633 CORRESPONDENCE. The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions MR. CROSTHWAITE'S REPLY TO MR. FABER ON PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. DEAR SIR,-In replying to the observations which Mr. Faber has made on my letter, I shall examine first his theory, and secondly his authorities. I. Mr. Faber holds, 1, that bishops have jurisdiction over presbyters by apostolical institution. This he considers "So clear, both from scripture and from ecclesiastical history, that no sane person would ever think of disputing it."* 2. Mr. Faber also believes, that this superiority of bishops is confined to jurisdiction; in other words, that bishops, priests, and deacons, constitute but two orders, bishops and priests being not two orders, but two degrees or classes of the same order. In his letter Mr. Faber has put this, in the first instance, in the form of a question : "But, while all must admit the apostolical institution of governing bishops, a question forthwith arises touching the aspect under which the apostles thought it good to institute governing bishops in the church. "(1.) Did they institute bishops, as a new and distinct order in the ministry, with certain privileges, such as that of ordination, EXCLUSIVELY INHERENT in them quoad ordinem? "Or did they, under the official name of bishops, institute certain presbyters to preside over other presbyters, only as the first among equals, with certain privileges, such as that of ordination, WISELY INTRUSTED to them quoad disciplinam?” He further says (p. 534)— "So far as I can understand the drift of Mr. Crosthwaite's letter, his real business was this-to establish, upon adequate historical testimony, the alleged FACT, (for this, I suppose, is the FACT which he would allege,) that governing bishops were appointed by the apostles, as a new and distinct order, in the strict technical sense of the word order, with the power of ordaining others, EXCLUSIVELY INHERENT in them quoad ordinem, and not SIMPLY INTRUSTED to them quoad disciplinam. "The impossibility of establishing this alleged FACT I was very far from asserting. I merely intimated, that I would not rashly venture to deny the validity of presbyteral ordination, as it occurs in the established church of Scotland, until the alleged FACT was established. I hope there is neither harm nor disgrace, as I claim not to be a pantologist, in confessing my own inability to establish it; but I have not the vanity to say, that it is therefore incapable of establishment." But in other places Mr. Faber speaks without hesitation. In his letter (pp. 533, 534) he says— "Clement tells us that, in his time, there were in the church three ranks or gradations of clergy analogous to the high-priest and the priests and the Levites of the Mosaical dispensation; but then, by the very necessity of his application of a prophecy of Isaiah, he also tells us, that these three ranks of clergy constituted no more than two orders; for, through the medium of the prophecy, he declares, that there were only two orders in the church, that of bishops and that of deacons, thus sub-including (as I suppose it must be allowed) the class of presbyters in the class of bishops. Such is the testimony of Clement; and in words, at least, that of Jerome exactly agrees with it." * British Magazine, p. 532. 4 N VOL. XIV.-Dec. 1838. In the note* which occasioned my letter, he expressly states this to be the meaning of St. Clement :— "The statement of Jerome seems to be confirmed by the very early testimony of Clement of Rome. This father, who flourished in the first century, incidentally gives us a very distinct account of the ecclesiastical polity which had then been established. In each church there was a presiding bishop, with his subordinate presbyters and deacons, after the model of the high-priest and the priests and the Levites of the Hebrew church. This arrangement was of apostolical institution. But still, while in the church catholic there were thus three divinely appointed classes of spiritual officers; Clement, in a mode which cannot be misunderstood, intimates that there were only two orders." He then quotes the translation of the passage of St. Clement, to which we shall return hereafter, and proceeds : "Here, we may observe, no more than two orders are specified, the word bishops being plainly used as equipollent to the word presbyters; and all possibility of misapprehension is avoided by the circumstance of Clement's affirmation, that the appointment of these two orders was foretold in a prophecy which announced the appointment of exactly two descriptions of spiritual officers. I will appoint their OVERSEERS ('ETOKózovs) in righteousness, and their MINISTERS (Aakóvovs) in faith. In point of evidence it matters nothing, whether Clement applied the prophecy itself correctly or incorrectly. Under the simple aspect of testimony to a fact, had the church in Clement's time universally understood and