reality of discord. That being the case, I have no hesitation about this resolu- tion. I say that undoubtedly, because the Church of England has come down from the apostles' time, with the ministry which the Lord Jesus Christ founded, because there has been no break in the succession of our bishops to whom Christ said, " As my Father in Heaven sent me so send I you; he that heareth you heareth me, and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me ; " and upon whom he breathed when he said, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creatiu-e " — because, I say, that this moment the bishops of the Church of England are, by unbroken succession, the descendants and representatives of the original Twelve, and because they come with the same creed, the same gospel, and the same sacrament, declaring the same only truth of the name of Christ and His people.' -382 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. IX. §§ 37, 38. In an earlier part of the speech the Bishop said : — * I can say the Church of England is the only Apostolic Church in the land ; I say that she only possesses the two qualifications, perfectness of organisation in a transmitted line of authorised teachers from the apostles, as the apostles from the Lord, combining with that the true transmission of the primitive doctrine.' 37. Every conscientious Churchman has, or ought to have, satisfactory reasons in his own mind for being a member of the Church of England ; but the Bishop here is egregiously misrepresenting the Church in which he holds so high a position by assuming that for her which she does not hold, viz, this modern Anglican doctrine of uninterrupted apostolical succes- sion. The amazing difference between the Bishop and the Nonconformist communities, all turns upon this Anglican fig- ment of succession which the Bishop rests upon his two favourite texts, which these modern Anglo-catholics are constantly quoting, and which, as we have shown, were considered to have no such use by the Fathers of the first six centuries, nor even in the twelfth century in the time of Thomas Aquinas, who quoted the same Fathers on the same texts, but without any change in the interpretation of the same. (I. 36-52.) In our own Ordinal the very same texts were considered as applicable to the office of a presbyter, and not referred to in the consecration of a bishop, and were so used for more than a hundred years. (YI. 17-26.) 38. The facetious way in which the Bishop tickled the fancy of his audience so as to make them laugh at the expense of honest Churchmen, perhaps occasioned the editor of the Clerical Journal, in one of his leading articles, to make the following remark : — * But we hope many will take a lesson from the Bishop of Oxford's playful sarcasm on the " happy family " theories of many good men, or their aiming at cordial intercourse and co-operation among those who agree neither in the faith nor the practice of Christianity.' This allusion to the ' happy family ' suggests a train of thought. Now to what family does the editor conceive the Bishop of Oxford and our Church, regarded from the Bishop's point of view, to belong ? He, it is plain, considers our Church as a member of a family; of what other members is the family Chap. IX. § 39. THE UNHAPPY FAMILY. 383 composed ? The Roman and Greek Churches, of course. The Bishop of Oxford, as is well known, has sought to have com- munion with the corrupt Greek Church ; and the chief men of these Anglicans have besought the recognition of Rome on behalf of themselves and the Greek Church. But these three could not be caged together on the ' happy-family ' principle, but rather as a menagerie of untamed animals which would seek to destroy each other. For observe how the two larger animals growl at each other, and both at the less, even while they are separated. Hear the growl of the Greek animal against the Roman one, as recorded by Dean Hook in his Church Dic- tionary^ under the article ' Greek Church : ' — * That they re-baptise all Romanists who are admitted into their communion. They deny the papal supremacy, and assert that the Church of Rome has abandoned the doctrines of her fathers. They deny, by consequence, that the Church of Rome is the true catholic mother Church, and on Holy Thursday excommunicate the pope and all the Latin prelates, as heretics and schismatics.' The Roman animal growls fiercely against the other two : — * " One hundred and ninety-eight deans, canons, parish-priests, and other priests, of the Protestant Church of England have humbly ' besought the most eminent and reverend father in Christ, the Lord Cardinal Patrizi, prefect of the holy office, that there may be a reunion of themselves and the Greek Church with the Roman." The following is the answer : — " The sacred congregation much regrets that you have deviated from the path of unity by your adopting the notion that these associations of Christians (the English and Greek Churches) belong to the true Church of Christ as parts thereof, which boast that they have the catholic name There is nothing more abhorrent to the government of the Catholic Church than that opinion." ' — From an Address of certain Romanisers to the Romanists^ with an answer of the latter to the former ^ as translated in * The Tablet.^ See 84. 1. 39. Overtures by some of these Anglicans have been made to be one with the Greek Church ; but those to whom the proposal was made demanded, as a sort of preliminary step to prepare the way for union, that the English Church should prove herself, to the satisfaction of her members, that she was not Protestant ; in other words, that she must change her entire character. Such a union as these Anglicans seek must be fraught with imminent daoger to the weaker animals so caged JJ84 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. IX. § 39. together, that it would be a misnomer to call them a 'happy family.' But a union with Evangelical and Protestant com- munities, so much deprecated and ridiculed by the Bishop of Oxford, could be fraught with no such danger, inasmuch as they are agreed upon all main points of doctrine. Most, if not all, the Protestant and Evangelical Churches hold the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England. Had it not been for the unfounded assumptions of these Anglicans, the Bishop of Oxford could not have made his facetious remarks which suggested the notion of the * happy- family ' theory. Chap. X. §§ 1, 2. THE PKIMACY OF PETER. 385 CHAPTER X. A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE PREVAILING KIND OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT EXERCISED IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE AND IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, CONSIDERED IN ITS ADAPTATION TO THE PRESENT TIME. 1. Our object in this book so far has not been to discuss the merit of any particular form of church government, whether Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, or Congregationalism, or a mix- ture of any of the three. Our sole aim has been to prove the novelty of this Anglican teaching. If, in the second part of our Catena, and in the chapter on the Ordinals, and in a few other places, evidence has been adduced, from the Reformers of our Church and framers of our Liturgy and Articles, on church government, differing from that which is now held by many, if not most, of the clergy, our object has been not to call in question the latter view, but to show how essentially remote the teaching of our early Church authorities was from that of these Anglicans. We have endeavoured to prove that the office of the persons whom they considered to be the only successors of the apostles was by these said authorities considered to be of mere human invention, and that by Divine right it was not substantially different from the office of a presbyter. That the framers of the first Ordinal of our Reformed Church thought that there was some difference between the first and the second order is plain from the fact that they affirmed — * It is evident unto all men dihgently reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors that from the apostles' time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church : bishops, priests, and deacons.' Calvin himself maintains the same view. (See Ch. VI. 41.) 2. That Peter had a primacy among the apostles is main- tained by all the Fathers of the early Church, as has been fully shown. Beza, in his Commentary on Matt. x. 2, as cited in the Synopsis of Poole, says, ' We freely concede to Peter the primacy CO 386 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. X. § 3. among the apostles, not of degree among inferiors, but of order among equals.' The early Fathers claimed no more for Peter than this, not even Cyprian. (11> 3.) That Peter was the president and speaker of the other apostles appears plain from the following passages in the New Testament : Acts i. 15, &c., ii. 14-40, iii. 4-12, iv. 8-12, v. 3-9, viii. 20-23. It would seem, too, that Peter had this primacy by the authority of Christ. In fact, he is called the first, or chief. Matt. x. 2. See also xvi. 15-19, and John vi. 67-69. Dr. Owen, an Indepen- dent, whilst he holds that the apostles were all equal, yet says : — * Howbeit it is evident that in all their assemblies they had one who did preside in the manner before described, which seems, among the apostles, to have been the prerogative of Peter.' — The True Nature of a Gospel Church, ^c. chap. iv. But neither Peter nor the other apostles had any successors to their apostleship. It is true that they were called presbyters, and in that ordinary office they might have successors. But here it should be noted that every church or single congrega- tion in the New Testament had a plurality of presbyters or bishops. The Church of Ephesus had (Acts xx. 17, 28). The apostles ordained elders in every church (Acts xiv. 23). The Church at Philippi had a company of bishops (Phil. i. 1). So had the Church at Thessalonica (1 Thes. v. 12). Titus was instructed by Paul to ordain presbyters in every city in Crete (Titus i. 5). James instructs the sick to send for the presbyters of the church (James v. 14). 3. Dr. Davidson, in his Congregational Lecture on the Eccle- siastical Polity of the New Testament^ states : — * Nothing seems to us more certain than that there was a plurality of elders (presbyters) in the primitive churches. The fact is admitted by the ablest historians. " A council of elders," says Neander, " was everywhere set over the churches, to conduct their affairs." Gieseler and Rothe maintain the same opinion. " Let it be proved," says Isaac Taylor (rare instances, if indeed there are any such, excepted), " that primitive churches generally, like our modem congregations, were served by a soHtary clerical person. This can never be done; the bishop, or the principal pastor, how humble soever his state, and how narrow soever his circle, had his colleagues — his presbyters and his deacons." All the ingenuity which has })een applied to overthrow the Chap. X. § 3. JAMES OF JERUSALEM. 