^{page 151 note 1} Relations between Anglican and Presbyterian Churches, 1957, section 3.

^{page 151 note 2} A recent study of the New Testament evidence by Professor C. F. D. Moule and of the patristic period by the Rev. Symonds, R. P. will be found in Theology for November 1955 (vol. Iviii, pp. 405–414).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 3} Presbyterian controversialists have argued that deacons were instituted for charitable purposes only, and must not preach or baptise. Anglican apologists, e.g. Whitgift and Hooker, replied that of the seven deacons Stephen and Philip preached and Philip baptised. The Presbyterians, e.g. Cartwright, retorted that Stephen's defence in Acts 7 was not preaching but apologetics, and that Philip preached and baptised, not qua deacon, but qua evangelist.

^{page 152 note 1} The first such writer is Irenaeus, who (Adv. Haer. I.xxvi.3) describes Nicolaus as one of the seven deacons. Clement of Alexandria in his parallel accounts of Nicolaus (Strom. II.20 and III.4) makes no such identification.

^{page 152 note 2} Apol. 1.65.5, 67.5.

^{page 152 note 3}

^{page 153 note 1} The evidence is set out in full in Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, II.xx.3–18. Little needs to be added except Hippolytus's Apostolic Tradition. For deaconesses see Bingham, II.xxii, and for archdeacons II.xxi.

^{page 153 note 2} So Dom Gregory Dix understands the original sense of Hippolytus, Ap. Trad. ix.3.

^{page 154 note 1} Report of Joint Committee of Canterbury Convocation on proposed Canon 83 (secular occupations of clergy) (1955), p.4.

^{page 155 note 1} Here also the interpretation would seem to be more than can safely be supported by this much-disputed text, which is more probably a plea for extra financial support for those presbyters who are good at presiding, e.g. at public worship.

^{page 156 note 1} The question is examined in detail in the author's booklet What is an Elder? (obtainable from Presbyterian Book Room, 86 Tavistock Place, London W.C.I).Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} The Report is now available under the title The Convocations and the Laity (Church Information Board, 1958, 2s. 6d.).

^{page 160 note 1} See Bingham, Antiquities, II.xix.14, xx.2. Optatus referred to diaconos in tertio sacerdotio constitutes, and Augustine once called a deacon his consacerdos, but the Council of Carthage (IV.4) laid down that diaconus non ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium consecratur, and most early writers call deacons Levites.

^{page 160 note 2} Cf. the questions asked by Professor Greenslade at the end of his article on Ordo in S.J.T. (June 1956), vol. 9, p. 174. ‘In what sense are deacons an order? What is implied where they are treated as having ordo? That their difference of office, combined with apostolic institution, constitutes difference of order? Or that they participate, in a limited way, in sacerdotium? Can the necessity of deacons, as distinct from the fact of their occurrence in the Apostolic Church, be demonstrated from any biblical principle?

^{page 160 note 3} Relations between Anglican and Presbyterian Churches, section 2.

^{page 160 note 4} e.g. by Phythian-Adams, Canon W. J. in The Way of At-one-ment (1954), p. 124.Google Scholar