believed that three distinct orders of clergy had been appointed, that father could never have asserted such a form of ecclesiastical polity to be foretold in a prophecy which announced the appointment of no more than two sorts of officers described as being overseers and ministers. Hence Clement seems to confirm the statement of Jerome that the creation of superintending bishops did not introduce a third and additional order into the church."t Now to this I reply, that this theory of three ranks or classes of clergy constituting no more than two orders is neither more nor less than one of the peculiar doctrines of modern popery. The catechism of the council of Trent requires the clergy to teach, that there are seven orders, and that this has always been the tradition of the catholic church. The names of the seven orders are these, "Ostiary, Reader, Exorcist, Acolyte, Subdeacon, Deacon, Priest." It thus makes the priesthood to be the highest order in the church. In a subsequent chapter, the seven orders are divided into greater and lesser, or, as they are technically called, major and minor. The major being those of priest, deacon, and subdeacon; and the minor, the remaining four.§ It is needless to inform you, that the object of the court of Rome in all this is not merely to magnify the dignity of the priesthood, whose office it is to consecrate the eucharist, (the power of transubstantiation being put forward rather as the ground of making the priesthood the highest order,) but that the great object of this, and of many more of the contrivances of the court of Rome, is to depreciate the episcopacy. But, as the episcopal order is not to be got rid of altogether, they have invented the distinction of ecclesiastical power, which Mr. Faber has adopted, into order and jurisdiction.|| Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 558. + Ibid. pp. 558, 559. Docendum igitur erit, hosce omnes ordines septenario numero contineri, semperque ita a Catholica ecclesia traditum esse, quorum nomina hæc sunt, Ostiarius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolytus, Subdiaconus, Diaconus, Sacerdos."-Cat. Conc. Trid. Pars II. De Ordinis Sacramento, cap. xxiii. p. 222. Colon. 1689. Ibid. cap. xxv. "Ea [potestas, sc.] autem duplex est, ordinis et jurisdictionis. Ordinis potestas ad verum Christi Domini corpus in Sacrosancta Eucharistia refertur. Jurisdictionis vero potestas tota in Christi corpore mystico versatur; ad eam enim spectat Christianum populum gubernare, et moderari, et ad æternam colestemque beatitudinem dirigere."-Ibid. cap. x. p. 220. Having, therefore, declared the priesthood to be "the highest degree of all holy orders, and having observed that priests are sometimes called by the fathers "presbyteri," and sometimes "sacerdotes" or priests, the Roman catechism states, that although the order of priesthood (sacerdotalis ordo) is but one, yet it has various degrees of dignity and power, "qui tametsi unus est, varios tamen dignitatis et potestatis gradus habet." It then enumerates the five degrees of the priesthood, namely, priests, bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, and lastly, the pope himself.§ Thus also Bellarmine says, that although bishops and presbyters are distinguished, yet as far as relates to sacrifice they perform altogether the same ministry, and therefore make one order and not two, as the reader and chantor, or psalmist.|| This doctrine of popery, that priests and bishops are but different classes or ranks of presbyters, and not two distinct orders, was very far from being universally received at the time of the Reformation. Any one who refers to the seventh book of Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent will see how strenuously it was opposed by many of the prelates and divines of the Spanish and other churches. It has always, and most naturally, found its warmest advocates among the Jesuits. In the "Examen Confessariorum," compiled by Escobar and Mendoza, the Jesuits, from the writings of twenty-four of their most eminent writers, the doctrine is thus laid down" In the scriptures are reckoned presbyters and deacons; by the fathers, subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, and ostiarii;" adding that, though the episcopate is usually reckoned an order in itself, in addition to the seven, yet it is really contained under that of presbyters.¶ This, then, is the doctrine of the council of Trent and the Jesuits→→→→ that, as Mr. Faber would express it, bishops and presbyters are not two orders, but two classes or ranks of the same order of presbyter. Now this doctrine is not only popish, but it is formally and expressly contradicted by the church of England. The preface to the Book of Ordination commences thus-" It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's church, bishops, priests, and deacons." And I have no doubt it is to meet this notion of the Romanists and puritans, that in a subsequent paragraph the word "ordained," which was not in the original edition of 1549, was afterwards added, at the last review, in 1661. "And "Tertius, omniumque sacrorum ordinum summus gradus est sacerdotium."