# Can a non-elder administer the sacraments? (Need a resource)



## ACBRown (May 14, 2010)

A friend of mine and I were discussing this issue. He's of the opinion that a non-elder can administor the sacraments. Naturally, the Westminster Confession of Faith says otherwise (lawfully ordained). And while I haven't thought deeply about the matter, it nevertheless seems fairly evident that chaos would ensue if anyone could do so. There is also the issue of authority and office and all the rest. 

But anyway, could someone recommend a well written article on the subject? I'd like to pass it along.

Thanks,

Austin


----------



## dudley (May 14, 2010)

My understanding would be that in the Presbyterian church the administration of the sacraments is linked to the preaching of the word and thus only an ordained minister I would think can administer the sacraments. In both Presbyterian churches I have been with the elders are the ones who help distribute the elements to the congregation who remain seated at the service of the Lords Supper.


----------



## raekwon (May 14, 2010)

If by "administer", you mean pronounce the words of institution and "preside" over the sacrament, then that's reserved for ministers of Word & Sacrament, according to the WCF. If you mean distributing the elements, then that's not confessionally or biblically limited to elders (of either order), deacons, or anyone (for that matter).


----------



## Caroline (May 15, 2010)

Oooooo ... I'm fascinated. My husband and I have been discussing this exact sort of issue.

I would love someone to follow this up by explaining WHY only an ordained person can preach or administer the sacraments. I do not disagree. In fact, I emphatically agree. But WHY? 

I think the question behind the question here is whether there is real spiritual authority in the leadership of a church, isn't it? Or maybe I need to start another thread for this, I dunno. Some would say no and that anyone can give communion or baptize or preach or give a benediction or whatever. And some would say yes and only ordained people can do those things. 

I have never sorted out exactly what sort of authority exists, although I think it does. I find it creepy beyond words when some non-ordained person preaches or administers communion (which they don't at the church that I now attend).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 15, 2010)

Maybe we should look at who can pronounce the blessing and grace of the sacraments. Who should even pronounce the word of God or show the picture of Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. I personally believe that there is no salvation outside of the Church. But I was converted outside of the means of a physical church. I was converted reading a Living Bible. ouch.


----------



## AThornquist (May 15, 2010)

My only real concern here is that the elements be taken in an appropriate manner and, considering the purpose of elders, it would be normative for them to administer the elements; however, since I see no command in Scripture that this must always be the case I would be open to the administration happening by a non-elder in unique situations.


----------



## KMK (May 15, 2010)

Here's a great post by Rev Winzer from a few weeks ago: 



> There are exegetical, theological, and practical reasons for the restriction.
> 
> Exegetically, there is approved example of ordained men, and no example of a non ordained man, administering the sacraments in the New Testament. Further, there is the positive principle of tying official administration of the new testament to the ordained ministry, as taught by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:1 and 2 Corinthians 3:6. Acknowledging the Bible to be the only rule of faith and life, and the regulative principle of worship, we are bound to the conclusion that only ordained ministers may administer the sacraments, which are signs and seals of the new testament.
> 
> ...



It comes from this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/question-about-sacraments-60587/#post782833


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 15, 2010)

Caroline said:


> Oooooo ... I'm fascinated. My husband and I have been discussing this exact sort of issue.
> 
> I would love someone to follow this up by explaining WHY only an ordained person can preach or administer the sacraments. I do not disagree. In fact, I emphatically agree. But WHY?
> 
> ...


 
I think the simplest and most straight-forward answer from scripture regarding the spiritual authority of Church leadership comes from Hebrews 13:17

"_Obey_ your leaders and _submit_ to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." (italics mine)

Obedience and submission in the scriptures are always in reference to authority placed over us. (God, Government, Husbands and wives, the Church)


----------



## Scott1 (May 15, 2010)

Part of the answer might come from the inference of the Scripture proof for only lawfully ordained ministers of the gospel administering the sacrament of baptism:



> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> 
> ....
> ...






> [9] MAT 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. JOH 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.



That is, sacraments were established by the Lord Himself, done by and under lawful authority only.


