not taught, totidem verbis, in holy scripture; but it is contended that it may be inferred from certain passages. And in particular, the first part of the final command to the apostles-"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST," is supposed to include necessarily infants as well as adults. But the remaining part of the command seems to make the inference to infant baptism from this place not undeniable; "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." If it is argued hence, that all persons are to be baptized, and so infants, it may also be argued, that all persons must be taught, and so infants; which is impossible. The baptizing, also, of whole households, as Lydia's, and the gaoler's (Acts, xvi.), is urged as a ground for thinking that infants were baptized also; in which supposition, as well as in the meaning of the Lord's command, all who hold the catholic faith are agreed. But the supposition is not proof; and if we would have certainty, we must go to the church, and there we find it in her undeviating tradition.

But I take for infant baptism the same ground which I took for the holy eucharist; namely, that in relation to it the church of England does, in fact, direct us to tradition. The last clause in the twentyseventh article (of 1562) is, "The baptism of young children is, in any wise, to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." And what age the church means by "young" appears from the rubric to the office for private baptism :-"The curates of every parish shall often admonish the people, that they defer not the baptism of their children longer than the first or second Sunday after their birth."

Now, I would gladly rest the decision of this question upon the judgment of any candid and competently informed person, whether it is to be supposed that, with the strong bias towards building everything on scripture only which was prevalent in the year 1562, and all that age, the convocation, who had declared the reason for receiving and believing the three creeds to be, "that they may be proved by

versaries say, that the fathers used to speak of sacrifice and altar in the Christian church, in order to reconcile the Jews and Gentiles to Christianity, by representing it as like to their religion as possible, and to make a Christian church look as like the temples of the Jews and heathens as they well could, and more like, if we may believe some modern divines. But, in reality, the ancient fathers did directly the contrary. If ever they dropped any words that seemed to import no sacrifice or altar among Christians, they did it in their discourses to the heathen. And when our adversaries produce their allegations from antiquity against the sacrifice, they are almost, or altogether, drawn from books that were addressed to the Gentiles; which is a plain demonstration of the integrity of those holy men, who were so far from temporizing or accommodating themselves to the erroneous opinions of those heathen whom they endeavoured to convince, that they rather disown sacrifice and altar than study to catch them with such baits. Nay, it is very evident that they were very cautious and reserved in speaking to their catechumens upon this head. On the other side, they never speak more frankly and copiously of the sacrifice and altar than when they speak in confidence to those who were the dispensers of, or communicants in, the holy mysteries." I hope this will be considered a sufficient reply to the Warden's note.

most certain warrants of holy scripture," would have been content with saying only what the twenty-seventh article says of baptism, if it had been possible to make any other statement; and whether, therefore, the appeal to tradition is not of the strongest kind. To say that the baptism of young children is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, is merely an assertion without proof; and no reference is made to scripture, as in other cases it is made in the articles. And I think it appears that no reference was made, because there was no specific command to be found; and yet we are told, de fide, that it is most agreeable to the institution of Christ. And I cannot doubt that, as the catholic church always received" the doctrine of baptisms" by tradition, so the church of England teaches us, by this article, to continue to do so, and that we cannot receive it without.

My present letter is already so long, and I have already omitted so much in the way of quotation which it would have been desirable to bring forward, that in order to obey your directions for brevity, and to give myself opportunity for saying what little more I have to say, without such curtailment as might make it unintelligible, I will defer it to another letter; in which I hope also to find room for a short reply to your correspondent " Aokiμaσrns.”

Your most faithful servant,

D. P.

MR. CROSTHWAITE IN REPLY TO MR. FABER ON PRESBYTERIAN

ORDINATION.

DEAR SIR, It is not my intention to enter into any lengthened examination of Mr. Faber's authorities, which have been met again and again by the divines of our church, in their answers to the presbyterians.

Mr. Faber conceives, that he can gather from St. Clement's epistle, that bishops and presbyters are but one order, and that, "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." But does Mr. Faber mean to insinuate that, when St. Clement wrote, presbyters had the right or power of ordaining? If not, why has he cited him at all? The language of St. Clement will prove, what nobody denies, that the names of presbyter and bishop were sometimes interchanged in the apostolic age. If Mr. Faber thinks it will prove more,-in other words, if it will establish the presbyterian theory,-it may be as well to say so distinctly. The truth is, that anything may be proved by such a mode of citation. A very few lines before the passage quoted by Mr. Faber, St. Clement speaks as if there were more than two orders at that time :-"The chief priest has his proper services, and to the priests their proper place is appointed, and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries, and the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen. Let every one of you therefore, brethren, bless God in his proper order, with a good conscience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his service.

that is appointed to him."* Which words Bishop Beveridge quotes to prove, that there were three distinct orders of ministers instituted by the apostles themselves. The reader will find the bishop's argument (where he meets the objection drawn from St. Clement's speaking shortly after of bishops and deacons only) in his Annotations on the First of the Apostolical Canons. In truth, we may fairly apply to such perversions of the language of the fathers what Bishop Taylor has said of the argument which the presbyterians (before Mr. Faber) had attempted to ground on the words of St. Jerome :-"This saying of St. Hierome, and the parallel of St. Chrysostome, is but like an argument against an evident truth, which comes forth upon a desperate service, and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party, or to run upon their own swords; for either they are to be understood in the senses above explicated, and then they are impertinent; or else they contradict evidence of scripture and catholic antiquity, and so are false, and die within their own trenches."