387 fact has not been successful. It is contrary, indeed, to modern usage. Hence much perverted ability has been employed for the purpose of showing the likeness of modern usage to apostolic precedent.' — P. 281. As among the apostles there was one who bad the primacy of order, and it would seem by the Divine sanction, so we should naturally infer that one of each plurality of presbyters or bishops would have a primacy of order among his fellow- presbyters or bishops. That such was the case is admitted by the universal consent of the primitive Church. The evidence, however, on this point, as regards the New Testament, is rather inferential than positive. In the fourth century, James, the brother of our Lord, is commonly spoken of as having been Bishop of Jerusalem, and by nearly all the Fathers was con- sidered not to have been one of the Twelve Apostles. How, then, could he preside in the Jerusalem assembly where Peter had previously taken the lead, and now in his presence occupy the chair ? See what Chrysostom says on this point. (Z4. 48.) The Fathers, like the Jewish rabbis, can easily get out of a difficulty, and they tell us that James was ordained bishop of Jerusalem by our Lord Himself. Jerome and others say he was ordained to that office by the apostles. Chrysostom, in his fifth homily on St. Matthew, says : — * James was so admired as even to be the first to be entrusted with the bishop's office. And they say he gave himself up to such great austerity that even his members became all of them as dead, and that from his continual praying, and his perpetual intercourse with the ground, his forehead became so callous as to be in no better state than a camel's knee, simply by reason of his striking it so against the earth.' The general account given of James by the Fathers is about as trustworthy as the account given of the foolish austerities attributed to him by Chrysostom and others. If, however, James was not an apostle, which is the general belief of the Fathers, then, as president of the Mother Church at Jerusalem, he would give his sentence as a presbyter (Acts xv. 19), and would rank not among the apostles, but among the presbyters, of whom it is plain that there was a plurality (Acts xv. 22). As a president he could not be above the apostles in degree ; nor from that circumstance have we any right to suppose he would C C 2 388 WHOSE ARE THE FATHEES ? Chap. X. § 4. be anything more than a jprimus inter pares in regard to his fellow-presbyters of the Church at Jerusalem. In this assembly, or miscalled convocation, it does not appear that the representa- tives of other churches took any part in the deliberations or decision. 4. The next case commonly adduced in proof of a bishop or a presbyter having a primacy of order among his equals is that of the Asiatic Churches, as recorded in the Book of Revelation. But here we shall give the carefully expressed opinion of Dr. Alexander, of Edinburgh, in which he includes that of the very learned Dr. Pye Smith, and as both of them are distinguished authors of the denomination of Independents or Congrega- tionalists, their testimony cannot be considered in any other light than as impartial and candid : — * " Upon the whole of this so long and so zealously agitated question [the question of the origin of episcopacy], I have been led to think that the early course of facts was in this way : In the first churches, two or more of the most suitable members were elected by the Church, under the direction of an apostle or an evangelist, such as Timothy and Titus, or of their first Christian teacher, whatever rank he might hold (see Acts xi. 29 ; 3 John 5, 6, 7) ; and were then ordained by prayer, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, consisting of the apostle, or evangelist, and those pastors who could join in the act. These, therefore, were the spiritual guides, teachers, presidents, or shepherds of the community, called elders (presbyters) from their age, or rather qualities of mind, equivalent to the wisdom and experience of pious age, and overseers (bishops), from their actual office. In process of time, and by the influence of circumstances very likely to occur, one of these, the most distinguished for talents and energy, became the head, perpetual president, or moderator. The earliest indication, perhaps y of this, we find in the address of each of the Apocalyptic epistles ' to the angel of ,' &c. Perhaps it was in that district, the Proconsular Asia, that this state of affairs was developed, and became definitely established; and as the Apostle John, in extreme old age, resided at Ephesus, he gave it his approbation, as a plan adapted to preclude ambitious feehngs or usurped superiority." — SmitlCs Letter to the Rev. S. Lee, D.D., ^c. p. 56. * The opinion respecting the meaning of the phrase, " Angel of the Church," which my very learned and much venerated friend. Dr. Smith, adduces as probable in the above extract, I have ventured, in the passage to which this note refers, to assume as true. [The passage is, " Each Church placed under the management of a set of officers, presided over by one having the title of angel of the church, or bishop of the flock."] My reason is that, afi;er giving the subject my best attention, I can come to no other conclusion regarding it. Passing over Chap. X. § 4. ANGELS OF THE CHUKCHES. 389 some interpretations of this phrase which seem not worthy of being noticed, such as that by "angel" is meant the guardian angel of each church, or that this title is used to designate the door-keeper or messenger of the church, there are five others which have been advanced, and require consideration. * 1. We have the high Episcopal view of it, according to which the angels of these churches were the bishops, to whom alone were entrusted the control and regulation of their affairs. On this it is enough to remark, first, that, as the whole evidence of the rest of the New Testa- ment goes to show that no such ofiicer as a bishop, in the modern sense of the term, existed in the early churches, it is altogether incompetent for us to assume the existence of such an officer in order to explain an obscure and difficult expression in this one instance ; and, secondly, it is clear, both from the tenor of the epistles themselves, and especially from the command of Christ, that they were to be sent unto the churches, the eKKXrjalai, or assemblies of the brethren (Apoc. i. 11), a fact which is quite incompatible with the high Episcopal theory ; for where the jurisdiction of a diocesan is supposed, all popular influence in the management of affairs is put out of the question. ' 2. The strict Presbyterian interpretation of the phrase in question is that it means the consistory of elders in each congregation, viewed as one body, and so personified. What seems to me fatal to this theory is that it is not usual to address epistles to mere personifications, and that, had the parties to whom these Apocalyptic epistles were sent been the body of elders in each congregation, the title " presbytery," or some analogous appellation, would have been employed. Besides, the use of the plural in such expressions as the following is opposed to this theory : " Behold, the devil shall cast some from among you {kl, vfiiov) into prison, that ye may be tried; " " All the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth the reins and the hearts, and I will give to each of you according to your works." Language such as this is not certainly appropriate when addressed to an individual, or a quasi-individual, and suits much better with the supposition that the epistle of which it forms a part was addressed to a community. ' 3. Next in order is what may be called the Ultra-Congregationalist theory, which supposes that the word " angel " is here used as a symbolical expression for the whole Church. Unhappily for this theory, it is not only open to the same objection as the last, but it is expressly contradicted by the interpretation which John himself tells us he received from Christ of the mystery of the seven stars which he saw in his right hand, and of the seven lamps of gold. " The lamps," said he, " are the churches, and the stars are the angels of the churches ; " plainly teaching that between the churches and the angels there was a distinction, so that the one could not be the symbol of the other. 4. I notice, fourthly, another view held by many Congregationalists on this subject, namely, that at the time John wrote the Apocalypse a plurality of pastors had ceased in the churches ; that there was now in each of these societies only one pastor, and that to him the letter in- tended for his church was addressed, that he might lay it before tliem, 390 WHOSE AEE THE FATHEES? Chap. X. § 5 and, as in duty bound, urge its contents on their notice. I have no objection to this view except the stubborn one, that it is opposed to facts. Whatever date we assign to the Apocalypse, provided we admit it to be the work of John, it must have been written long before the time when a plurality of pastors ceased in the churches. For more than a century after Christ had arisen, this arrangement continued ; and it remains with those who adopt this theory to prove that these seven churches formed an exception to the general rule. That two of them, at least, did not, we are pretty certain from documents that yet remain. Previous to the writing of the Apocalypse, in the time of Paul, the church at Ephesus had a plurality of elders, as we learn from the New Testament ; and subsequent to the writing of the Apocalypse, we know that it still had such a plurality, from the letter addressed to it by Ignatius, which is still extant. (3. 10, 11, 14, 15, 19.) From a letter of the same Father to the Smyrnaeans, we know that they also had a plurality of elders in the beginning of the second century. (3. 49, 50.) With these facts before us, it would be sacrificing too much to a favourite theory to suppose that, just at the time when the Apocalypse was written, these churches, for no assignable reason, had been placed under the charge of a single pastor. In regard to them, then, I think it must be admitted by all that the angel of the church was not an individual who held alone the office of pastor among them ; and if this is not the sense of the term in relation to these churches, it cannot be the sense of it in relation to any of the others. ' 5. There remains only the opinion that by the angel of the church is designated the president of the body of pastors — the preshuterion — through whom the epistle was sent to the church, to be by him laid before them. This has the advantage of being at once the most obvious view of the case, and of being the only one on which we can harmonise the actual statements of the passages. It has also strongly in its favour the circumstance that in the Jewish synagogues, after the model of which the first Christian churches were unquestionably formed, there was an officer who bore the title of Sheliach Tsibbor, i.e. angel, or messenger, of the assembly, and whose duty it was to perform exactly those functions which, as we learn from a passage in the Apology of Justin Martyr, the presidents of the Christian churches performed in them. (5. 