Bishop, each with many Presbyters and Deacons under them.* As these parishes probably averaged as large as those of Antioch, there would have been two hundred and forty thousand parishes, and one hundred and twenty millions of Christians. In Italy, as then constituted, there were about three hundred Dioceses; in Spain, seventy Dioceses; in France, one hundred and seventeen Dioceses, and in Ireland, thirty-eight Dioceses. Some of these Dioceses were small, others large; some thinly inhabited, others densely populated. Of these, Rome, with its three millions of people, constituted a single Diocese. If these five hundred and twenty-five Dioceses averaged one hundred parishes to a Diocese, and five hundred persons each, it would give twenty-six millions of Christians.

To these must be added a large number of Christians in Persia, in India, in Ethiopia, as also in Britain, perhaps some in the north of Europe. In Persia alone, there seems to have been as many as fifty Dioceses. The Bishops of twentythree of these Dioceses suffered martyrdom about the same time, A. D. 330. In one Diocese alone, two hundred and fifty of the inferior clergy suffered with their Bishop. It will not be an over-estimate, if we allow one hundred Dioceses in all these countries, with at least five millions of Christians.

If now we bring together the result of these calculations, we shall have two hundred and twenty-five millions of Christians, in the year 450, in Bishopricks, the names of which have been preserved to this day; twenty-five millions more than are estimated for the present time. Of these, about one hundred and seventy-three millions were in Asia and Africa, where now there are not, according to the best estimates, over twenty millions. In these two countries, Christianity has lost over one hundred and fifty millions of worshipers-sad consequence of a departure from Christian Unity.

* Greg. Naz. Carm. De Vita, Basil. Bas. Ep. 181, 412.

APPENDIX.

Consecration of Archbishop Parker.

ABOUT fifty years after the death of Archbishop Parker, a story was made up by some of the Papists, denying that Parker was consecrated. This story became the subject of controversy, and is thus described by Rev. JOHN LINGARD, D. D., the Roman Catholic historian of England, in the following note, Hist. Eng., vol. VII. p. 293, Am. Ed., p. 422, Paris Ed.

"It may, perhaps, be expected that I should notice a story which was once the subject of acrimonious controversy between the divines of the two communions. It was said that Kitchin and Scorey, with Parker and the other Bishops elect, met in a tavern called the Nag's head, in Cheapside; that Kitchin, on account of a prohibition from Bonner, refused to consecrate them, and that Scorey, therefore, ordering them to kneel down, placed the Bible on the head of each, and told him to rise up Bishop. The facts that are really known, are the following. The Queen, from the beginning of her reign, had designed Parker for the Archbishopric. After a long resistance he gave his consent; and a congè d'elire was issued to the Dean and Chapter, July 18, 1559. He was chosen August 1. On September 8, the Queen sent her mandate to Tunstall, Bishop of Durham; Bourne, of Bath and Wells; Pool, of Peterborough ; Kitchin, of Llandaff; Barlow, the deprived Bishop of Bath under Mary, and Scorey, of Chichester, also deprived under Mary, to confirm and consecrate the Archbishop elect. (Rym, xv. 541.) Kitchin had conformed; and it was hoped that the other three, who had not been present in Parliament, might be induced to imitate his example. All three, however, refused to officiate; and in consequence the oath of supremacy was tendered to them, (Rym. xv. 545;) and their refusal to take it was followed by deprivation. In these circumstances no consecration took place; but three months later, (December 6,) the Queen sent a second mandate, directed to Kitchin, Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale, the deprived Bishop of Exeter, under Mary, John, suffragan of Bedford, John, suffragan of Thetford, and Bale, Bishop of Ossory, ordering them, or any four of them, to confirm and consecrate the Archbishop elect: but with an additional clause, by which she, of her supreme royal authority, supplied whatever deficiency there might be according to the statutes of the realm, or the laws of the Church, either in the acts done by them, or in the person, state, or faculty of any of them, such being the necessity of the case, and the urgency of the time. (Rym. xv. 549.) Kitchin again appears to have declined the office. But Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale, and Hodgskins, suffragan of Bedford, confirmed the election on the 9th; and consecrated Parker on the 17th. The ceremony was performed, though with a little variation, according to the ordinal of Edward VI. Two of the consecrators, Barlow and Hodgskins, had been ordained Bishops according to the Roman pontifical, the other two according to the reformed ordinal. (Wilk. Con. iv. 198.) Of this consecration on the 17th of December, there can be no doubt: perhaps in the interval between the refusal of the Catholic prelates, and the performance of the ceremony, some meeting may have taken place at the Nag's head, which gave rise to the story."

