NOTES.

NOTE (A).

ATTEMPTS have been made to show that the ancient Monks of North Britain, called "the Culdees," whose chief settlement was at Iona, among the Western Isles, were an exception to the rule in the text. But after the complete refutation in the very able and learned inquiry upon this subject, prefixed by Bishop Russell to his new edition of Keith's catalogue of Scottish Bishops, that notion will not probably again be urged.

Episcopal succession among the Waldenses and Albigenses is fully proved by Dr. Allix, in his elaborate and valuable work, entitled "Some Remarks upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont," printed in 1690.

NOTE (B).

Although with foreign reformers we of the Church of England have no immediate concern, it is important to know that, where episcopacy was not retained, the reformers pleaded not principle but necessity. How Calvin stood affected in the said point of Episcopacy, and how gladly he and other heads of the reformed Churches would have received it, is evident enough from his writings and epistles. In his Book of the Necessity of Reforming the Church, he hath these words: Talem si nobis hierarchiam exhibeant, &c. "Let them give us such an hierarchy, in which Bishops may be so above the rest as they refuse not to be under Christ, and depend upon him as their only head, that they maintain a brotherly society, &c. If there be any that do

not behave themselves with all reverence and obedience towards them, there is no anathema, but I confess them worthy of it." But especially his opinion of episcopacy is manifest from a letter he and Bullinger, and others, learned men of that sort, wrote anno 1549, to King Edward VI. offering to make him their defender, and to have Bishops in their Churches for the better unity and concord among them; as may be seen in Archbishop Cranmer's memorials, and likewise by a writing of Archbishop Abbot, found among the MSS. of

Archbishop Usher, which for the remarkableness of it, and the mention of Archbishop Parker's papers, I shall here set down. "Perusing some papers of our predecessor, Matthew Parker, we find that John Calvin, and others of the Protestant Churches of Germany and elsewhere, would have had episcopacy, if permitted; but could not on several accounts, partly fearing the princes of the Roman Catholic faith would have joined with the Emperor and the rest of the popish Bishops to have depressed the same; partly being newly reformed and not settled, they had not sufficient wealth to support episcopacy, by reason of their daily persecutions. Another and a main cause was, that they would not have any popish hands laid over their clergy. And whereas John Calvin had sent a letter, in King Edward VI.'s time, to have conferred with the clergy of England about some things to this effect, two Bishops, viz. Gardner and Bonner, intercepted the same; whereby Mr. Calvin's overture perished. And he received an answer, as if it had been from the reformed divines of those times, wherein they checked him, and slighted his proposals; from which time John Calvin and the Church of England were at variance on several points, which otherwise, through God's mercy, had been qualified, if those papers of his proposals had been discovered unto the Queen's Majesty during John Calvin's life. But being not discovered until or about the sixth year of her Majesty's reign, her Majesty much lamented they were not found sooner."-Strype's Life of Archbishop Parker.

NOTE (C).

From some passages to be met with in the letters of that learned person, Henry Newton, ambassador extraordinary from the Queen of Great Britain to his Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Tuscany, it appears plainly that this great man, Hugo Grotius, had the highest opinion of the Church of England. In a letter to John Clerc, there is the following passage, taken from a letter written from Genoa, by Viscount Scudamore, at that time ambassador from England to France, to Archbishop Laud: "The next time I see Ambassador Grotius, I will not fail to perform your commands concerning him. Certainly, my Lord, am persuaded that he doth unfeignedly and highly love and reverence your person and proceedings. Body and soul, he professeth himself to be for the Church of England; and gives this judgment of it, that it is the likeliest to last of any Church this day in being."-See Archdeacon Daubeny's Guide to the Church, vol. ii. p. 282.

NOTE (D).

The universal consent of the Church being proved, "there is as great reason to believe the Apostolical succession to be of Divine institution, as the canon of Scripture, or the observation of the Lord's day. We do not doubt that it is unlawful to add to, or diminish from the canon of Scripture; and yet there is no plain text for it with respect to all the books contained in it; and some of the books were a long

time disputed in some Churches; but the Churches coming at last to a full agreement in this matter, upon due search and inquiry, hath been thought sufficient to bind all after-ages to make no alterations in it. And as for the Divine institution of the Lord's day, we do not go about to lessen it, but only to show, that some examples in Scripture, being joined with the universal practice of the Church in its purest ages, hath been allowed to be sufficient ground not only for following ages to observe it, but to look on it as at least an Apostolical institution. Now it cannot but seem unequal, not to allow the same force where there is the same evidence; and, therefore, our Church hath wisely and truly determined, that since the Apostles' time there have been three orders, of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and that these in a regular well-constituted Church are to continue to the world's end."-Bishop Stillingfleet's Ordination Sermon.

NOTE (E).

And that Timothy and Titus had not this power committed to them as Evangelists, which our adversaries pretend, is most certain, because Evangelists, as such, had not that power. For then mere Deacons might have ordained and governed Priests, for such was Philip the Evangelist. And it is most certain that he pretended not to any such authority 2. For when in the prosecuting his office of an Evangelist, (whose duty it was to convert unbelievers,) he had converted a great many at Samaria, and baptized them, he pretended not to confirm them, by the laying on of hands, or to settle any Church offices amongst them, but gave notice of what he had done to the Apostles, and they sent two of their own order for this purpose. Wherefore, though it should be admitted that Timothy and Titus were both Evangelists, which yet cannot be proved, this alone, if they were not Bishops also, as the Evangelists commonly were, could give them no authority to ordain Presbyters, or govern particular churches, as the one did Ephesus, and the other Crete. But they (as the late Right Reverend 3 Bishop of Worcester very well remarks) "who go about to unbishop Timothy and Titus, may as well unscripture the Epistles that were written to them, and make them only some occasional writings, as they make Timothy and Titus to have been some particular and occasional officers. But the Christian Church preserving these Epistles as of constant and perpetual use, did thereby suppose the same kind of office to continue, for the sake whereof these excellent Epistles were written, and we have no greater assurance that these Epistles were written by St. Paul, than we have that there were Bishops to succeed the Apostles in the care and government of Churches."See Brett on Church Government, p. 63.