-Ibid. cap. xli. p. 227. Ibid. cap. xlix. P. 229. $ Ibid. + Ibid. cap. xli.—xliii. "Etsi enim episcopus et presbyter distinguuntur, tamen quantum ad sacrificium, idem omnino ministerio exhibent, proinde unum ordinem, non duos faciunt, sicut etiam Lector et Cantor, seu Psalmista."-Rob. Bellarmini Secundæ Controv. Generalis, liber. I. cap. xi. p. 4. Disputat. tom. ii. p. 152. Praga, 1721. "In scripturis numerantur Presbyteri, Diaconi; a Patribus Subdiaconi, Acolythi, Exorcistæ, Lectores, et Ostiarii....Profecto episcopalis ordo præter septem solet annumerari; at sub presbyterio tanquam perfectum sacerdotium continetur."-Liber Theologiæ Moralis, viginti quatuor societatis Jesu Doctoribus reseratus. Quem R. P. Antonius De Escobar, et Mendoza Vallisoletanus, ejusdem Societatis Theologus, in Examen Confessariorum digessit. Post 32 Editiones Hispanicas et 3 Lugdunienses, editio novissima, auctior et correctior, additionibus illustrata. Tract, vii. Sacramenta. Examen viii. Circa materiam de Sacramento Ordinis, pp. 883, 884. Bruxellæ, 1651. every man which is to be ordained or consecrated bishop shall be fully thirty years of age." The service itself is also now called, "The form of ordaining or consecrating of an archbishop or bishop." The word ordaining not having been in the edition of 1549. In like manner, the word "ordained" was added in the form of presentation" Most reverend father in God, we present unto you this godly and well-learned man to be ordained and consecrated bishop." In the language of the prayer at the end of the Litany likewise this same distinction of orders is plainly intended,-" Almighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit has appointed divers orders of ministers in thy church," &c. I am so clearly of opinion that this notion of bishops being a class or rank and not a distinct order is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of the church of England, that I believe the maintenance of it is an offence against the Act of Uniformity, and punishable accordingly. The interpretation which I have given to the language in the book of ordination is supported by the highest authorities. In the index to Bishop Gibson's Codex, under the word bishop, I find," Bishopsorder of distinct from priest. 5 Edw. VI. 13, 14, Car. II. P. to Form of Consecration, p. 99." On referring to page 99 of the Codex, we find the first chapter of the fourth title. The heading is, "The three ORDERS of ministers in the church;" for which he adduces the preface to the Ordination Services. In like manner, Bishop Taylor, in his Discourse on Episcopacy, having undertaken to prove (Sect. xxviii.) from a variety of authorities, that, by the faith and practice of Christendom, bishops have ever been "a distinct order from the rest;" he concludes his argument thus: "But it were infinite to reckon authorities, and clauses of exclusion, for the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons; we cannot almost dip in any tome of the councils but we shall find it recorded, and all the martyr bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge and publish it, that episcopacy is a peculiar office and order in the church of God; as is to be seen in their decretal epistles in the first tome of the councils. I only sum this up with the attestation of the church of England in the preface to the Book of Ordination- It is evident to all men, diligently reading holy scripture and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's church, bishops, priests, and deacons.' The same thing exactly that was said in the second council of Carthage—τρεῖς βαθμούς τούτους, φημὶ δε ἐπισκόπους, πρεσβυτέρους, καὶ διακόνους.”—Works, vol. ii. p. 190. ed. 1836. Bishop Hall says: "As for the further subdivision of this quarrel, whether episcopacy must be accounted a distinct order, or but a several degree in the same order, there is here no need for the present to enter into the discussion of it; especially since I observe, that the wiser sort of our opposites are indifferent to both; so that whichsoever you take may be granted to them to be but juris humani. And I cannot but wonder at the toughness of those other opposites which stand so highly upon this difference, to have it merely but a degree; in the meanwhile, never considering that those, among the pontifical divines, which in this point are the greatest patrons of this their fancy, go all upon the ground of the mass; according to which they regulate and conform their opinious therein, first making all ecclesiastical power to have reference to the body of Christ, as Bellarmin fully then every priest, being able with them to make his maker, what possible power can be imagined, say they, to be above that? The presbyter therefore consecrating, as well as