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 Dr. 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 Albigeneses, 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. In his preface he declares his design of proving with respect to both these Churches, (viz. the Waldenses and Albigenses,) that, in claiming to have derived their original from the Apostles, they advanced nothing which was not exactly conformable to the history of the ages past, from the time of the Apostles to the thirteenth century. "This" he adds, "I shall endeavour by making out the succession of these Churches, as well with respect to their doctrine and worship, as with respect to their ministry." Accordingly, this author in his twenty-fourth chapter, page 239, argues and establishes this point at considerable length, and shows that not only in Piedmont itself, but also in different parts of Europe where Waldensian principles were diffused, the jurisdiction of Bishops was upheld. In the course of his argument, he remarks "if we cast our eyes upon the colonies they" (the Waldenses) "have sent to several places, we shall find the same discipline in

use amongst them. Thus we see, in the kingdom of Naples, they had a superior who conferred orders in the city of Aquila. We find the same thing in Bohemia, in the confession of faith they presented to Uladislaus, p. 836. Ordinandi majoribus, aut minoribus ordinibus promovendi vitâ virtuosâ in Christu fide, &c. The same is observed in an ancient abridgment of the opinions of the Waldenses, recorded by Wolfius. Lect. Memor. ad ann. 1160, p. 380. They absolutely deny the Pope's primacy over all churches, and more especially his power over all policies, that is, his power of both swords; neither do they hold that any other orders ought to be retained except those of Priests, Deacons, and Bishops."

In page 241 of the same work, we find him quoting Commenius, A.D. 1644, to prove that the Waldenses, according to their own declaration, had lawful Bishops among them: and a lawful and uninterrupted succession from the Apostles themselves. In page 203 the learned Doctor mentions the following among the great controversies between the Waldenses and the Church of Rome, namely, "whether it was necessary to be subject to the Pope in order to be a member of the true Church which the Popes absolutely pretended, having to that end invaded the authority of almost all metropolitans that naturally were auto-cephali, that is, subject to no church authority above themselves out of their Diocese."

NOTE (B.)

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, I am persuaded that he doth unfeignedly and highly love and reverence your per

son 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. 2. p. 282.

NOTE (C.)

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 to 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 to 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 (D.)

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 pre

1 Compare Acts xxi. 8. with Acts vi. 5.

tended not to any such authority'. 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 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.

2

NOTE (E.)

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

1 Acts viii. 5. &c. 2 Dut. and Rights of Parish Clergy, p. 11. 3 Gal. i. 19.