2, 3.) We thus arrive at the conclusion that, in all probability, before the close of the apostolic age, there was an officer appointed in each church who was the president of the ordinary pastors, and the general bishop of the body.' — Anglo-catholicism not Apostolical, appendix, pp. 409-413. 5. It is needless to observe how the above impartial testimony is confirmed and illustrated by almost every part of our Catena, the third part not excepted, embracing some of the most in- fluential and illustrious authors of our Church of the seventeenth century. It would follow almost as a matter of course that the presiding minister would be called the presbyter, the bishop, as if there were none else beside. This was the case in reference Chap. X. § 6. FIEST PEESBYTERS OF ROME. 391 to the judges of Israel ; the presiding judge was called the judge (Deut. xxv. 1, 2), whereas from the context it is plain that there was a plurality of them, three at the least, as the law re- quired. Again, we read of the ruler of the synagogue (Mark v. 35 ; Luke viii. 49, and xiii. 14), whereas we are certain that each synagogue had a plurality of them (Mark v. 22; Acts xiii. 15). So in the writings of Irenaeus we read of a bishop or presbyter of Eome, as if there were but one at the time, whereas it is certain that there was a plurality. There is, however, consider- able confusion in the order given of these first presbyters of Rome. The learned Vossius, however, solves the difficulty by considering that some of them were contemporary, and he places the iirst five presbyters thus : — 1. Linus, Cletus, Ana- cletus ; 2. Cletus, Anacletus, and Clement ; 3. Cletus, Anacletus ; 4. Anacletus alone ; 5. Evaristus. The grounds on which he gives this arrangement are the acts of Pope Damasus, who states that Peter ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, to rule the people, while he gave himself to prayer and preach- ing. {Voss, 2 EpisL ad Jin, Gla. Gotellerii.) 6. It is true, as we have seen, that the person who among his fellow-presbyters was a priTRUS inter pares, in process of time, and especially in the fourth century, became developed into one who bad absolute authority over the presbyters. But we believe that the Church, in departing so generally, if not universally, from primitive practice, departed also from that which was of Divine institution. It is true the Apostolic Church had a Timothy and a Titus, and others holding the like office, but it is probable she had her presiding presbyters or bishops by thousands. Theodoret, a sober-minded commentator in compa- rison of most of the Fathers, speaks of apostles by myriads. But, from his illustrations, he probably meant such an apostle — or sheliach, which in Hebrew means the same thing — as pre- sided in the synagogue. In North Africa alone, about the year 256, there were 738 such presidents, or bishops, which latter title had now become general. In the time of Augustine (a.d. 400), after the decree of the Council of Sardica had been brought into operation, viz. ' that bishops should not be placed in small cities or villages, lest the name and authority of bishops should 392 WHOSE AEE THE FATHERS ? Chap. X. §§ 7-9. be brought into contempt,' there were in North Africa 466 bishops' sees, besides 279 sees occupied by the Donatists. 7. We have heard a good deal of late concerning the increase of the episcopate ; and if we fully adopt and carry out the episcopacy of the New Testament and early antiquity, even that of the time of Cyprian, the increase must be enormous. To increase tenfold the kind of bishops we now have would bring us very little nearer to the kind of bishops such as were common in the early Church. Our present bishops for the most part represent Timothy and Titus ; but in the island of Crete there was a plurality of presbyters in each city, which, according to what we have already seen, must have had its presiding presbyter irrespective of Titus. Nay, it is almost certain that, if Titus was a bishop such as we now understand by that term, he must^have been a bishop of bishops. In fact, both Chrysostom and Eusebius so represent him and Timothy. (34. 14, 44, 50.) 8. What we want, then, is such bishops or presiding presbyters as were under these bishops or evangelists. We need not change or disturb the present position of our bishops. Their office is no novelty ; it is at least of 1500 or 1600 years' standing, and has been universally recognised in the Church of Christ until within the last 300 years. It is certain both Timothy and Titus, by whatever name we call them, by the Divine approval occu- pied the same position in the Apostolic Church. It is true, St. Paul, who appointed Titus chief ruler of the churches in Crete, invited him back to meet him at Nicopolis ; but he promised to send Artemas or Tychicus in his place. (Titus iii. 12.) See 29. 80. We believe that there is a Divine precedent for such an office in the Church as that held by our bishops ; but we likewise maintain that there was also a presiding presbyter over a given number of presbyters, and that he with them ruled the Church in common. If, then, the episcopacy is to be increased to any extent, we think it should be by a restoration of that episcopacy which prevailed in the primitive Church. 9. The dean and chapter are what remains of this ancient form of church government. What is now called a cathedral in ancient times was the parish church, where the bishop and his fellow-presbyters presided, and in common conducted the Chap. X. § 10. CATHEDKAL, A PAEISH CHUECH. 393 ecclesiastical affairs of the parish. When the bishop obtained a power independent of the presbyters, they, though bereft of their authority, with an archpresbyter in the vacated seat of their bishop, still kept up the external state of their ecclesiastical dignity. This was the case in the time of Damasus, Bishop of Kome, (See 29. 6.) Burn, in his Ecclesiastical Law, on the article ' Cathedral,' states : — ' The cathedral church' is the parish church of the whole diocese, (which diocese was, therefore, commonly called parochia in ancient times, till the application of this name to the lesser branches into which it was divided made it, for distinction's sake, to be called a diocese) ; and it hath been affirmed, with great probability, that, if one resort to the cathedral church to hear divine service, it is resorting to the parish church, within the natural sense and meaning of the statute.' Again, on the word * Appropriation,' he observes : — ' For the first six or seven centuries the parochia was the diocese, or episcopal district, wherein the bishop and his clergy lived together at the cathedral church. This community and collegiate life of the bishop and his clergy appears to have been the practice of our British, and was again appointed for the model of our Saxon, churches. While the bishops thus lived amongst their clergy, residing with them in their proper seats or cathedral churches, the stated services, or public offices, of religion were performed only in those single choirs to which the people of each whole diocese resorted, especially at the more solemn times and seasons of devotion.' 10. In a town, for instance, containing some thousands of inhabitants, with its five or more incumbents, we cannot but think that it would be greatly for the good of all if they were formed into a synod of presbyters, with an archpresbyter, and the several independent charges made into one and governed in common ; thus, after the Ephesian model, ' to feed the Church of God.' Such a return to a more Scriptural form of church government would heal many of our divisions. We pass over Romanism and Scepticism as things not to be healed, but ampu- tated. Yet, alas ! among those who are true to their own church and true to their Lord and Master, there is a large amount of misunderstanding, arising from attaching too much importance to private opinions, which in fact form no necessary part of Christian doctrine. This evil arises from the teaching to which any particular congregation has been accustomed. Its main 394? WHOSE ARE THE FATHEKS? Chap. X. § 11. cause is that one minister for the most part has had the oppor- tunity, contrary to apostolic precedent and early-church practice, of year after year imbuing his hearers with his own distinctive teaching ; or what is still more common, giving them an undue proportion of one part of Divine truth to the neglect of others. Few persons, perhaps, are to blame for these things. It is rather the fault of the system. The same thing, in a degree, would arise if, for instance, a certain number of men should commence a diligent course of study of the Scriptures, but, instead of the study being general, one should devote his atten- tion exclusively to the writings of St. Paul, another to those of St. Peter, a third to those of St. John ; or if one person were to study the Grospel of St. John to the neglect of the other three, and vice versa. We may be certain that on the whole the result would not be nearly so favourable as if the study had been more general. But the effect of a congregation listening for a con- tinuous period to one minister rather than to several, surely more or less tends to form cramped views. If they hear with profit, and treasure up what they hear, the result will be that each congregation will have distinctive views, and that some will be for A, and some for B, and others will differ from both. Thus, under the influence of this one-man system, the different congregations, together with their respective ministers, are in effect so many independent communities, and in some cases acting in rivalry to each other. 11. We verily believe, if all the incumbents of a given locality could be merged into one presbytery, with a president, or bishop, and the whole of the congregations, as well as the localities in which they are placed, could have the combined teaching and pastorship of the presbytery, it would be for the good of all, as their varied gifts would become the property of all. A church built in a given locality would be much more likely to become the place where the people of the immediate neighbourhood would come for their religious ordinances, while churches which are now well attended might not undergo any material change ; others that are not well attended might have an average congregation, and it is most probable the aggregate attendance would be much improved. At present the only Chap. X. §§ 12, 13. PEIMITIVE GOVERNMENT. 