Hooker has truly said of one of the passages quoted by Mr. Faber from St. Jerome, that "no one thing is less effectual or more usual to be alleged against the ancient authority of bishops."§ In fact, whatever real or apparent contradictions may be discovered on this subject in the writings of St. Jerome, he has conceded the whole point at present in dispute in the very passage on which Mr. Faber relies. "For what," says St. Jerome, does a bishop, except ordination, which a presbyter may not do?" "Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat?" On which Bishop Hall observes, that "even those testimonies which are wont to be alleged against us, do directly plead for us." What, then, are we to think of the paraphrase by which Mr. Faber attempts to evade the literal meaning of St. Jerome's words? "He [Jerome] tells us, that from the beginning, bishops and presbyters, were in point of order [which Jerome nowhere tells us] the same; though in point of church polity, it had been deemed expedient to set one presbyter over his brethren, in the capacity of a bishop or superintendent, and with the right of ordination, or rather (as I gather from the context) with the special right of presidence in ordination."

Τῷ γὰρ ἀρχιερέι ἰδίαι λειτουργίαι δεδομέναι εἰσὶ, καὶ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἴδιος ὁ τύπος προςέτακται, καὶ λευίταις ἰδίαι διακονίαι ἐπίκεινται· ὁ λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῖς λαϊκοῖς προσάγμασιν δέδεται. "Εκατος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοι, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι εὐχαριτείτω Θεῷ, ἐν αγαθῇ συνειδήσει ὑπάρχων, μὴ παρεκβαίνων τὸν ωρισμένον, τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ κανόνα ἐν σεμνότητι. — Clem. ad Corinth. Ep. 1, cap. xl., xli., vol. i. p. 170.

Ed. Cotel. Amstel. 1724.

Pat. Apost. vol. i. p. 459. It is remarkable that the meaning of St. Jerome is guarded in a precisely similar manner:-"Et ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas sumtas de Veteri Testamento, quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitæ in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi episcopi et presbyteri et diaconi vindicent in ecclesia."—Vol. i. col. 1077, Ed. Valarsii. These words occur in the Epistle to Evangelus, which is one of Mr. Faber's authorities. Mr. Faber has not quoted them.

Episcopacy asserted, sect. xxi. Works, vol. ii. p. 124. Oxford, 1642. 4to.
Hooker, b. vii.

Hier. ad. Evang. Opp., vol. i. col. 1076. Ed. Valarsii.

Episcopacy by Divine Right, sect. 15, vol. x. p. 224. Oxford, 1837.

** Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 556.

How it is possible to gather from any context, that "excepta ordinatione" signify "with the right of ordination, or rather with the special right of ordination," I cannot pretend to understand. What may fairly be gathered from the context may be seen in Bishop Taylor :

"The thing St. Hierome aims to prove, is the identity of bishop, presbyter, and their government of the church in common. For their identity, it is clear that St. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order, as if a bishop and a presbyter had both one office per omnia,' one power; for else he contradicts himself most apertly, for in his Epistle ad Evagrium, 'Quid facit' saith he, episcopus excepta ordinatione quod presbyter non faciat?' 'A presbyter may not ordain, a bishop does;' which is a clear difference of power, and by St. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact, but of right, quod presbyter non faciat,' not ' non facit;' that a presbyter may not, must not do, that a bishop does-viz., he gives holy orders. And for matter of fact, St. Hierome knew that in his time a presbyter did not govern in common; but, because he conceived it was fit he should be joined in the common regiment and care of the diocese, therefore he asserted it as much as he could; and therefore, if St. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary, and by actual indulgence, or encroachment, or positive constitution, and no matter of primitive and original right, St. Hierome was not so diffident, but out it should come what would have come. And suppose St. Hierome, in this distinct power of ordination, had intended it only to be a difference in fact, not in right, (for so some of late have muttered,) then St. Hierome had not said true according to his own principles, for Quid facit episcopus excepta ordinatione quod presbyter non faciat? had been quickly answered, if the question had only been de facto;' for the bishop governed the church alone, and so in jurisdiction was greater than presbyters, and this was by custom, and in fact, at least St. Hierome says it; and the bishop took so much power to himself, that 'de facto' presbyters were not suffered to do anything, sine literis episcopalibus,' without leave of the bishop; and this St. Hierome complained of; so that' de facto' the power of ordination was not the only difference. That, then (if St. Hierome says true), being the only difference between presbyter and bishop, must be meant' de jure,' in matter of right, not 'human posi tive,' for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction, which, de facto, and at least by a human right, the bishop had over presbyters, but 'divine;' and then this identity of bishop and presbyter, by St. Hierome's own confession, cannot be meant in respect of order, but that episcopacy is, by divine right, a superior order to the presbyterate."*