----------



## ACBRown (May 15, 2010)

Thanks for the discussion. Are there any good articles I could pass along, however? My friend isn't being difficult, he just simply isn't aware of the biblical evidence pointing definitively to the truth that only the ordained may administor (in any sense). In other words, why couldn't a group of Christian friends share communion together (at home on a Tuesday night without any elders present)? 

Austin


----------



## au5t1n (May 15, 2010)

ACBRown said:


> In other words, why couldn't a group of Christian friends share communion together (at home on a Tuesday night without any elders present)?
> 
> Austin


 
Because the Scripture binds us (in 1 Cor. 11:2, for example) to keep the ordinances exactly as delivered to us by the Apostles, and the only setting in which we are shown communion occurring in the New Testament is in the context of the gathered assembly of believers, in which elders are present and they lead. Apostolic example is normative for us since we accept the regulative principle of worship.


----------



## Caroline (May 15, 2010)

MLCOPE2 said:


> Caroline said:
> 
> 
> > Oooooo ... I'm fascinated. My husband and I have been discussing this exact sort of issue.
> ...


 
Well, I think this goes without saying. Although it's fine that it was said. For ex-cultists such as myself (at least, those of us from really extreme groups), the difficult part is breaking the reflexive obedience to authority, as we are accustomed to letting someone else do all the thinking for us. I could tell stories ... but that's a little afield of the point. 

The way that I was taught in my former church, authority was very like magic. In fact, when I introduce ex-cultist friends to my pastor, I always remind him beforehand not to shake their hands unless they offer their hand first. Many of them believe that a pastor can kill them by touching them if they are not holy enough to touch the Lord's anointed, so having a hand offered puts them in terrifying indecision between not wanting to offend a PASTOR of all people by refusing to shake hands and not wanting to die if it turns out that God is mad them over something and they haven't sorted it out yet. I just tell him, "Look, man, just don't even go there please. I don't want to be up half the night trying to calm a screaming ex-cultist who thinks demons are coming to collect their soul. Keep your hands in your pockets." And then I pause and add, "I mean, if you are okay with that. I'm not trying to offend you. Don't kill me." Because I'm not always as EX-cultist as I try to be.

Now, it sounds really nice for some of us (ex-cultist, I mean) to say, "Who needs pastors? Who needs elders? We can have church nice and quiet at home and all be equals and nobody has to deal with the Lord's Anointed and whatever mood he happens to be in. Wouldn't that be nice?" And before anyone gets all defensive about this, please remember that most of these people have never been to Reformed churches or anything but very cultish extreme groups. Several of us have former pastors and elders who are now in prison, and more of us have former pastors and elders who _should_ be in prison.

But, as attractive as that sounds (just having church at home or with friends), it never works out well. Those that try it are some of the most sad and lost people that I know--"harrassed and helpless sheep without a shepherd", as the Bible says. Perhaps part of it is just that it's really hard to transition from having your whole life run for you to having to completely run your own life in every respect. But also I think it's just somehow a lack of protection and real Biblical authority. (Stay with me here, I promise I'm getting back on topic, although we're taking the scenic route).

Maybe it's like a police officer. Like if you have lots of dangerous thugs running around pretending to be policemen and terrorizing the town, the people may say, "Wouldn't life be so much better without policemen?" But then imagine what life would really be like with no policemen patrolling the roads or chasing down criminals. We need policemen. We just need _good_ ones that consider themselves under the same laws that they are upholding for others.

So I'm inclined to say that things like preaching, baptizing, etc ... if it's done by someone who isn't a pastor or elder, then it is like a someone who isn't a policeman trying to do policework. If Caroline is out one day and sees a car parked in a handicap space without a handicap tag, she can't just scribble a ticket on the back of her grocery receipt. In other words, the question isn't whether I am CORRECTLY administering the law or what my intentions are if it isn't in my authority to do so. Tickets from anyone other than a police officer aren't real tickets. And so also sacraments from someone who isn't an officer of the church are not real sacraments. 