395 administrator of discipline is the bishop of the diocese. Surely some additional authorities should be entrusted with it ; and what so suitable as a synod of clergy ? And if needs be, in matters affecting the laity, an equal number of them should have the same power. That laymen had power of this kind in New Testament times and in those of Cyprian, is a matter of certainty. Our bishops could have no objection to such a restoration of primitive discipline, as it is obvious it would take a vast amount of labour out of their hands, and rid them of duties which of necessity they discharge contrary to the title they bear, viz. bishops, or overseers. The word must be taken in its literal sense and primitive application. The presbyters of the church at Ephesus literally overlooked or superintended that church, and, in the most literal sense, they and their chief presbyter — for we must presume from analogy that they had one until it is proved to the contrary — were overseers. If our bishops were relieved of many of those duties which their position renders them incompetent personally to perform, they could give a more undivided attention to the higher department of the episcopal office, and by the blessing of Grod be in the church to which they belong as so many representatives of Timothy and Titus. 12. The rural dean and his fellow-clergy meeting together periodically are a great help to each other and to the bishop ; but how much more would they be competent to carry out the functions of their vocation, and help the church to whose service they have been consecrated, if all united under one head, became as one presbyter or bishop, and the deanery as one distinct church or community of congregations, and all received equal teaching and pastorship. 13. A volume might be written upon this point ; but it forms no necessary part of the object of this book, and it is with much diffidence that we have ventured to make these hints, nor should we have done it but under the pressure of a renewed and im- partial study of the history of the Early Church. CATENA PATRUM, PART I. CONTAINING EXTKACTS FROM FIFTY-FOUR FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX CENTURIES AND THREE OF A MORE RECENT DATE, CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND ITS MINISTRY AND OTHER COLLATERAL MATTERS. t:n'dex of fathees. THE EDITIONS OF THEIR WRITINGS, FROM WHICH THE EXTRACTS IN THE FIRST PART OF THE FOLLOWING CATENA PATRUM HAVE BEEN MADE. Amalarius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. torn. 9. Ambrosii Mediol. Opera, ed. Paris, 1632. 5 vols. fol. Arethas. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. torn. 6. Andrse Comment, in Apocalypsim ad fin. Op. Chrysostomi. Commel. 1596. Arnobius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. torn. 5. Athanasii Opera, ed. Paris, 1627. 2 vols. fol. Augustini Opera (the first 8 vols.), ed. Paris, 1531. 10 vols. fol. Augustini Opera (the last 2 vols.), ed. Basil, 1569. 10 vols. fol. Basilii Opera, ed. Paris, 1638. 3 vols. fol. Bedai Opera, ed. Colon. 1688. 8 vols. fol. Bibliotheca Magna Veterum Patrmn, ed. Colon. 1618. 15 vols. fol. Chrysostomi Opera ed. Montfaucon, Paris, 1734. 13 vols. fol. Clarus, Inter Cypriani Opera, dementis Alex. Opera, ed. Colon. 1688. fol. Clemens Eomanus. See Patrmn Apos- tolicorum Opera. Cypriani Opera, ed. Fell.Amstl.1700. fol. Cyrilli Alex. Opera (Latin translation), ed. Basil, 1566. 5 vols. fol. Cyrilli Hierosol. Opera, ed. Paris, 1631. fol. Dionisius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 1. Epiphanii Opera ed. Colon. 1682. 2 vols. fol. Eusebii Pam. Historia Eceles. ed. Franef. 1822. Ejusdem Vita Constan- tmi, ad fin. Histori. Eceles. 8vo. Eusebius Emissenus. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 6. Eucherius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 5. Evagrii Historia Eceles. ed. Paris, 1673. fol. Eutychii Patr. Alex. Ecclesise suae Ori- gines, ed. Selden. Lond. 1642. 4to. Firmilian. Inter Cypriani Opera. Fulgentius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 6. Gaudentius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 4. Gregorii Magn. Opera, ed, Paris, 1586. 2 vols. fol. Gregorii Nazianz, Opera, ed. Paris, 1630. 2 vols. fol. Gildas. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 5. Hermse Pastor. See Patr. Apost. Opera. Hieronymi Opera, ed. Basil, 1553. 9 vols. fol. Hilarii Diac. Inter Op. Ambrosii. Hilarii Pictav. Opera, ed. Par. 1572. fol. Ignatius. See Patr. Apost. Opera. Ignatius. Corpus Ignatianum, by Cure- ton. London, 1849. 8vo. Irengei Opera, ed. Genev. 1670. fol. Justini Mart. Opera, ed. Commel. 1593. fol. Lactantii Opera, ed. Spark. Oxon, 1684. 8vo. Leo Magnus. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 5. Macarius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 4. Novitianus. Ad fin. Op. Tertulliani. Optatus. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 4. Originensis Opera, ed. Paris, 1733. 3 vols. fol. Pasehasius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 5. Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, ed. Hefele. Tubin. 1839. 8vo. Pacianus. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 4. Primacius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 6. Polycarp. See Patr. Apost. Opera. Eemigius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 5. Euffini Opera, ed. Paris, 1580. 2 vols. fol. Sedulius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 5. Socratis ) Historia Eceles. ed. Paris, Sozomeni J 1668. fol. Tertulliani Opera, ed. Franck. 1597. fol. Theophilus. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 2. Theodoreti Opera, ed. Schulz. Halse. 1769-1774. 5 vols. 8vo. Vincentius. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 5. Victorinus. See Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 3. Victor. Sec Bibl. Mag. Vet. Patr. tom. 4. CAT. 1. §§1-4. CLEMENT. 399 1- Clement, Presbyter or Bishop at Rome. Flourished about a.d. 65. Ad Corinth. 1 Epistola. The Church of God which dwells at Eome, to the Church of God which dwells at Corinth. — Cap. xl.-xliv. pp. 55-58. 1. Seeing then that these things are manifest unto us, we ought to take heed that, looking into the depths of divine knowledge, we do all things in order, whatsoever our Lord has commanded us to do ; and particularly that the offerings and services be performed ; for these he has commanded to be done, not rashly and disorderly, but at certain determinate times and hours. And therefore he has himself ordained by his supreme will, both where and by what persons they are to be per- formed ; that all things being piously done unto all well pleasing, they may be acceptable to his will. They, therefore, who make their offer- ings at the appointed seasons are accepted and happy ; for they sin not, inasmuch as they obey the commandments of the Lord. For the chief priest has his proper services, and to the priests their own place is appointed, and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries ; and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen, 2. Let every one of you, brethren, bless God, in his proper station, with a good conscience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his service that is appointed to him. The daily sacrifices are not offered everywhere ; nor the peace offerings, nor the sacrifices appointed for sins and transgressions ; but only in Jerusalem : and even then they are not offered in every place, but only at the altar before the temple ; that which is offered being diligently examined by the chief priest, and the other ministers before mentioned. They, then, which do anything not agreeable to his will, are punished with death. Con- sider, brethren, that the greater the knowledge is which hath been vouchsafed to us, the greater is the danger to which we are exposed. 3. The Apostles have preached to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ from God. Christ, therefore, was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Thus both were orderly sent by the will of God. For having received their command, and being thoroughly assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and convinced by the word of God, with the fulness of the Holy Spirit, they went forth, proclaim- ing that the kingdom of God was at hand ; and thus preaching through countries and cities they appointed {KadiaTavov') their firstfruits, having proved them by the Spirit, for bishops and deacons of those that should believe. Nor was this any new thing, seeing that long before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture, somewhere: ' I will appoint ' their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.' — Isaiah Ix. 17. 4. And what wonder if they, to whom such a work was committed 400 CATENA PATEUM. CAT. 1. §§ 5-7. by God in Christ, established the bishops and deacons before mentioned; since even Moses, that happy and faithful servant in all his house, set down in the Holy Scriptures all things that were commanded him whom also all the rest of the prophets followed, bearing witness with one consent to those things that were appointed by him. For he, per- ceiving an emulation to arise among the tribes concerning the priest- hood, and that there was a strife about it, which of them should be adorned with that glorious name ; commanded their twelve captains to bring to him twelve rods ; every tribe bring written upon its rod, accord- ing to its name. And he took them and bound them together, and sealed them with the seals of the twelve princes of the tribes ; and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness, upon the table of God. And when he had shut the door of the tabernacle, he sealed up the keys of it, in like manner as he had done the rods, and said unto them, men and brethren, whichsoever tribe shall have its rod blossom, that tribe has God chosen to perform the office of a priest, and to minister unto him in holy things. And when the morning was come, he called together all Israel, six hundred thousand men ; and showed to the princes their seals, and opened the tabernacle of witness ; and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but also to have fruit upon it. "What think you, beloved ! Did not Moses before know what should happen ? yes, verily : But to the end there might be no division, nor tumult in Israel, he did in this manner, that the name of the true and only God might be glorified ; to him be honour for ever and ever. Amen. 5. So, likewise our apostles knew, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that con- tention would arise on account of the name of the episcopate ; and therefore, having a perfect knowledge of this, they appointed the bishops and deacons before mentioned, and afterwards gave direction, how, when they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. 6. Wherefore we cannot think that those may be justly uhrown out of their ministry, who were appointed by them, (the apostles) or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church (^avvev^oKriaa- arjQ TfJQ eKKXrjaiaQ 7ra(rr}g), and who have, with all lowliness and inno- cency, ministered to the flock of Christ in peace, and without self- interest, and have been a long time commended by all. For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off" those from their episcopate, who hoHly and without blame, iulfil the duties of it. