(Ps. xxi. 22, 23.) And from His being said to have changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and its being related in the records (of His apostles) that this was done along with His also having changed the names of two other brothers, the sons of Zebedee, into that of Boanerges, which is, sons of thunder; we have an indication that this is He who gave Jacob the surname of Israel, and by whom Ausea was called Jesus, by which name the remainder of the people who came out of Egypt were brought into the land which was promised to the patriarchs."Ib. n. 106, p. 560.*

TERTULLIAN, LATIN CHURCH, 195. n. 21.-"On this principle, therefore, we shape our rule of prescription; that, if the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, no others are to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for No one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son hath revealed Him.' (Matt. xi. 27.) Neither does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent to preach, to wit, that which He revealed unto them. Now, what they did preach, that is what Christ revealed unto them, I will here also rule must be found in no other way than by those same Churches which the apostles themselves founded, themselves by preaching to them as well viva voce, as men say, as afterwards by epistles. If these things be so, it becomes in like degree manifest, that all doctrine

*The following, on the election of Matthias, is from S. Irenæus, iii. c. 12, n. 1: "Wherefore Peter the apostle, after the resurrection of the Lord, and His assumption into heaven, wishing to fill up the number of His apostles, and, in the stead of Judas, to unite thereto another, who might be elected of God out of those who were present, said, 'Men Brethren,' &c." (Acts, i. 16, et seqq.) See Ib. iii. 12, n. 15

which agrees with those apostolic Churches, the wombs and originals of the faith, must be accounted true, as without doubt containing that which the Churches have received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God; but that every doctrine must be judged at once to be false, which savoureth things contrary to the truth of the Churches, and of the apostles, and of Christ, and of God. n. 22. But since the proof is so short, that, if it be brought forward at once, there would be no farther question to be treated of, let us for a while, as though it were not brought forward by us, give place to the other party, if they think they can do anything towards invalidating this rule of prescription. They are wont to say that the apostles did not know all things;' being moved by the same madness, whereby they turn about again, and say that the apostles did indeed know all things, but did not deliver all things to all;' in either case, subjecting Christ to reproach, in that He sent apostles with either too little instruction, or too little simplicity. Who, then, of sound mind can believe that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord appointed as masters, keeping them undivided in attendance, in discipleship, in companionship, to whom apart He expounded all things that were obscure, saying that to them it was given to know the mysteries, (Matt. xiii. 11), which the people were not permitted to understand. Was anything hidden from Peter, who is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built;' who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth ?' (Matt. xvi. 18, 19.) Was anything, moreover, hidden from John, the most beloved of the Lord, who 'leaned upon His breast,' to whom alone the Lord pointed out beforehand Judas that should betray Him, whom He commended to Mary as a son

in His own stead? n. 23. They allege, therefore, in order to fix some charge of ignorance on the apostles, that Peter, and they who were with him, were rebuked by Paul. 'Something,' therefore, they say, 'was wanting in them;' that they may build hereupon this also, that a fuller knowledge might have been afterwards added, such as came to Paul, who rebuked those who went before him....Let them show from that which they allege, the rebuking, namely of Peter by Paul, that another form of the Gospel was introduced by Paul, besides that which Peter and the rest had put forth before. But when, changed from a persecutor to a preacher, he is presented to the brethren by brethren as one of the brethren, and presented to them by those who had been clothed with faith at the apostles' hands; then, as he himself relates, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of becoming acquainted with Peter,' (Gal. i. 18); that is, because of his office, and by right of the same faith and preaching. For they, too, would not have wondered at his becoming a preacher from being a persecutor, if he had preached anything contrary to them; nor would they have, moreover, 'glorified God,' (Ib. 24), for the coming of His enemy Paul unto them. Wherefore also they gave the right hand' to him, the sign of concord and fellowship, and appointed among themselves a distribution of office, not a division of the Gospel; that each should preach, not a different Gospel, but to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the heathen. But if Peter was reproved because, after having lived with the Gentiles, he separated himself from their company out of respect of persons, surely this was a fault of conversation, not of preaching. For no other God was

*Ex officio, according to duty; or, officially.

hereby preached than the Creator, no other Christ than the Son of Mary, no other hope than the resurrection."*-De Præscript. n. 21, 22, 23. Rigaltius, Parisiis, 1695, p. 209, 210.

"And now I will, as well as I am able, make answer to those who deny that the apostles were baptized. For, suppose they had undergone the human baptism of John, and were without (or, longing for) that of the Lord, as the Lord Himself had defined baptism to be one, when He said to Peter, who was unwilling to be washed, 'He that is once washed, needeth it not again,' (John, xiii. 10); which He surely would not have said to one unwashed; and this is a proof put forward against those who deprive the apostles of even the baptism of John, in order to destroy the sacrament of water.... Some drop a hint, sufficiently forced surely, that the apostles then served the turn of baptism, when they were sprinkled and covered with the waves in the ship; and that Peter himself also, when walking upon the sea, was sufficiently immersed. But, to my thinking, it is one thing to be sprinkled, and

*On more than one occasion, in his work against Marcion, he treats of St. Paul's reproof of St. Peter; a fact which Marcion used against the truth and inspiration of three of the Gospels; he only admitting that of St. Luke. Thus, C. Marcion, L. iv. c. 3, where he says that, what St. Paul blamed, on Peter's part, was "not his preaching, but a matter of conversation;" so, again, Ib. l. v. c. 3, more fully: "No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of 'eating' (victus), which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with); 'fearing them who were of the circumcision,' (Gal. ii. 10), but not on account of any perverse opinion touching another God. For, if such a question had arisen, others also would have been resisted face to face' by the man who had not even spared Peter on the comparatively small matter of his doubtful conversation."

caught by the violence of the sea, and another, to be washed according to the discipline of religion. Nevertheless, that ship set forth a figure of the Church, inasmuch as it is tossed in the sea, that is in the world, by the waves, that is by persecutions and temptations, while the Lord is, as it were, patiently sleeping, until, being awakened, in the last extremity, by the prayers of the saints, He stills the world, and gives again a calm to His own. Now, whether they were, by whatever means baptized, or whether they continued unbaptized, so that that saying of the Lord, touching the one washing, pertains only to us under the person of Peter, nevertheless, it is sufficiently rash to judge concerning the salvation of the apostles, as though even the privilege of their being first chosen unto Christ, and of their inseparable and familiar companionship with Him afterwards, could not bestow upon them the compendious benefit of baptism."-De Baptismo, n. 12, p. 228, 229.

"He changes, too, Peter's name from Simon; because, also, as Creator, He altered the names of Abraham and Sara, and Ausea, calling the last Jesus, and adding syllables to the others. But, why did He call him Peter? If for the strength of his faith, many and solid substances would lend him a name from themselves. Or was it because Christ is both a Rock and a Stone ? Since we read also that He is set for a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence. I omit the rest. And so it was His pleasure to communicate to the dearest of His disciples, in a peculiar manner, a name drawn from the figures of Himself, I imagine, as being nearer than any drawn from figures not of Himself."*-Adv. Marcion. iv. 13, p. 425.

"Now, if he caught at the name of Christ, just as the pickpocket clutches the dole-basket, why did he wish to be called Jesus too, by a name which was not so much looked