This note called forth an attack in the Birmingham Magazine, by an anonymous writer, signing himself "T. H." to which Rev. Dr. Lingard made the following reply:

"Mr. Editor,-In your last number, a correspondent, under the signature of T. H., has called on me to show why I have asserted, (Hist. Eng. VII. p. 293,) that Archbishop Parker was consecrated on the 17th of December, 1559. Though I despair of satisfying the incredulity of one who can doubt after he has examined the documents to which I have referred, yet I owe it to myself to prove to your readers the truth of my statement, and the utter futility of any objection which can be brought against it.

"The matter in dispute is, whether Parker received, or did not receive, consecration on the 17th of December; but the following facts are, and must be admitted on both sides: 1st. That the Queen having given the royal assent to the election of Parker, by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, sent, on September 9, a mandate to six prelates to confirm and consecrate the Archbishop elect, and that they demurred, excusing, as would appear from what followed, their disobedience, by formal exceptions on points of law. 2d. That on the 6th of December, she issued a second commission to seven Bishops, ordering them, or any four of them, to perform that office, with the addition of a sanatory clause, in which she supplied, by her supreme authority, all legal or ecclesiastical defects, on account of the urgency of the time, and the necessity of the thing; 'temporis ratione et rerum necessitate id prostulante;' words which prove how much the Queen had this consecration at heart; and certainly not without reason, for at that time, with the exception of Llandaff, there was not a diocese provided with a Bishop, nor, as the law then stood, could any such provision be made without a consecrated Archbishop, to confirm and consecrate the Bishops elect. 3d. That four out of the seven Bishops named in the commission, (they had been deprived or disgraced under Queen Mary, but had now come forward to offer their services, and solicit preferment in the new Church,) having obtained a favorable opinion from six counsel learned in the law, undertook to execute the commission, and confirmed Parker's election on the 9th of December.

"Now, these facts being indisputable, what, I ask, should prevent the consecration from taking place? The Queen required it; Parker, as appears from his subsequent conduct, had no objection to the ceremony, and the commissioners were ready to perform it, or rather under an obligation to do so; for by the 25th of Henry VIII., revived in the last Parliament, they were compelled, under the penalty of præmunire, to proceed to the consecration within twenty days after the date of the commission. Most certainly all these preliminary facts lead to the presumption that the consecration did actually take place about the time assigned to it, the 17th of December, a day falling within the limits I have just mentioned.

"In the next place, I must solicit the attention of your readers to certain indisputable facts, subsequent to that period. These are-1st. That on the 18th (and the date is remarkable) the Queen sent to Parker no fewer than six writs addressed to him, under the new style of Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury, and primate and metropolitan of all England, and directing him to proceed to the confirmation and consecration of six Bishops elect, for six different Sees. This was the first time during the six months which had elapsed since his election, that any such writ had been directed to him. What, then, could have happened, just before the 18th, to entitle him to this new style, and to enable him to confirm and consecrate Bishops, which he could not do before? The obvious answer is, that he himself had been consecrated on the 17th. 2d. That on the 21st, he consecrated four new Bishops, on the 21st of January five others, two more on the 2d, and two on the 24th of March. Can we suppose that so much importance

would be attached to consecration given by him, if he had received no consecration himself? or, that the new Church would have been left so long without Bishops at all, if it had not been thought necessary that he, who was by law to consecrate the others, should previously receive that rite? 3d. That afterward, at the same time with the new prelates, he obtained the restoration of his temporalities, a restoration which was never made till after consecration. 4th. That he not only presided at the convocation, but sat in successive Parliaments, which privilege was never allowed to any but consecrated Bishops. In my judgment, the comparison of these facts, with those that preceded the 17th of December, forms so strong a case, that I should not hesitate to pronounce in favor of the consecration, even if all direct and positive evidence respecting it had perished.

"But there exists such evidence in abundance. That Parker was consecrated on the 17th of December, is asserted, 1st, by Camden, (i. 49,) 2d, by Godwin, (De Præs. p. 219,) 3d, by the Archbishop himself in his work, (De Antiquitate Brittannica Ecclesiæ,) published in 1572, three years before his death, or, if that book be denied to be his, in his diary, in which occurs the following entry in his own hand: 17th Dec. Ann. 1559, consecratus sum in Archepiscopum Cantuariensem. Hue! Hue! Domine Deus, in quæ tempora servasti me!' (Strype's Parker, App. 15.) And, 4th, by the Arch-episcopal Register, a record which details the whole proceeding, with the names of the Bishops, of the Chaplains, and of the official witnesses. In truth, it descends to so many minute particulars, that I think, Mr. Editor, it must be the model after which are composed the descriptions of consecrations, ordinations, and dedications, which we have the pleasure of perusing in your pages. In one respect only must it yield the superiority to them. It names not either the organist or the singers.