Yes? No? These are just my thoughts. I could be wrong ...


----------



## Scott1 (May 15, 2010)

Caroline,

Part of this, of course, is learning biblically based discernment about what lawful authority is, and what truth is.

We would say in reformed theology, the regulative principle explicitly regulates aspects of worship of God- the one who revealed His will through His Word about He must be worshiped.

The example you give is one way of looking at that.

Someone can't just walk in and do a surgery, even thought they might have some skill, or be able to remove something. But that example is more regulated by civil regulation.

Biblically, the principle of who would authoritatively teach the Word of God and administer the sacraments is by specific appointment of God.

God commands that His Word be handled carefully, truthfully, and He gifts certain people to have that as an office in His Body.


----------



## jrdnoland (May 15, 2010)

What about a person that is involved in some sort of ministry in a regular fashion. For instance, a person teaching in the context of a nursing home ministry that was doing so under the authority of the church that they belong to.

They may be able to get the Pastor to come and administer the sacraments but should they not try to teach or direct the residents spiritually?

Perhaps God isn't able to make a leader/pastor out of a person until they go to seminary?


----------



## Caroline (May 16, 2010)

> Perhaps God isn't able to make a leader/pastor out of a person until they go to seminary?



Well, of course, God CAN do anything. I think the question is whether He actually does. When someone asks whether God 'isn't able' to do something they are mixing logical principles. It is a common logical fallacy, though, so don't sweat it. WOF people use it all the time. "Don't you believe God can give you a million dollars?" Well, yeah. I just don't think He will. God COULD turn me into a giant grasshopper, too, but I don't think He will. There are lots of things God CAN do that He doesn't do.

One could argue that nursing home ministry could be considered evangelism or encouragement, which we are all called to do. I'm not saying that this is a definite conclusion. Just that the argument could be made and it wouldn't mean that anyone thought that nursing home ministry shouldn't be done, or that God was limited in any sense.



> Part of this, of course, is learning biblically based discernment about what lawful authority is, and what truth is.
> 
> We would say in reformed theology, the regulative principle explicitly regulates aspects of worship of God- the one who revealed His will through His Word about He must be worshiped.
> 
> ...



Interesting, but I'm not sure I totally understand what you are saying. This is not a criticism--just I'm not sure what this means. Every pastor and elder I ever met, good or bad, believes himself to have been called by God. What sort of specific appointment?

I'm not arguing. I'm curious. 

My current pastor told me early on that he's pretty sure he doesn't have supernatural power. And I notice that he and the elders are very cautious about saying things to me that could be construed as direct orders, sometimes to the point that they qualify it by saying, 'I'm not saying this with any spiritual authority, it's just a thought.' So this is definitely a different atmosphere from the one that I grew up in. 

But the administration of sacraments, benedictions, etc, restricted to ordained guys strongly suggests suggests that there is some sort of spiritual authority bestowed at ordination. But I get the sense that it is defined differently in Reformed churches.

I'm a little worried that I'm hijacking this thread, though, even though I mean my questions to support the original question. Let me know if I should start a new thread of some sort.


----------



## jrdnoland (May 16, 2010)

jrdnoland said:


> Perhaps God isn't able to make a leader/pastor out of a person until they go to seminary?


 
My question was rhetorical. I don't think a person necessarily needs to be a pastor or elder to teach the word of God or even to administer the sacraments.

I do think they need to be gifted and lead by God to do so. I think by stating that only an elder or pastor can do so is adding to the word of God, that was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## jrdnoland (May 16, 2010)

I also found this bit of information:

There are no regulations in the New Testament about how frequently to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Paul does speak of "often" in the familiar words, "As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26). But Paul did not specify how often. Neither did Jesus say so. He simply declared it was to be done in the future. As far as the early church goes, the first believers "were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship and the breaking of bread and prayer" (Acts 2:42). In as much as "breaking of bread" probably refers to the Lord's Supper (or to a meal climaxing with the Lord's Supper), this demonstrates regular, frequent observance. Moreover, later on the text reads, "day by day…breaking bread from house to house" (verse 46). Also in the book of Acts, there is a noteworthy reference to the breaking of bread "on the first day of the week" (20:7). This of course would parallel our Sunday, and it is an example but certainly not a regulation. So we have possible examples in the New Testament of daily and weekly celebrations of the Lord's Supper. Practically speaking, any time is good so long as adequate spiritual preparation can be made for it.