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished ' their course before these times, have obtained a firuitfal and perfect dissolution ; for they have no fear, lest any one should turn them out of their place which is now appointed for them. But we see how you have put out some, who lived reputably among you, from the ministry, which by their innocency they had adorned. Ibid. cap. xlvii. p. 60. 7. It is a shame, my beloved, yea, a very great shame, and unworthy of your Christian profession, to hear that the most firm and ancient church of the Corinthians should, by one or two persons, be led into a sedition against its presbyters. CAT. 1. §§ 8, 9. CAT. 2. §§ 1-7- HERMAS. 401 Ihid. cap. liv. p. 64. 8. Who is there among you that is generous ? Who that is com- passionate ? Who that has any charity ? let him say, if this sedition, , this contention, and these schisms, be upon my account, I am ready to depart ; to go away whithersoever you please ; and do the things com- manded by the multitude, (rci TTjOoorao-o-ojufvfx xnro tov irXijOovg) only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters who have been ap- pointed. He that shall do this sliall get to himself a very great honour in the Lord ; and every place will receive him : for, ' The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof Ibid. cap. Ivii. p. 66. 9. Do ye, therefore, who laid the first foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves unto your presbyters. 2. Hermas. Flourished about a.d. 70. Pastor, Lib. i. vis. ii. sec. 2, p. 141. 1. Thou shalt therefore say to those who are over (prcesunt) the Church. Ibid. sec. 4, pp. 142, 143. 2. Asked me ' whether I had yet delivered her book to the elders * {senioribus). . . . But thou shalt read in this city (Rome) with the * elders who are over (^senioribus qui prcesunt) the Church?' Ibid. vis. iii. sec. 5, p. 146. 3. The square and white stones, which agree exactly in their joints, are the apostles, and bishops, and teachers, (^doctores) and ministers {jninistri) who have come in through the mercy of God, and performed the episcopate, (episcopatum gesse?mnt) and taught and ministered holily and modestly to the elect of God. Ibid. sec. 9, p. 150. 4. Now therefore I say to you who are over (prceestis) the Church * and love the chief seats, (primes consessus) be not ye like imto those that work mischief Lib. iii. simili. ix. sec. 15, p. 223. 5. The next thirty-five, are the prophets and ministers of the Lord. And the forty are the apostles and teachers (doctores) of the preaching of the Son of God. Ibid. sec. 1 6, p. 224. 6. Because these apostles and teachers, who have preached the name of the Son of God. Ibid. sec. 25, p. 229. 7. They are such as have believed the apostles which the Lord sent D D 402 CATENA PATEUM. CAT. 2. §§ 8, 9. CAT. 8. §§ 1-3. into all the world to preach ; and some of them being teachers have preached and taught chastely and sincerely. Ihid. sec. 26, p 229. 8. These are such ministers as discharge their ministry amiss ravishing away the goods of the widows and fatherless. Ibid. sec. 27, pp. 230, 231. 9. And some of them have been bishops, that is, governors {prcesides) of churches. Then such as have been governors {prcesides) of ministries ; (jninis- teriorum) and have protected the poor and the widows. 3. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and Martyr : Flourished about a.d. 101. (There are twelve epistles in Greek ascribed to Ignatius: 1. To Maria Cassoholita. 2. The Trallians. 3. Magnesians. 4. Tarsians. 5. Philippians. 6. Philadelphians. 7. Simjrneans. 8. Polycarp. 9. Antiochians. 10. Hero., the deacon of Antioch. 11. Ephesians, 12. Romans. There are also three epistles in Latin, two to the Apostle John, and one to the Virgin Mary. The Latin and five of the Greek epistles, viz. 1, 4, 5, 9 and 10 are not mentioned by Eusebius, and as they are so generally, if not universally admitted to be spurious, no extracts are made from them. The other seven appear in longer and shorter forms. But of these seven, three only are generally ad- mitted to be genuine : viz. the 8th to Polycarp ; 11th to the Ephesians ; and the 12th to the Romans. These three appear in a Syrian version, but are not nearly so long as those bearing the same titles in the shorter Greek recension. All that relates to the subject of our book has been extracted from all three editions, viz. the Syrian, and the two editions generally distinguished by the terms shorter and longer.) The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp. From the Byriac Version. Corfus Ignatianum, p. 228. 1. If he become known apart from the bishop he has corrupt- ed himself. It is be- coming therefore to men and women who marry, that they marry by the counsel of the bishop. From the. Shorter Greek Eecension, cap. v. p. 1 15, Hef. ed. Tuhin, 1839. 2. And if lie desire to be more taken no- tice of than the bishop, he is corrupted. But it becomes all such as From the Longer Greek Eecension, cap. v. Cor- pus Ignatianum, p. 9, 3. And if he desire to be more taken no- tice of than the bishop, he is corrupted. But it becomes all such as are married, whether are married, whether men or women, to come together with the consent of the bishop. men or women, to come together with the consent of the bishop. CAT. 3. §§4-11. IGNATIUS. 4-03 Ibid. p. 228. 4. Look to the bishop, that God also may look upon you. I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to the bishop, and the pres- byters, and the dea- cons ; with them may I have a portion near God. Labour together with one another ; make the struggle to- gether, run together, suffer together, sleep together, rise together. As stewards of God, and his domestics and ministers, please him, and serve him, that ye may receive the wages from him. Ibid. p. 229. 7 . Forasmuch, there- fore, as we have re- ceived your abundance in the name of God, by Onesimus, who is your bishop in love unutterable, whom I pray that ye love in Jesus Christ our Lord, and that all of you be like him ; for blessed is He who hath given you such a bishop. Cap. vi. p. 115. 5. Hearken unto the bishop, that God also may hearken unto you. My soul be security for them that submit to their bishop, with the presbyters and deacons And may my portion be together with theirs in God. Labour with one an- other ; contend to- gether, run together, suffer together, sleep together, and rise to- gether, as the stewards and accessors, and ministers of God. Please him under whom ye war, and from whom ye receive To the Ephesia?is. Cap. i. p. 78. 8. I received, there- fore, in the name of God, your whole mul- titude in Onesimus, who by inexpressible love (is ours) but ac- cording to the llesh is your bishop ; whom I beseech you, by Jesus Christ, to love, and that you would all strive to be like unto him. And blessed be He* who has granted unto you, who are so worthy, to possess such a bishop. Cap. vi. p. 11. 6. Hearken unto the bishop, that God also may hearken unto you. My soul be security for them that submit to their bishop, with the presbytery and dea- cons. And may my portion be together with them in God. Labour with one an- other ; contend to- gether, run together, suffer together, sleep together, and rise to- gether, as the stewards and accessors, and ministers of God. Please him under whom ye war, and from whom ye receive wages. Cap. i. p. 17. 9. I received, there- fore, in the name of God, your whole mul- titude in Onesimus, who by inexpressible love is your bishop ; whom I beseech you by Jesus Christ, to love, and that you would all strive to be like unto him ; and blessed be He who has granted unto you, who are so worthy, to possess such a bishop in Christ. Cap. ii. and iii. pp. 78, 79. 10. And that being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, ye may be wholly and thoroughly sanctified. Cap. ii. and iii. p. 19. 11. And that being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, ye may be wholly and thoroughly sanctified. D D 2 4.04 CATENA PATRUM. CAT.3. §§ 12-20 12. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is sent by the will of the Father ; as the bishops, ap- pointed unto the utmost bounds of the earth, are by the will of Jesus Christ. Cap. iv. and v. p. 79. 14. Wlience, also, it will be- come you to run together accord- ing to the will of the bishop, as also ye do. For your famous presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. 16, For if I in this little time have had such a familiarity with your bishop, I mean not a carnal, but a spiritual acquaintance with him, how much more must I think you happy, who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, that so all things may agree in the same unity. 18. Let us take heed, therefore, that we do not set ourselves against the bishop, that we may be subject to God. 13. For even Jesus Christ did all things according to the will of God the Father, as He himself says somewhere : ' For I do always those things which please him.' Therefore, also, we ought to live according to the will of God in Christ, and to be zealous. As Paul says, ' Be ye followers of me even as also I am of Christ.' Cap. iv. and v. pp. 19, 21. 15. Whence, also, it will be- come you to run together accord- ing to the will of the bishop, who, under God, acts as a shepherd to you, as also ye do, acting wisely under the Spirit. For your fa- mous presbytery, which is worthy of God, is fitted exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. 17. For if I in this little time have had such a familiarity with your bishop, I mean not a carnal but spiritual acquaintance with him, how much more must I think you happy who repose upon him as the Church upon the Lord Jesus, and He, the Lord, upon God, even his Father; that so all things may agree in the same unity. 19. Take heed, beloved, to be subject to the bishop, and to the presbyters, and to the deacons. For he who is subject to them, obeys Christ who appointed them, but he who does not believe them does not believe Christ Jesus; but he ' that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God remaineth upon him.' .... 20. The Lord also says to the priests, ' He that heareth you heareth me, and he that heareth me heareth the Father that sent me; he who despiseth you de- spiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.' — Luke X. 16. CAT. 3. §§ 21-28. IGNATIUS. 405 To the Magnesians. Cap. iv. p. 87. 21. It is therefore fitting that we should not only be called Christians, but be so. As some call bishop ; but yet do all things without him. Cap. vi. and vii. p. 88. 23. 