ordainers. But let them answer it. For my part, I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case than if a layman had done it. It was xeip akupos, and though the ordination was absolutely uncanonical, yet, it being in the exigence of necessity, and being done by two bishops, according to the apostolical canon, it was valid in natura rei,' though not in formâ canonis;' and the addition of the priest was but to cheat the canon, and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a canonical ordination. Ἐπίσκοποι ἐπίσκοπους kadıṣāv öpeiλovoiv, saith the council of Sardis: Bishops must ordain bishops;' it was never heard that priests did, or 'de jure' might."* The use which Mr. Faber has made of Clement, Jerome, and Pelagius I., is not original; at least, this is not the first or second time they have appeared in this argument. In the answer to Bishop Hall's "Humble Remonstrance," the authors (who called themselves "Smectymnuus") quote the same passage of St. Jerome's "Commentary on Titus" on which Mr. Faber relies, and infer from it, amongst other things-"first, that bishops and presbyters are originally the same-idem ergo est presbyter qui episcopus. Secondly, that that imparitie that was in his time between bishops and elders was grounded upon ecclesiastical custom, and not upon divine institution-episcopi noverint," &c.+ In the "Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici," which was published by the presbyterian "Provincial Assembly of London" in 1654, this same passage of St. Jerome is quoted for the same purpose. Again, (Appendix, p. 4,) they cite the passages from St. Clement:-"Sure we are that Clemens, who lived in the first century, in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians, (an undoubted piece of antiquity,) makes but two orders of ministry, bishops and deacons."That bishops and deacons were the onely orders of ministry in the first primitive church; and that the apostles appointed but two officers (that is, bishops and deacons) to bring men to believe; because, when he had reckoned up three orders appointed by God among the Jews,-high priest, priests, and Levites, coming to recite orders appointed by the apostles under the gospel, he doth mention only bishops and deacons." § Again, "Proposition 5. That when the distinction between a bishop and presbyter first began in the church of Christ, it was not grounded upon a jus divinum, but upon prudential reasons and arguments. And the chief of them was (as Hierom, and divers after him, say) in remedium schismatis, et ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur. For the remedy of schisme, and that the seeds of errour might be rooted out the church."-Ib. p. 117. Again, "A bishop, at his first erection, was nothing else but primus presbyter, or episcopus præses, (as a moderator in a church assembly, or a speaker in a parliament,) that governed communi concilio presbyterorum, and had neither power of ordination nor of jurisdiction but Episcopacy Asserted, sect. xxxi. pp. 165, 166. + An answer to a book entitled an Humble Remonstrance, &c. Printed in the year 1641. 4to. Part II. p. 56, and Appendix, p. 102. § Ibid. p. 105. G in common with his presbyters."-Ib. p. 119. Again, "That whatsoever may be said of episcopacy out of antiquity, yet notwithstanding, it is an opinion generally received by the learned in all ages, that there are but two orders of ministers in the church of Christ, bishops and deacons, according to the saying of Paul to the Philippians where he salutes the bishops and deacons; that is, the presbyters and deacons. Of this opinion is Clement in his epistle to the Corinthians, and Polycarpe, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, as we have shewed. This also is the opinion of most of the schoolmen. Lombard saith, Whereas all the seven orders are spiritual and sacred, yet the canons think that two onely are called sacred orders by an excellency, to wit, the order of deaconship and priesthood; because the primitive church, so far as we can read, had onely these two; and of these only we have the apostle's precept.' Bonaventure saith, that episcopacy is no order, but an eminency and dignity. The like saith Aureolus, upon the 4 sent. distinct. 24. Navarrus saith, that it is the common opinion of the divines, that episcopacy is not an order, but an office."-p. 127. They then refer to Forbes' Irenicum, lib. 2, cap. 11, and to the addition to Mason's Defence of the Ministry of the Church of England; where the foreign churches are defended against the Romanists. At p. 130, they cite the story of Pelagius I., from which they draw this conclusion: "By which it is evident, that presbyters lay on hands in ordination together with the bishop, as partners in the power. And that Pelagius and his successours would never have owned this way of ordination, had they not believed that a presbyter had a power derived to him from Christ to confer ecclesiastical orders."