the bishop, the order, in their conceit, upon this ground, can be but one. So, then, these doughty champions among us do indeed but plead for Baal, while they would be taken for the only pullers of him down. But, for ourselves, taking order in that sense, in which our oracle of learning, Bishop Andrews, cites it out of the school, quá potestas est ad actum specialem, there can be no reason to deny episcopacy to be a distinct order, since the greatest detractors from it have granted the power of crdination of priests and deacons, and of imposition of hands for confirmation, to bishops only. They are Chamier's own words,-accipere episcopum novam potestatem et jurisdictionem, non iverim inficias, I cannot deny that a bishop' as such receiveth a new power and jurisdiction. Moreover, in the church of England every bishop receives a new ordination, by way of eminence commonly called his consecration, which cannot be a void act, I trow, and must needs give more than a degree. And why should that great and ancient council define it to be no less than sacrilege to put down a bishop into the place of a presbyter, if it were only an abatement of a degree?"* On the words of the council of Chalcedon here alluded to by Bishop Hall, let me subjoin the observations of Bishop Taylor, in his Consecration Sermon : "I am entered into a sea of matters, but I will break it off abruptly, and sum up this inquiry with the words of the council of Chalcedon, which is one of the four generals by our laws made the measures of judging heresies, Ἐπίσκοπον εις πρεσβυτέρου βαθμὸν ἀναφέρειν, ¡epoσvṛía_čσtív,— It is sacrilege to bring back a bishop to the degree and order of a presbyter. It is indeed a rifling the order, and entangling the gifts, and confounding the method of the Holy Ghost; it is a dishonouring them whom God would honour, and a robbing them of those spiritual eminences with which the Spirit of God does anoint the consecrated heads of bishops. And I shall say one thing more, which indeed is a great truth, that the diminution of episcopacy was first introduced by popery, and the popes of Rome by communicating to abbots, and other mere priests, special graces to exercise some essential offices of episcopacy, have made this sacred order to be cheap, and apt to be invaded. But then add this: if Simon Magus was in so damnable a condition for offering to buy the gifts and powers of the apostolical order, what shall we think of them that snatch them away, and pretend to wear them, whether the apostles and their successors will or no? This is eagal to yo Пvevua, 'to belie the Holy Ghost,' that is the least of it; it is rapine and sacrilege, besides the heresy and schism, and the spiritual lie. For the government episcopal, as it was exemplified in the synagogue and practised by the same measures in the temple, so it was transcribed by the eternal Son of God, who translated it into a gospel ordinance; it was sanctified by the Holy Spirit, who named some of the persons, and gave to them all power and graces from above; it was subjected in the apostles first, and by them transmitted to a distinct order of ecclesiastics; it was received into all churches, consigned in the records of the holy scriptures, preached by the universal voice of all the Christian world, delivered by notorious and uninterrupted practice, and derived to further and unquestionable issue by perpetual succession."t I confess, Sir, that I have no words to express the feelings with which I have read the passage in Mr. Faber's letter in which he asserts, that the question he has proposed-namely, whether bishops differ from presbyters in order and not in degree only, "is altogether of a different character" from that discussed by the great writers in our church, (of whom I had named, at the moment, Hooker, Bingham, and Potter,) and that "it may be doubted whether these eminent writers either answer it or even attempt to answer it." Whether they have answered it, may indeed and will be doubted by those who are unable or unwilling to understand their arguments. But that they attempt to answer it cannot be doubted by any one who has taken the trouble to read what they have written. If Bingham had seen Mr. Faber's letter he could not have more distinctly expressed himself to the point. The first chapter of his second book is intitled, "Of the original of Bishops, and that they were a distinct Order from Presbyters in the Primitive Church." The second paragraph of section I. runs in these words :- "But before I proceed to the proof of these things, I must premise one particular to avoid all ambiguity, that I take the word order in that sense as the ancients use it, and not as many * Episcopacy by Divine Right, part II. sect. iv. Works, vol. x. p. 192. Oxford, 1837. + Sermons preached at the consecration of two archbishops and ten bishops in the cathedral church of St. Patrick, in Dublin, January 27, 1660. Works, vol. ii. p. 33. British Magazine, p. 534. |