1 exhort you, that ye study to do all things in a divine concord; the bishop presiding in the place of God^ and the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles ; and the deacons most dear to me being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ 25. Let thei-e be nothing that may be able to make a division among you, but be ye united to the bishop, and those who preside {irpoKuOqijii^uiQ) over you. 27. As, therefore, the Lord did nothing without the Father being united to him — neither by him- self, nor by his apostles — so neither do ye anything without your bishop and presbyters ; neither endeavour to let anything appear rational to yourselves apart; but (being come together) into the same place (eVt rb ahro) one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in charity and in joy undefiled. There is one Lord Jesus Christ than whom nothing is better. Wherefore, come ye all together as unto one temple {elg vaov) of God; as to one altar (kirl tv dvaiaarripiov) as to one Jesus Christ, who proceedeth jfrom one Father. Cap. iv. p. 63. 22. It is therefore fitting that we should not only be called Christians, but be so. For he is not happy that says he is, but he that is mr.de so. Some indeed call bishop, but do all things with- out him ; to such He Himself says who is also the true and chief Bishop, and only by nature a High Priest, ' And why call ye me. Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say ? ' Cap. vi. and vii. p. 65. 24. I exhort you, that ye study to do all things in a divine concord; the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and the deacons most dear to me being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ .... 20. Let there be nothing that may be able to make a division among you, but be ye united to the bishop, being subject through him to God in Christ. 28. As, therefore, the Lord did nothing without the Father, ' For I can,' saith he, ' of myself do nothing,' so neither do ye anything without the bishop, whether he be presbyter, or deacon, or layman ; neither endeavour to let anything appear rational contrary to his judgment, for such a thing is wicked and inimical to God. Come ye all together, to the same place in the house of prayer (tr Tr\ Trpnff€vx^); let there be one com- mon supplication, one mind, one hope, in charity and in faith unde- defiled, in that (faith) in Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better. Whei-efore, come ye all together as unto one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one 406 CATENA PATEUM. CAT. 3. |§ 29-38. Cap. xiii. pp. 90, 91. 29. Together with your most worthy bishop, and the worthily complicated spiritual crown of your presbytery and your deacons, which are according to God. Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father ac- cording to the flesh ; and the apos- tles both to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost; that so you may be united both in body and spirit. Epistle to the Trallians. Cap. ii. and iii. pp. 92, 93. 31. For where ye are subject to the oishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not afler the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the uncreated God. Cap. xiii. p. 71. 30. Together with your most wor- thy bishop and the worthily compli- cated spiritual crown of your pres- bytery, and your deacons which are according to God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Christ to the Father, that there may be unity among you according to God. 33. It is therefore necessary that as ye do, so without the bishop you should do nothing; also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope ; in whom if we walk, we shall be found in him. The deacons, also, as being the mystery of Jesus Christ, must by all means please all ; for they are not deacons of meat and drink, but of the church of God. 35. In like manner, let all reve- rence the deacons, as the command of Jesus Christ; also the bishop, as Jesus Christ being Son of the Father ; but the presbyters as the council of God, and college of the apostles. Without these a church is not called. Cap. vii. p. 94. 37. And being inseparable from Cap. ii. and iii. p. 75. 32. Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord ' for he watcheth for your souls, as he that must give account ' to God. Therefore also ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ 34. It is therefore necessary that as ye do, so without the bishop you should do nothing ; but also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope; in whom if we walk we shall be found in him. The dea- cons, also, of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, must by all means please : for they are not deacons of meat and drink, but of the church of God. 36. But reverence ye them (dea- cons) as Jesus Christ, the keepers of whose place they are ; as also the bishop who is a resemblance of the Father of all, but the presby- ters, as the council of God, and col- lege of the apostles of Christ. With- out these a church is not called, nor is there a gathering of saints, nor an assembly of religious persons. Cap. vii. p. 79. 38. It is possible for you to be CAT. 3. §§ 39-45. IGNATIUS. 407 Jesus Christ who is God, and from the bishop, and from the com- mands of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure ; but he that is without, that is, that does anything without the bishop, and presbytery, and deacon, is not pure in conscience. Cap. xii. and xiii. pp. 96, 97. 40. For it becomes everyone of you, especially the presbyters, to refresh the bishop to the honour of the Father of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles. 42. Fare ye well in Jesus Christ, being subject to the bishop as to the command of God, and so like- wise to the presbytery. inseparable from God. ' For he is nigh unto them that fear him.' ' And to whom will I have respect, but to the humble and meek, and he that trembles at my words.' But also venerate your bishop, as Christ, according to what the bless- ed apostles have taught you. He that is within the altar is pure ; wherefore also he obeys the bishop, and the presbyters, but he is with- out who does anything without the bishop and the presbyters, and the deacons — such an one is polluted in conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For, what is a bishop but he who possesses authority and power beyond all others, just as a man possesses this, he is an imi- tator, according to the power of Christ, who is God. 39. What is the presbytery, but a sacred congregation, counsel- lors (avjjfjovXoi) of the bishop and sitting together {crvve^pevraY) with him ? What are the deacons, but imitators of angelic powers, minis- tering to him a pure and blameless ministry, as the holy Stephen to the blessed James, and Timothy and Linus to Paul; and Anacletus and Clement to Peter. Cap. xii. and xiii. p. 85. 41. For it becomes everyone of you, especially the presbyters, to refresh the bishop, to the honour of the Father, to the honour of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles. 43. Fare ye well in Jesus Christ, being subject to the bishop and so likewise to the presbyters, and to the deacons. To the Fhiladelphians, Cap. iv. p. 103. 44. Wherefore let it be your endeavour to partake of one eu- Cap. iv. pp. 91, 93. 45. I confide in you in the Lord that ye mind no other thing ; 408 CATENA PATEUM. CAT. 3. §§ 46-48. charist : for there is but one flesli of our Lord Jfesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood ; one altar, as also there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants. Cap. vii. p. 105. 47. I cried whilst I was among you, I spake with a loud voice, — Attend to the bishop and to the presbytery, and to the deacons. Now, some supposed that I spake this as foreseeing the division that should come among you. But He is my witness for whose sake I am in bonds, that I knew nothing from man ; but the Spirit spake, saying on this wise: — Do nothing with- out the bishop ; keep your flesh as the temples of God ; love unity ; flee divisions ; be the followers of Christ, as He was of His Father. therefore also being confident I write of your worthy love, beseech- ing that ye continue to participate in one faith and one preaching, and one eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus, and one blood of His which was poured out for us ; and one bread broken for all, and one cup distributed to all ; one altar for the whole church, and one bishop together with the pres- bytery, and the deacons my fellow- servants. 46. For in Christ there is neither bond nor free ; let the chief go- vernors be in subjection to Cassar; the soldiers to their chief governors; the deacons to the presbyters, the presbyters to the chief priests, and the deacons and the rest of the clergy, together with all the laity, and the soldiers, and the chief governors, and Cagsar be in subjec- tion to the bishop; the bishop, to Christ, as Christ to the Father, and thus unity shall be preserved in all things. Cap. vii. p. 97. 48. I cried whilst I was among you, I spake with a loud voice, not my word but that of God ; at- tend to the bishop, and to the presbytery, and to the deacons; but ye suspected that I said this as foretelling the division of some; He is my witness, on account of whom I am in bonds ; that from the mouth of man I knew nothing; but the Spirit spake, saying on this wise : — Do nothing without the bishop ; keep your flesh as the temples of God ; love unity ; flee divisions ; be ye followers of Paul and the other apostles, as they also were of Christ. CAT. 3. §§ 4'9-52. IGNATIUS. 409 To the Smyrnceans. Cap. viii. and ix. pp. 110, 111. 49. See that ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father; and the presbytery^ as the Apostles-^ and reverence the deacons, as the command of God. Let no man do anything of what belongs to the church separately from the bishop. Let the eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is either offered by the bishop or by him to whom the bishop has given con- sent. M^heresoever the bishop shall appear there let the multi- tude be ; as where Jesus Christ is there is the catholic church. It is not lawful without the bishop, neither to baptise nor make a love feast ; but whatsoever he shall ap- prove of, that is also pleasing unto God ; that so whatsoever is done may be sure and well done. 51. It is a good thing to have regard to God and the bishop ; he that honoureth the bishop shall be honoured of God. But he that does anything without his know- ledge ministers to the devil. Cap. viii. and ix. pp. 109, 111. 