"Now to this mass of evidence, direct and indirect, what does your correspondent oppose? That Harding and Stapleton, and the more ancient Catholic controvertists, denied that Parker was a Bishop? That is, indeed, true; but I always understood that their objections (which is certainly the case with respect to the two passages quoted in your last number) referred to the validity, not to the fact of his consecration; and if Dr. Milner has chanced to assert to the contrary, I fear that he wrote it hastily, and without consideration. I am not aware of any open denial of the fact, till about fifty years afterward, when the tale of the foolery supposed to have been played at the Nag's Head, was first published. In refutation of that story, Protestant writers appealed to the Register; their opponents disputed its authority; and the consequence was, that in 1614, Archbishop Abbot invited Colleton, the Archpriest, with two or three other Catholic missionaries, to Lambeth, and submitted the Register to their inspection, in presence of six of his own Episcopal colleagues. The details may be seen in Dodd, ii. 277, or in Godwin, p. 219.

"Your correspondent assures us that the Register contains so many inaccuracies and points at variance with the history of the times, as manifestly prove a forgery.' Were it so, there still remains sufficient evidence of the fact. But what induces T. H. to make this assertion? Has he examined into all the circumstances of the case? Or does he only take for granted the validity of the several objections which Dodd, without expressing any opinon of his own, has collected from different controvertists ? However that may be, I have no hesitation in saying, that all those objections are founded on misconception or ignorance; that the Register agrees in every particular with what we know of the history of the times; and that there exists not the semblance of a reason for pronouncing it a forgery."

Epistles of Ignatius.

Among the authorities quoted in this volume, is Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. He is important, both for the early date and fullness of his writings; and it has been found the easiest way to dispose of him is, to deny the authenticity and genuineness of his epistles. It is agreed, that Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, a distinguished man and Christian, sentenced to death by Trajan, and was sent to Rome to die, A. D. 107, or 116; on his way, he wrote several epistles to several different Churches. It is also agreed, that we have two copies of seven epistles purporting to have been written by Ignatius-that the longer copy teaches Arianism, the shorter, the Divinity of Christ-that Eusebius had, when he wrote, A. D. 305, the same number of epistles, having the same directions as those we possess. Now Eusebius's copy taught doctrines he approved. If, then, we can determine his sentiments in regard to the Trinity, we can determine which his copy was. This we may learn by reference to his works; for in his history he describes those as heretics who denied the divinity of CHRIST. (Hist. i. 2; iii. 27, 37.) The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible, that the copy he possessed, A. D. 325, taught the doctrine of the Trinity. Ignatius is also quoted by Athanasius, A. D. 330, by Jerome, A. D. 370, in Chrysostom, 398, (Serm. de uno. legis.,) Theodoret, 423, (Dial. Prim.,) without intimating a want of orthodoxy. It is true, then, that Ignatius wrote seven epistles to seven Churches-that they taught the doctrine of the Trinity-that the shorter copy is the same as that of Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, and other orthodox men of that age, in this respect. The oppo

But this conclusion has been assailed with great violence. nents are of two classes; (1,) the Arian and Socinian, who finds his notions of the Trinity contradicted by that copy which has by far the greatest claim to authenticity; and (2) the anti-Episcopalian, who finds his views of the existence and authority of Bishops in that primitive age, controverted by them. Yet there are many non-Episcopalians who speak differently. MOSHEIM says: "The seven shorter epistles are, by most writers, accounted genuine. To this opinion, I cheerfully accede." Dr, MURDOCK says: "Moderate men, of various sects, especially Lutherans, are disposed to admit the genuineness of the epistles in their shorter form, but to regard them as interpolated and altered." This is the opinion of the leading German historians; as Neander, (Allgm. Gesch. Christ. Rel. I., B. III., Abth. 1107,) and J. E. C. SCHMIDT, (Handb. Christ. Kirch. I., Theil. §§ 47, 119.) J. C. I. GIESLER (Text-Book, Ecc. Hist. Div. I. § 33) places them among the genuine writings. The prevailing opinion among sound scholars now is, that the seven shorter epistles of Ignatius are genuine, but interpolated. But if these epistles are interpolated, can we quote them as authority? Certainly not, until we have ascertained the true text. Nor is this a difficult task, as has been shown by SCHMIDT, (Christ. Kirch. I., § 47. Versuch uber gedop. Recens. Briefe Ign. in Henckes Mag. Relig. Bd. III. S. 91.) Thus, if we compare the two copies, and reject from each, things not contained in the other, what remains will be genuine. That is, where they agree in phraseology, there is no reason to suspect either has been altered, and this may be set down as the certain text. Where the longer merely expands the idea of the shorter, the text of the shorter is the highly probable text. Where the only difference is, that the longer changes the language of the shorter, teaching another doctrine, the text of the shorter is the probable text. Finally, when either contains passages not in the other, that must be regarded as probably spurious. In this volume, Ignatius is never quoted as authority, except from the certain text.