Concerning the administration of the Lord's Supper, there is no New Testament specification. Indeed, since members of the early church broke bread "from house to house" (or "in their homes"), it is likely that the head of the house would give the leadership. In most cases, it would surely be the husband. He would administer the Lord's Supper to all gathered in the home. So there is good precedent for a husband today to lead his family in the observance of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Caroline (May 17, 2010)

jrdnoland said:


> jrdnoland said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps God isn't able to make a leader/pastor out of a person until they go to seminary?
> ...


 
Yes, I understood that it was rhetorical. My point was that such a rhetorical question makes a false accusation--that those who oppose your perspective are in some manner limiting God. Everyone would concede that God could make a person who hasn't gone to seminary into a pastor. God could make Balaam's donkey into a pastor. (No offense to the pastors present, please). However, the argument is over whether God has actually chosen those means.

Interesting idea on the breaking of bread .... I always understood that to mean that they ate together. We eat together every Sunday in a totally non-Lord's-supper fashion at our church. I'm curious whether it is generally agreed that this means the Lord's supper?

I had hoped that someone might take up the question of what sort of authority is conveyed at ordination, but it looks as though I may be disappointed in that regard.  Anyone? Come on, you guys. This board is packed with pastors. What sort of authority do you get at your ordination? Or have you never totally sorted that out? (I don't intend any disrespect by these questions. They are absolutely sincere questions. And if you haven't sorted that out, that's fine. I don't think pastors have to have everything sorted out all the time.) What was the difference between five minutes before you were ordained when you couldn't serve communion, and five minutes after you were ordained and you could?

Edited to say: It occurs to me that I may have been impatient with this post. There are a lot of pastors on this board, but today is Sunday, and yesterday was The Day Before Sunday .... busy times for pastors and so please forgive my impatience.


----------



## jrdnoland (May 17, 2010)

Yes, granted; God can do anything He so pleases.

I'm also interested in hearing other perspectives on this question. Lord willing, I will someday be ministering in a nursing home setting and this question may come up.

As a Christian, I also think we can baptize as necessary, since according to the Great Commission Jesus said "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2010)

Ordination we might compare to commissioning an officer in the military. What's the difference between the man five minutes before his commissioning, and five minutes after? Well, after the commissioning, men of lesser rank in the military are obligated to recognize his authority, and obey his lawful orders. Before it, they can ignore him like a shlep.

Ordination is a means (which the Bible itself designates, "the laying on of hands of presbytery") by which the church recognizes Christ's officers. Christ's officers are his official representatives, and are the custodians of the Word and the ordinances of his church. They are servants, as Christ was the Chief Servant, but this designation no more eliminates their position and duty than his washing his disciples feet makes him into the least in his own kingdom.

The reason that ministers are the ones to whom the practices of the church's ordinances (Word and Sacrament) are committed, _exclusively, _has to do with the importance that God himself ascribes to the earthly institution he has set up. If one doesn't think that the visible church is worth much, then he will be more inclined to view the necessity of institutional representatives (e.g. ministers) as an indication that Christ's authority is being represented.

So, to make another analogy, the church is like an Embassy of Christ's kingdom in the world. Officers are his official representatives, like Ambassadors and Consuls. Do "regular Americans" have an abassadorial function overseas or across the border? Sure, but they can't issue visas to come to the USA. Why not? Aren't they just as good as that 'bigshot' Ambassador?


> "What makes him think he can do something I can't?! I'll show them. I'll just stick this guy in the back of my van, and drive him right over the border. I'll make him an American citizen, because I'm just as significant as that Ambassador."