-Ib. 131. In fine, it is in this way they evade the force of St. Jerome's exception: "That when Hierome saith Quid facit episcopus quod non facit [faciat] presbyter excepta ordinatione? this passage cannot be understood as if Hierome had thought that ordination was by divine right appropriated to bishops and not to presbyters, (as Bishop Bilson saith ;) for in the very saine epistle he tells us that, by divine right, a bishop and a presbyter are all one; and that in Alexandria, for a long time, the presbyters ordained their bishop. But he must be understood of the practice of the church in his dayes; and his meaning is, Quid facit episcopus secundum canones ecclesiæ quod non facit presbyter excepta ordinatione ?" I neither say nor insinuate that Mr. Faber found his authorities in the works of the enemies of our church; but this I do say, that he has used them in a manner painfully similar; that he has drawn from them the very same sort of arguments against the episcopal order which they advanced, and which our divines confuted; and that the notions he has put forward are essentially the same as those of the presbyterians, and the popish party in the church of Rome. Still I ask, how has Mr. Faber served the two churches of history, by thus betraying the cause of episcopacy and the Reformation? If they had derived apostolic succession by presbyterian ordination, his arguments would serve their cause just as much as they would serve any other presbyterian community, and no more. But he readily confesses that he is "not able to demonstrate this circumstance" (as he is pleased to call it)" of their possessing an apostolical succession" of any sort, episcopal or presbyterian. Why, then, has he borrowed the weapons of our enemies, and turned them against the essential principles of our church?-except it was to mystify a question, which he cannot make out by argument or history. Mr. Faber's notions, I repeat, are the same as those of the presbyterians and the papists, and the same which our immortal champions have again and again confuted. Mr. Faber either knows this, or he does not. I know not which alternative is the more painful to a serious mind. Dear Sir, most truly yours, JOHN CLARKE CROSTHWAITE. Trinity College, Dublin, Dec. 7th, 1838. MR. FABER IN REPLY TO MR. DOWLING, AND MR. CROSTHWAITE. SIR,-As Mr. Dowling, contrary to all reasonable expectation, has "thought it worth his while" to answer my reply, and as Mr. Crosthwaite has also placed himself in the same unlooked-for predicament, your known love of fair play will insure the insertion of this paper in the pages of the British Magazine; for you will of course recollect that, with your permission, in that same respectable journal, those two gentlemen, without the slightest provocation on my part, commenced the present controversy.+ The reckoning between us stands, just now, as follows :-They made the attack: I replied: they answered. In due order, you here have my rejoinder, and, when that is inserted, we shall then stand upon equal terms, each party having been heard twice. Should my assailants deem a replication advisable, it will then be for me to consider whether a rebutter on my part may be expedient; and, on the perfectly intelligible principle that each controversialist ought to have an equal number of turns afforded to him, I conceive that, according to plain equity, if any replication be inserted, a place ought not to be refused to a rebutter, if a rebutter Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 553. [The editor is not aware of having done anything which should appear inconsistent with a love of fair play. He has inserted Mr. Faber's former letters as speedily as possible; and, so far as the interests of truth, and of the magazine, are concerned, he has sincere pleasure in giving immediate insertion to his present communication. But he must plainly ask Mr. Faber-Does he mean to deny that a book, which, after long announcement, he has printed and published, is not fairly open to criticism? Did he not send the book to the Magazine, in order that it might be criticized? and would he have had any right to complain of unfairness if every word which has been said of it by well-known writers in the correspondence had been said anonymously among the reviews? The editor has taken credit to himself for something beyond fairness towards Mr. Faber, in not reviewing the book, or allowing it to be reviewed at all; but surely, if gentlemen, whose published works testify that they have paid particular attention to subjects, think proper to challenge Mr. Faber's statements on those points, in a fair and manly way, with their names, the editor is not to send back their letters, or put them in the fire, on the ground that Mr. Faber had not given them "the least provocation." Surely, a book, regularly printed, published, and advertised, is provocation to the whole world.] should be deemed necessary. These matters being premised, I proceed, in this rejoinder, to notice the respective answers of Mr. Dowling and Mr. Crosthwaite, as they appear in your number for December, 1838. I. I shall begin with Mr. Dowling. He describes me as confessing three things: that I was acquainted with only a part (a small part) of the contemporary evidence; that I do not follow the authorities I consulted; and that, for what I regard as the most important evidence, I was content to confide in a translation. Upon the ground of this my own confession, he craves judgment against my pretensions to be "regarded as an accurate or trustworthy historian." I am much obliged to him for his favourable opinion of me; but, though he is not quite correct in styling me an historian, still I crave to demur to his somewhat rapid craving of judgment against me and my pretensions. According, then, to Mr. Dowling, such is the amount of my confession. Let us notice, in their order, its alleged particulars. 