NOTE (F).

St. James, the brother of our Lord, is called an Apostle, and yet

1 Compare Acts xxi. 8. with Acts vi. 5. 2 Acts viii. 5, &c.

3 Dut. and Rights of Parish Clergy, p. 11.

he was not in the number of the twelve, but he was Bishop of Jerusalem. First: That St. James was called "an Apostle," appears by the testimony of St. Paul: "But other Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother 1." Secondly: That he was none of the twelve appears also, because among the twelve Apostles there were but two Jameses; the son of Alpheus, and James, the son of Zebedee, the brother of John. But neither of these was the James, whom St. Paul calls "the Lord's brother." And this St. Paul intimates, in making a distinct enumeration of all the appearances which Christ made after the resurrection 2: "First to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to the five hundred brethren, then to James, then to all the Apostles." So that here St. James is reckoned distinctly from the twelve, and they from the whole college of the Apostles; for there were, it seems, more of that dignity than the twelve. But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of Hegesippus, Clement, Eusebius, Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, and St. Jerome 3.—Bishop Taylor on Episcopacy.

NOTE (G).

Do you consider the knowledge of the opinions of the Fathers, and of the practice of the primitive Church, as to the designation to Ecclesiastical offices to be of importance in determining the question where the right of ecclesiastical presentation in Scotland should be placed? I conceive it to be of very great importance, though the opinions of the Fathers and the Canons of Councils, and the practice of the primitive Church, are not considered as authoritatively binding by the Church of Scotland, except in so far as they are agreeable to Scripture, or can be proved to be of apostolic descent; they are admitted to be deserving the most respectful attention. Upon this subject there are many who conceive that the practice of the primitive Church evinces what was the practice of the Apostles. Our first reformers and the most eminent of our theological authors, who have written upon the subject of ministerial election, always refer to the primitive model; so that if we would know the minds of the reformers, or understand the exact nature of the constitution of the Church of Scotland, it is necessary that we should have some acquaintance with the practice of the Church in the first ages of Christianity.

Do you consider that the facts and circumstances connected with the practices in the primitive ages are frequently referred to by many presbyterian writers and authorities in support of their views as to their mode of admitting ministers? They are frequently referred to. I conceive that the following argument has very considerable weight with many Presbyterians. The fact that in primitive times the election was in the hands of the people in reference to their Bishops, and to their Presbyters at a period when there was no freedom of election in regard to offices in the state, can only be accounted

2 1 Cor. xv.

1 Gal. i. 19. 3 Vide Carol. Bovium in Constit. Apost. Schol. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Jacob. et in Galat. 1.-Epiphan. Hæres. 78, 79. Tract. 124 in Johan.

for by the fact that this custom had descended from the Apostles; and it is the opinion of very many Presbyterians, that if you can trace a practice to apostolic times you have divine authority for the practice, and in that view also I conceive a knowledge of the practice of the primitive Church to be of importance.-Professor Welch's Evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons on Church Patronage.

NOTE (H).

"Thus I have represented the belief of St. Cyprian and his contemporaries, as to the Divine right of Episcopacy. The number of depositions, that this Divine right was then universally believed, is very great. It was the belief of all the Bishops, and by good consequence (all things considered) of all the Christians in Africa. It was the belief of Bishops, Clergy, and the people of Rome; the best evidence that can be expected of the common faith of the European; of Dionysius and Origen, two unexceptionable witnesses of the faith of the Egyptian; and of Alexander and of Firmilian, every way as famous witnesses of the belief of the Eastern or Asiatic Churches. It was, indeed, the belief of all persons, of all orders, degrees, ranks, and qualities,—Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, inferior Ministers, Martyrs, Confessors, persevering Christians, perfidious Lapsers, orthodox Believers, Heretics, Catholics, Schismatics, Clergy, Laics, learned, unlearned, &c. Not so much as one testimony in the monuments of that age to the contrary. No article of the Christian faith more unanimously, more uncontestedly, more universally received. I will be bold to challenge G. R. or any Presbyterian in Scotland, to produce one witness of whatsoever quality, I shall not say formally deposing, but probably insinuating, that Prelacy was an human invention; an office introduced into the Church after the days or by a lesser authority than that of the Apostles."

"Shall I add another consideration of no small weight in this matter? 'Tis this: No age of the Church, assignable, wherein Christians were closer adherents to Divine authority, or stricter observers of Divine institutions; or nicer requirers of Divine warrant, for every thing proposed to be received by them. Never age, wherein innovations more carefully guarded against; or human inventions more zealously rejected; or recessions from Divine appointments more religiously remonstrated against or repudiated.”

NOTE (I).

"Maximus was once a familiar friend of Gregory Nazianzen's at such time as he was Bishop of Constantinople 1; and by him, having taken a good liking to him, admitted into the clergy of that Church. But Maximus being an ungrateful wretch, complots with others like himself, to be made Bishop of that city and thereupon negociates

1 Greg. Presb. in Vita Nazian.