Well guess what? That's just as wrong with regard to the church as it is with the country we live in. When we make sacraments of Baptism and Lord's Supper dependent on order and discipline, and a constituted church (rather than a single man's say-so), we are saying that the church-visible really is important and significant in the world, that law and order are vital concepts even in Christ's kingdom, that it means something *better* has happened to a simple believer when the church comes to him (via the missionary enterprise to the church) and enfolds him in its bosom, than before that day. It is an improvement.


Jeff makes a good observation when he points to the Great Commission. If those verses are a blanket imperative for all Christians equally, then every Christian should be a "chief" and there shouldn't be any "indians". But, just like not every Israelite could sacrifice legitimately, but it was a priestly duty--and this, despite the fact that God had made the whole nation "priests" in the earth--so we also recognize that the "priesthood of all believers" does not make us all officers (and duty-bound) in the same way.


----------



## Grimmson (May 17, 2010)

Caroline said:


> Oooooo ... I'm fascinated. My husband and I have been discussing this exact sort of issue.
> 
> I would love someone to follow this up by explaining WHY only an ordained person can preach or administer the sacraments. I do not disagree. In fact, I emphatically agree. But WHY?
> 
> ...



Caroline, those are indeed some interesting questions of discussion. First of all let me make a theological distinction between normal or ordinary administration of the sacraments and an extraordinary circumstances for administration of the sacraments. The ordinary administrators would be those that have been given the keys of the kingdom and generally watch over the folk of God. In other words, the elders of the given church as represented by the early Apostles. Baptism is an initiatory rite of the church and given on the basis of Matthew 16:16-18, the confession the church is founded upon and watched over by the elders, and 28:18-20 to be done by the Apostles/teaching leaders of the church. Now looking at Acts 8:13 we see an example of extraordinary circumstance with Philip, a deacon, baptizing individuals. However the giving of the Holy Spirit was still required by the laying of hands by the Apostles. 

Therefore I would say under normal circumstances, with a pastor or elder in the general area, it should be that pastor to performs the baptism. However, if there not one in the area and will not be one within a reason amount of time, and I know this is subjective language, then a non-elder who been trained in the gospel, and does not have an MDIV, should be allowed to baptize and have that baptism recognizes by the church, just as Philip’s baptism was recognized by the early church. 

I would place the same requirements in regards to the Supper, keeping in mind it is a means of grace and a need for the people of God. The Westminster Confession had a slightly different context then circumstances that am referring to. Such circumstances would primarily on the mission field or some remote area where the Gospel is not ordinarily being proclaimed.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2010)

"Now looking at Acts 8:13 we see an example of extraordinary circumstance with Philip, a deacon, baptizing individuals."

David,
This may, indeed, be a case of extraordinary circumstances. However, Philip is referred to in Acts several times, including many years later, Act.21:8 (which I take to be a reference the same person) where he is called "Evangelist," a species of higher office (see. Eph.4:11).

We would do well (in my opinion) to interpret his encounter with the Ethiopian as a case of a man beginning in the role of Deacon, and by the time we meet him a little later again, we find him having been raised to a ministerial office by recognition of his gifts. "Extraordinary circumstances" makes one option for interpreting Acts 8:13, but we shouldn't ignore the totality of exegetical data, and an exegetically derived ecclesiology that informs us at each step.


----------



## jrdnoland (May 17, 2010)

Rev. Buchanan - while I mostly agree with what you and most of the others are saying, I don't think that it would be a sin for a non elder to baptize a person or even to administer the sacraments if there were no better options.

My mind is looking at this type of scenario.

A saved person has been called by God to be a leader in a nursing home ministry. The persons church is aware of the ministry and supports the efforts and provides guidenance when asked.

A non-Christian accepts the gospel and desires to be baptized. The nursing home staff doesn't expect them to live much longer (no time to get the pastor).

What should the non elder do?


----------



## Grimmson (May 17, 2010)

I don’t think am ignoring the data. I was keeping in mind the case of the Ethiopian eunuch and the fact that Philip was directly lead to meet him and go into the chariot (see 8:26 and 29). I don’t see a clear promotion from deacon to evangelist at least by the visible church in the text by this point. But instead a time in which the Sprit was working in a extraordinary way in which the Spirit does not work normally in our society today.