50. Follow all of you the bishop as Jesus Christ the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles, and the deacons as those who minister by the command of God. Let no man do anything of what belongs to the church separately from the bishop. Let the eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is by the bishop or by him to whom the bishop has given his consent. Wheresoever the bishop shall ap- pear there let the multitude be ; as where ChrivSt is there the whole celestial army is present ; as with the commander-in-chief of the power of the Lord, and dispenser of all intelligent nature. It is not lawful without the bishop, neither to baptise, nor to offer the sacrifice, (administer the Lord's supper) nor to carry the offering, nor to per- form the feast, but whatsoever is pleasing to him according to the acceptableness of God ; that what- soever is done may be sure and well done. 52. ' Honour ' says he * O son, God, and the king,' but I say ho- nour God indeed as the author and Lord of all; but the bishop as high priest, bearing the image of God, according as he rules for God, according as he acts as a priest for Christ .... Nor is there anyone more honourable in the church than the bishop, being consecrated to God for the salvation of all the world. . . . He that honours the bishop shall be honoured of God, as therefore he who dishonours him shall be condemned of God. How think you shall he be worthy of punishment who without the bishop chooses to do anything, and who destroys harmony and 41JQ CATENA PATKUM. CAT. 4. CAT. 5. §§ 1, 2. frustrates discipline. For the priesthood has risen above all good things among men, which he who dishonours, dishonours not man but God, and Jesus Christ the first- begotten and only High Priest in the nature of the Father. Let all things be performed by you which are commanded by Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons, the deacons to the presbyters, the presbyters to the bishop, the bishop to Christ, as He is to the Father. 4. PoLYCARP, Bishop of Smyrna, and Martyr. Flourished a.d. 108. The Epistle of Poly carp to the Philippians. — Cap. v. and vi. p. 120. Wherefore ye must needs abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ. The virgins admonish to walk in a spotless and pure conscience. And let the pres- byters be compassionate and merciful towards all : turning them from their errors ; seeking out those that are weak ; not forgetting the widows, the fatherless, and the poor ; but always providing what is good both in the sight of God and man. 5. Justin, the Martyr. Flourished a.d. 140. Justini Apologia II pro Christianis, pp. 75, 76, 77. 1. But the word of God is His Son, as I have already said; and He is called Angel and Apostle, for he declares all that ought to be known, and is sent to proclaim what is told, as indeed our Lord himself said, (to his apostles) 'He that heareth me, heareth him that sent me.' — Luke X. 16. 2. But after thus washing him who has professed, and given his assent, we bring him to those who are called brethren ; where they are assemlDled together, to offer prayers in common both for ourselves, and for the person who has received illumination, and all others every- where, with all our hearts, that we might be vouchsafed, now we have learnt the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and ,keepers of the commandments, that we may obtain everlasting salvation. We salute one another with a kiss when we have concluded the CAT. 5. §§ 3-5. JUSTIN, THE MARTYR. 411 prayers ; then is brought to the president (Trpoeorwri) of the brethren, bread, and a cup of water and wine, which he receives, and offers up praise and glory to the Father of all things, through the name of his 8on, and of the Holy Ghost ; and he returns thanks at length, for our being vouchsafed these things by hira. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgiving, all the people who are present express their assent by saying Amen. This word. Amen, means in the Greek language, So be it ; and wdien the president has celebrated the eucharist, and all the people have assented, they whom we call deacons (^haKovot) give to each of those who are present a portion of the eucharistic bread, and wine, and water ; and carry them to those who are absent. 3. But we, after these things, henceforward always remind one another of them ; and those of us who have the means, assist all who are in want ; and we are always together; and in all our oblations we bless the Maker of all • things, through his Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day which is called Sunday, there is an assembly in the same place of all who live in cities, or in country districts ; and the records of the Apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as we have time. Then the reader concludes ; and the president verbally instructs, and exhorts us, to the imitation of these excellent things ; then we all together rise and offer up our prayers; and, as I said before, when we have concluded our prayer, bread is brought, and wine, and water ; and the president, in like manner, offers up prayers, and thanksgivings, with all his strength ; and the people give their assent by saying Amen ; and there is a distribution, and a partaking by everyone, of the eucharistic elements ; and to those who are not present, they are sent by the hands of the deacons; and such as are in prosperous circumstances, and wish to do so, give what they will, each according to his choice ; and "what is collected is placed in the hands of the president, who assists the orphans, and widows, and such as through sickness, or any other cause, are in want ; and to those who are in bonds, and to strangers from afar, and, in a word, to all who are in need, he is a protector. Dialog, cum Tryplwne Judce^ p. 202. 4. The twelve bells, again, which were directed to be suspended from the ephod, which reached to the feet of the high priest, were a symbol of the twelve apostles, who depended on the power of the Eternal High Priest, Christ, and through whose voices the whole world is filled with the glory and grace of God and His Christ. Hence David speaks thus : * Their sound hath gone out into all the earth, and their words into the ends of the world.' — Ps. xix. 4. Ibid. p. 269. 5. But that I may give you the account of the revelation of Jesus Christ the righteous, I resume my discourse and say, that that reve- lation was made to us who believe on him who was crucified as the Christ, the High Priest ; to us who, when living in fornications and every Ivind of filthy practice, have through the grace given by our Jesus, 412 CATENA PATKUM. CAT. 5. §§ 6, 7- CAT. 6- §§ 1-2. according to the Avill of his Father, put off all those foul sins with which we were clothed. The devil was always at hand opposing us, and endeavoured to draw us all to himself; and the Angel of God, that is, the Power of God which was sent us through Jesus Christ, rebukes him, and he departs from us. And we have been, as it were, plucked from the fire, being freed from our former sins, and from the affliction of the fiery trial, by which the devil and all his ministers try us, from which also Jesus Christ the Son of God plucks us again ; who has, moreover, promised, if we perform his commandments, to clothe us with garments that he has prepared for us, and to provide for us an eternal kingdom. 6. For as that Jesus (Joshua, Zach. iii. 1-5), who is called by the prophet a priest, was seen wearing filthy garments, because it is said that he married a harlot ; and is called a brand plucked out from the fire, because he received remission of his sins, the devil also who opposed him being rebuked ; so we, who through the name of Jesus believe as one man on God the Creator of all things, have put off our filthy garments, that is our sins, through the name of His first- begotten Son ; and are set on fire by the word of His calling and are the true high-priestly race of God, as God himself testifies, saying, that in every place among the Gentiles they offer sacrifices pure and well pleasing to Him. But God accepts not sacrifices from any except through his priests. 7. God has therefore beforehand declared, that all who through this name offer those sacrifices which Jesus, who is the Christ, commanded to be offered, that is to say, in the eucharist of the bread and of the cup, which are offered in every part of the world by us Christians, are well pleasing to him. But those sacrifices, which are offered by you, through those priests of yours. He wholly rejects, saying, 'and I will not accept your offerings at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even to the going down of the same, My name is glorified among the Gentiles; but ye profane it.' — Mai. i. 10-12. 6. Tren^us, Bishop of Lyons, and Martyr. Flourished about a.d. 167. Adversus Hcereses^ lib. ii. cap. xxxvii. p. 135. 1. For after the twelve apostles it is found our Lord sent seventy others. Ihid. lib. iii. cap. i. p. 169. 2. For by no others have we become acquainted with the dispensa- tion of our salvation than by those by whom the Gospel has come to us. That Gospel which they preached, afterwards by the will of God, they delivered to us in the scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith. CAT. 6. §§3-6. lEEN^US. 413 Ibid. lib. iii. cap. ii. pp. 169, 170. 3. Truth, according to them, is sometimes in Valentinus, sometimes in Marcion, sometimes in Cerinthus and then in Basilides, but it was also in him who disputed against them. But when again we summon them to that tradition which is from the apostles, and which is guarded in the churches by the succession of the presbyters, they oppose tradition, saying that they have found the simple truth, that they are wiser not only than the presbyters but even than the apostles. Ihid. lib. iii. cap. iii. pp. 170, 171.' 4. Therefore that the tradition of the apostles was made evident in the whole w^orld there is the opportunity of seeing in every church, to everyone who wishes to see the truth ; and we can reckon those who were appointed by the apostles bishops in the churches, and their suc- cessors even to us, who neither taught nor knew any such things as tl»ese (heretics) madly prate about. For if the apostles had known any hidden mysteries, which they taught to the perfect separately and secretly from the rest, they would have delivered such things to those especially to whom they committed the churches themselves. For they greatly wished that they should be perfect and blameless in all things whom they left as their successors, and to whom they delivered their office of teaching {locum magisterri); who, if they discharged their office well, great would be the gain, if they fell, extreme the calamity. 5. But since it would be tedious, in such a volume, to reckon the suc- cessions of all the churches, we confound all those who in any manner, Avhether through self-gratification or vainglory, or through blindness and evil opinion, infer what is unseemly by the successions of bishops of that greatest, most ancient and universally known church, founded and consti- tuted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, showing the tradition which it has from the apostles, and the faith announced to men and descended even to us. For to this church, on account of the more powerful principality, it must needs be that every church should resort, that is, those who are faithful, on every side; in which the tradition which is from the apostles has always been preserved by those who are round about it. 6. The blessed apostles, therefore, founding and regulating this church, delivered to Linus the work of the episcopate, of which Linus Paul makes mention in his epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus ; after him, in the third place, from the apostles, Clement is chosen {KXrjpovrai) to the episcopate, who saw the blessed apostles themselves, and resided with them, and had as yet their preaching and their tradition before his eyes ; nor he alone, for at that time many sur- vived who had been taught by the apostles. Under this Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren at Corinth, the church which is at Rome wrote very powerful letters to the Corinthians, bringing them to peace, and repairing their faith, and enforcing the tra- dition which had been recently received from the apostles, announcing one Almighty God, the M^^ker of heaven and earth, the Creator of 414 CATENA PATEUM. CAT. 6. §§ 7-1 1 . man, who had sent the deluge, and had called Abraham ; who had brought forth His people out of Egypt ; who talked with Moses ; who ap- pointed the law and sent the prophets; who prepared fire for the devil and his angels. That this Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was announced by the churches, those who will can learn from the Scripture itself, and can understand the apostolical tradition of the Church ; since this is an epistle more ancient than these men, who now teach falsely, and pretend that there is another God above the Demiurgus, who is the maker of all things. 