Bishop Taylor is here defending our church against the presbyterian arguments from the very passages of St. Jerome by which Mr. Faber defends his theory. I should be glad to know how Taylor could have answered Mr. Faber more distinctly? And may I not reasonably ask, whether Mr. Faber has met my former question by pretending that his theory is "altogether of a different character" from that of the presbyterians; that the question, whether bishops and presbyters are two orders or but one, is not that which was discussed by the divines to whom I had referred him, and that "it may be doubted whether these eminent writers either answer it or even attempt to answer it”?

But Mr. Faber thinks, that instead of asking unpleasant questions, it would have been better had I "untied the knot of that consecration of Pelagius from which we occidental clergy may all be said to derive

• Episcopacy Asserted, sect. xxi. pp. 105, 106. The presbyterian arguments from St. Jerome are refuted also by Hooker, Hall, Durell, Hammond, and Potter. See also Bingham, lib. 2, cap. iii. § 5.

our pedigree."* I dare say the Romish clergy are not ungrateful for such an admission from such a quarter; though, in truth, I know not whether the Romanists or the presbyterians are on the whole under greater obligations to Mr. Faber. But I am unwilling to urge this further. The story of Pelagius I. rests (as far as I have discovered) on the authority of Anastasius the Librarian, who lived three hundred years after his time, if indeed it can justly claim so respectable a voucher. All it proves is, that an intruder, who was odious to the whole clergy and people of Rome, because he was suspected of a share in his predecessor's death, adopted new, and violent, and unlawful methods to get himself ordained. But, although contrary to the Nicene canon, this ordination was not invalid. Two bishops might have ordained him, according to the apostolic canon-'ETIOKOTOS Επίσκοπος ὑπὸ ἐπισκόπων χειροτονείσθω δύο ἢ τριῶν. Even if but one bishop had ordained him, the ordination would have been valid, notwithstanding that all the presbyters in Europe had joined in imposition of hands.§

Perhaps the part which the presbyter Andreas performed was the holding the gospels on Pelagius' head, while the two bishops imposed their hands. But supposing the story to be true, and that the presbyter joined in the imposition of hands, then I confess that I consider it needless for me to set about untying the knot. If there be any knot, Bishop Taylor has untied it already. "For it was so general and catholic a truth, that priests could not, might not, lay hands on a bishop, that there was never any example of it in Christendom till almost six hundred years after Christ, and that but once, and that irregular, and that without imitation in his successors, or example in his antecessors." "The church of Rome is concerned in the business, to make fair this ordination, and to reconcile it to the council of Rhegium, and the others before mentioned, who, if asked, would declare it to be invalid. But certainly, as the canons did command three to impose hands on a bishop, so also they commanded that those three should be three bishops; and Pelagius might as well not have had three, as not three bishops; and better, because, so they were bishops, the first canon of the apostles approves the ordination if done by two,” ἐπισκόπων δύο ἤ τρίων. And the Nicene canon is as much exact, in requiring the capacity of the person, as the number of the

Brit. Mag., Nov. 1838, p. 534.

+ "Et dum non esset episcopus, qui eum ordinaret, inventi sunt duo episcopi ; Joannes de Perusia, et Bonus de Florentino, et Andreas presbyter de Hostia, et ordinaverunt eum pontificem. Tunc non erant in clero, qui poterant eum promovere, quia et monasteria, et multitudo religiosorum, et sapientium nobilium subduxerunt se a communione ejus, dicentes, quia in morte Vigilii papa se immiscuit, ut tantis pœnis affligeretur."-Anast. Biblioth. de Vitis Pontificum Romanorum, tom. i. p. 111. Ed. Blanchini. The account goes on to say, that Pelagius publicly purged himself of the death of Vigilius. I have quoted this passage in full, because Mr. Faber has not quoted the words in italics; and what he has quoted differs from the text of Anastasius, though he professes to cite the original work. His reference is, "Anastat. Biblioth. Lib. Pontifical. in vit. Pelagii I."-Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 554. Ap. Cotel., vol. i. p. 442.

Beveregii Annot. in Canon. Apostol. apud Cotel., vol. i. p. 447, col. 2. Bingham, b. ii. c. xi. § 5.