1. With respect to the first, I certainly confessed, that I was acquainted with only a part of the contemporary evidence; but I never confessed that I was acquainted with only a small part. So far from any confession of this kind, my statement was to precisely an opposite effect. What Mr. Dowling means by contemporary evidence is, I suppose, the evidence of Photius and Peter Siculus. The latter I had read; the former I had not read. Now, so far from confessing the evidence of Peter Siculus to be only a small part of the contemporary evidence, I asserted it, and I still assert it, for reasons which my opponent has most feebly endeavoured to combat, to be the only ancient evidence of real consequence. As for the moderns, to whom Mr. Dowling appeals, I am not aware that they could do more than build their opinions upon a due examination of ancient evidence. But the sole really important evidence of that description, the evidence of Peter Siculus, which Mr. Dowling does not assert to be in any wise materially different from that of Photius, was before me, as well as before them. Hence, of course, the only question is-a question, in common decency, to be decided neither by Mr. Dowling nor by myself-which modern writer drew, from ancient premises, the fairest and most reasonable conclusion? 2. With respect to the second particular of my confession, I do not very well understand Mr. Dowling when he represents me as confessing, that I do not follow the authorities which I consulted. If he means that I do not follow the authority of Peter Siculus, a most bitter and prejudiced writer, blindly and implicitly, and without weighing and comparing his statements, he speaks truly enough. But I really do not perceive what great praise I could claim by acting otherwise; for, though I am not an historian myself, I had always thought that a promiscuous swallowing of incongruities was no part of an historian's duty. Mr. Dowling himself, indeed, does pretty much the same thing as he rather oddly lays to my charge. The sole difference between us is a sort of inversion in our respective processes. Peter Siculus and Photius alike declare that Constantine and his Paulicians abhorred and renounced Manes and his system. This their evidence, I receive; but Mr. Dowling virtually rejects it, for he maintains that they were still disguisedly Manichèans. Whence, per contra, he receives what I reject; namely, the tale of their extracting their already abhorred and renounced Manicheism out of the four gospels and the Pauline epistles, in a less palpable and offensive shape. Here, I submit, we both of us exercise our discriminative judgment upon the same evidence. I have fairly laid that evidence before the public, and I dare say Mr. Dowling has done the same. The only question is, which of the two has exercised his right of sifting and discriminating more soberly and discreetly? When my innocent banter is thrown aside, which I could not forbear, by reason of the palpable incongruity and utter improbability of the statements before me, the literal tale related by Peter Siculus is this :— Constantine, finding that Manichèism was in bad odour, renounced it in name; but, having received a present of the four gospels and the Pauline epistles from a deacon, who, somewhat unaccountably, had taken up his quarters with the alleged heretic, he laboured to extract the same renounced system, under a plausible disguise, out of the sacred books. His example was followed by his proselytes. For they all abjured and abhorred Manes and Manicheism, and instead thereof they adopted, and laid down their very lives for, the system which Constantine had extracted out of the sacred books; those sacred books, meanwhile, not being in anywise corrupted to serve a turn, after the well-known fashion of the Gnostic and Manichèan school, but being precisely the same as those which the Catholic church has always received. See my Vallenses and Albigenses, book ii. chap. 1. notes in the margin. This was the story which Mr. Dowling accepted in full, without the slightest regard to its incongruity; but which, on the ordinary principles of weighing evidence, my weaker stomach partially rejected.. If, on such testimony, Mr. Dowling can believe that the Paulician converts from Manichèism remained Manichèans to the end of the chapter, I have not the slightest wish to quarrel with him; though he ridiculously describes me as being "very angry" (forsooth!) at what he has said: I only venture to think that, merely because my belief is not quite so prompt as his, and because I scrupled not to treat this utterly absurd fable with the bantering contempt which I am satisfied it deserves, he has no particular right, without the slightest provocation on my part, to fasten a quarrel upon myself. 3. The third particular of my confession is: that I was content to confide in a translation for what I regard as the most important evidence. Be it so and what then? Does Mr. Dowling pretend to say that the Latin translation in the Bibliotheca Patrum, on the points where I consulted it, and with which we are specially concerned, has falsified the original Greek? Nothing of the sort: I put this very question to him before, and no |