7. To this Clement Evaristus succeeded, and to Evaristus Alexander, and then Sixtus was constituted, the sixth after the apostles, and then Telesphorus, who also made a glorious martyrdom, and then Hyginus, afterwards Pius, after whom was Anicetus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherius holds the episcopate. 8. In this order (ra^ct), and in this doctrine (^ihixrj), that tradition which is from the apostles in the Church and the preaching of the truth reach even to us. And also Polycarp, who was not only taught by the apostles, and had conversed with many of those Avho had seen Christ, but was also constituted bishop in the church of Smyrna by the apostles who were in Asia, whom we also saw in our early youth, (for he persevered greatly, and, at a very great age, making a glorious martyrdom, he departed this life), he likewise taught always those things which he had learned from the apostles, which he delivered to the Church, and which alone are true. To these things all the churches which are in Asia bear testimony, and those who, even to the present day, have succeeded Polycarp, who was a man of much greater authority, and a more faithful witness of the truth, than Valentinus and Marcion, and the rest who hold their perverse opinions. For he was the man who, when he came to Rome in the time of Anicetus, converted many heretics from those of which I have already spoken, to the Church of God, declaring that he had received from the apostles that one and only system of truth which he delivered to the Church. Ibid. lib. iii. cap. xiv. p. 198. 9. 'And having called together the bishops and presbyters of Ephesus, and of the other neighbouring cities.' — Acts xx. 17, 28. Ibid. lib. iv. cap. xx. p. 245. 10. All righteous men hold the priestly order. But all priests are apostles of the Lord who neither possess houses nor lands here, but always serve God and the altar. Ibid. lib. iv. cap. xliii. pp. 277, 278. 11. Wherefore we ought to obey the jjresbyters who are in the Church who have the succession from the apostles, as we have shown, who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received the sure giit of truth, according to the Father's good pleasure. But to regard others who are separate from the principal succession, and are gathered to- CAT. 6. §§ V2-15. IKENJEUS. 415 gether in any place as suspected, or as heretics and of bad principles, or as schismatic and proud, and self-pleasing, or as hypocrites who act on account of gain or vainglory ; but all these have departed from the truth, and indeed heretics, who offer on the altar of God strange fire, that is, strange doctrines, will be burned with fire from heaven, like Nadab and Abihu. But those who rise up against the truth, and ex- hort others against the Church of God, remain in the infernal regions, being swallowed up in an earthquake, as were those about Corah, Dathan, and Abiram. But those who divide and separate the unity of the church receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam. Ibid. lib. iv. cap. xliv. p. 278. 12. But they who are supposed by many to be presbyters, but serve their own pleasure, and do not place the fear of God first in their hearts, but treat others with bitter taunts, who are elated with the pride of the principal seat (principalis concessionis), and do evil things in secret, and say, ' No one seeth us,' shall be reproved by the word. .... From all such we should keep at a distance, and adhere indeed to those who, as we have said before, keep the doctrine of the apostles, and, with the order of the presbytership {preshyterii ordine), exhibit soundness in word, and a blameless behaviour for the instruction and correction of the rest The Church cherishes such presbyters of whom the prophet says, ' And I will give thy governors {apxovrac) in peace, and thy bishops (eTriffKOTrovg) in righteousness.' — Sep. ver. Isaiah Ix. 17. Ibid. lib. iv. cap. xlv. p. 279. 13. Where, therefore, anyone finds such, Paul, instructing us, says, * God has set some in the church, first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers.' Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been conferred there we ought to learn the truth from those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and with whom is manifest a correct and irreproachable behaviour, and unadul- terated and incorruptible discourse. Ibid. cap. Ixiii. p. 292. 14. The doctrine of the apostles is true knowledge, and is the ancient form of the Church in the whole world, and is with the mark (charactere) of the body of Christ according to successions of bishops to whom they delivered that Church which is in every place, which (doctrine) hath, come even to us, having been kept without any device in the most full vising of the Scriptures. Ibid. lib. V. cap. xxxiii. pp. 454, 455. — Grab's ed. Lon. 1702. 15. Forasmuch as the presbyters make mention who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, that they heard from him after what manner the Lord spoke of those times, and he said, ' The days shall come in which vines shall be produced, each having ten thousand boughs, and on one bough ten thousand branches, and on one branch ten thousand switches, and on every switch ten thousand bunches, and in every bunch ten 416 CATENA PATEUM. CAT. 6. §§ 16, 17.— CAT. 8. § 1. tliousand grapes, and every grape, when pressed, shall yield twenty-five measures of wine.' After the same manner also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand ears. . . . Nor am I ignorant that every ear shall have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten pounds of fine pure flour. Frag. Epis. ad Florinum Eusehii, lib. v. cap. xx. p. 860. 16. These doctrines not even the heretics out of the Church ever attempted to assert. These doctrines were never delivered to thee by the presbyters before us, those who also were immediate disciples of the apostles. ... I can bear witness in the sight of God that, if that blessed and apostolic presbyter {cLiroaToXikoq Trpeaftunpoc^ had heard any such thing as this, he would have exclaimed and stopped his ears. Frag. Epis. ad Victorem Eusehii, lib. v. cap. xxiv. p. 370. 17. And these presbyters who governed the Church (of Rome) before Soter, and which you now lead (d^j^yjj), I mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus, with Telesphorus and Sixtus. . . . But those very presbyters before thee, who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those churches who did. 7. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch. Flourished about 168. Comment, in Evangelia, lib. i., Bibl. Mag. Vet. Pair. tom. ii. pp. 148, 151. 1. *Ye are the salt of the earth.' (Matt. v. 13.) The apostles are called salt because through them the human race is preserved. ' But if the salt have lost its savour.' That is, if the teacher shall err, by what other teacher shall he be amended ? * Ye are the light of the world.' He said this to the apostles who illuminate the world by heavenly doctrine. 'A city set iipon a hill cannot be hid.' ' A city ' is so called from the citizens ; that is, it is so named from the inhabi- tants. The ' city ' is the Church ; the ' hill ' must be understood to be Christ upon whom the Church is built. 2. ' Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.' (Matt, xxiv. 16.) By Judaea, the Holy Land, he denotes that a devout man ought to flee to the doctrine of the apostles. 8. Tertullian, Presbyter of Carthage. Flourished about 192. Apologeticus adversus Gentes, cap. xxxix. p. 67. 1. I will now set forth on my own part the employments of a Christian party {Christians factionis) that since I have disproved that which is CAT. 8. §§ 2-4. TERTULLIAK. 4-17 evil, I may show somewhat that is good, if so be I have also unfolded the truth. We are a body formed by our joint cognisance of religion, by the unity of discipline, by the bond of hope. We come together in a meeting and congregation (m coeiwn ef congregatlonem) as before God, as though we would in one body sue him by our prayers. This violence is pleasing unto God. We pray also for emperors, for their ministers, and the powers ; for the condition of the world, for the quiet of all things ; for the delaying of the end. We come together to call the sacred writings to remembrance, if so be that the character of the present times compel us either to use admonition or recollection in any- thing. In any case, by these holy words we feed our faith, raise our hopes, establish our confidence ; nor do Ave the less strengthen our discipline by inculcating precepts. Here, too, are exercised exhorta- tions, corrections, and godly censure. For our judgment also cometh with great weight, as of men well assured that they are under the eye of God ; and it is a very grave forestalling of the judgment to come if any shall have so offended as to be put out of the communion of prayer, of the solemn assembly, and of all holy fellowship. 2. The most approved elders preside {prcBsident prohati quique senior es) over us, having obtained this h(mour not by money, but by character ; for with money is nothing pertaining unto God purchased. De Corona, cap. iii. p. 180. 8. In fact, to begin with baptism, when we are about to come to the water, in the same place, but at a somewhat earlier time, we do in the church testify, imder the hand of a chief minister [anttstitis), that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. . . . The sacrament of the eucharist, commanded by the Lord at the time of supper, and to all, we receive even at our meetings before daybreak, and from the hands of no others than the heads of the Church (^prcesidentiwni). De PrcBSCriptione Hcereticonim, cap. xx. p. 206. 4. Immediately, therefore, the apostles (whom this title intendeth to denote as sent) . . . having obtained the ptomised power of the Holy Si)irit for the working of miracles and for utterance, first having throughout Juda?a borne witness to the faith of Jesus Christ, and cstablit