I am not suggesting, so don’t think I am, that we blatantly allow for non-elder baptisms under normal circumstances or have our ecclesiological position driven by such. And even in the case I pointed out there was still the need of the Apostles and their role in relation to people receiving the Holy Spirit. 

This of course does lead to an extremely important question of whether or not in the cases of extraordinary baptisms, whether or not a church or denomination will accept them or force such of like faith in the gospel to be rebaptized under the Triune subscription of Mat. 28 at another date, if and only if the opportunity presents itself. We are not Dontatists here. We should also keep in mind that the questioning of one’s baptism does in part question the brotherhood and communion we have with such a person. Baptism is a rite that all Christians are commanded to partake of. I would say that it is actually more of a sin to deny the rite to a believer then it is to the one that is administered to the unbelieving on the basis of foreseen faith within the family structure. However the extraordinary should not rule the ordinary, but most be recognized and dealt with on a case by case basis in relation to the confession of faith in Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2010)

jrdnoland said:


> Rev. Buchanan - My mind is looking at this type of scenario.
> 
> A saved person has been called by God to be a leader in a nursing home ministry. The persons church is aware of the ministry and supports the efforts and provides guidenance when asked.
> 
> ...


 
He should probably first try to ascertain why that person wants to be baptized so badly. Is it because he "needs" it? That's a bad theological reason.

Is it because he "wants" it? What about providence? It seems to me that more important than this "action", he needs to learn a bit about submission to God in his final moments on earth. Jesus didn't spit in the dying thief's direction just to "wet him."

Does God want us to do things the "right" way? If the general answer to that is 'yes' (with allowances) I would be very careful about making exceptions for "exigencies" at every turn.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 17, 2010)

David,
I don't assume that about you or your position. I'm trying to add content to the discussion.

Philip is made a Deacon in Acts 6. Acts 8 isn't exactly the next day. There is a time lag of some space. I think we forget too often the stories of Scripture are often greatly condensed, until we study to see the gaps.

But, most likely some of our disagreement (or reason for emphasizing different aspects of the narrative) is partly related to our divergent ecclesiologies. Interesting how we both view baptism as important (more than mere tertiary), but the difference between us leads us to react in almost contrary ways to the same situation.

Blessings.


----------



## KMK (May 17, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But, most likely some of our disagreement (or reason for emphasizing different aspects of the narrative) is partly related to our divergent ecclesiologies.


 
Possible, but not necessarily.

LBC Chapter 28:



> Paragraph 1. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
> 
> Paragraph 2. These holy appointments are to be administered *by those only who are qualified and thereunto called*, according to the commission of Christ.



Who are qualified and called?

LBC Chapter 30:



> Paragraph 3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, *appointed his ministers* to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.



The LBC teaches that ministers are qualified and called to administer baptism.


----------



## jrdnoland (May 17, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> jrdnoland said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. Buchanan - My mind is looking at this type of scenario.
> ...


 
Thank you Rev. Buchanan, that makes sense and gives me more to think and pray about.


----------



## Grimmson (May 17, 2010)

Bruce is right about the time lag and we should keep that in mind for our discussion. Before people jump on my back in regards to the family reference, I am referring to a believing head or believing spouse baptizing those that are not able or willing to make a confession of faith. But that discussion for another thread. 

Ken, thanks for the post.

Now for Austin, A dictionary of Christian antiquities : Being a continuation of the ʻDictionary of the Bible' volume 2, by William Smith and Samuel Cheetham has an interesting article about it in relation to its history. It on page 914 and can be found on Google Books at A dictionary of Christian ... - Google Books. I looked for a scholarly journal article, but did not find one on ATLAReligion. I will look again when I have a bit of time. I know this isn’t what you were looking for, but it better than nothing. I am sorry.


----------



## ACBRown (May 17, 2010)

Thanks for the reference to the book. Much appreciated.

Austin


----------

