Appendix I: Testimony of an English Prelate to Presbyterian Views of the Office of Deacon

Dr Croft, Bishop of Hereford, published in 1675, under the title of “A Humble Moderator,” a treatise on the “True State of the Primitive Church,” in which, among many other concessions, the following just sentiments occur “Concerning Deacons:”—

Whether this of deaconship be properly called an order or an office, I will not dispute—but certainly no spiritual order; for their office was to serve tables, as the Scripture phrases it, which, in plain English, is nothing else but overseers of the poor, to distribute justly and discreetly the alms of the faithful, which the apostles would not trouble themselves withal, lest it should hinder them in the ministration of the word and prayer. But as most matters of this world, in process of time, deflect much from the original constitution, so it fell out in this business; for the bishops, who pretend to be successors to the apostles, by little and little took to themselves the dispensation of alms, first by way of inspection over the deacons, who were mere lay-officers, by degrees crept into the Church ministration, and became a reputed spiritual order, and a necessary degree and step to the priesthood, of which I can find nothing in Scripture and the original institution, nor a word relating to anything but the ordering of alms for the poor. And the first I find of these in officiating in spiritual matters, is in Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century. He relates, that when the bishop had consecrated the bread and wine for the Lord’s Supper, the deacons took it from him, and delivered it to the lay-communicants there present, and carried it also to the faithful that were absent-hindered, I guess, from coming by sickness or some other good excusing cause. . . . . But it is evident this was not yet come to be the general practice in all Churches, but only in Greece, where Justin Martyr lived; for Tertullian, who lived in Africa some years after Justin, declares, that the custom there was to receive the blessed sacrament from the hands of the bishop only, whom he calls the president, that is, whosoever was chief in the assembly, whether bishop or presbyter. But yet, I confess, that this custom of the deacons delivering the blessed sacrament, or at least one part of it, viz., the chalice, by degrees became the custom in most Churches in after ages; and so, passing from one thing to another, in time they came to administer the sacrament of baptism, and at last to the ministration of the Word, the business which the apostles peculiarly reserved for themselves, and which the bishops also, for a long time, reserved entirely to themselves. . . . . Thus, you see, in process of time, how strangely things alter from the original institution. The bishops omit preaching, and become servants of tables; and the deacons, from serving of tables, step up into the pulpit and become preachers. But Petavius takes upon him to prove deaconship a spiritual order, and brings us a more early author for it than Justin, that noble martyr Ignatius, who, in his epistle to the Trallians, calls deacons (as Petavius conceives) ministers of the mysteries of Christ. Here I find that which I often lament—learned men to go in a track, one after another; and some through inadvertency, some through partiality, take many passages of ancient authors quite different from their meaning, as here, all following the first erroneous interpreter of Ignatius. Sure this fancy of deacons ran much in his head, otherwise he could never have found them here; for it is evident the word deaconus in this place relates to the presbyter newly before mentioned, telling the people they ought to be obedient to the presbyters as to the apostles; (then follows) ‘You must, therefore, please them in all things, being minister of the mysteries of Christ.’ . . . . He (Petavius) tells us out of the Acts that Philip and Stephen, both deacons, were preachers of the Word—that is a spiritual work. I would gladly know who informed Petavius that Philip, who preached to the eunuch, and afterwards went about preaching to others, was Philip the deacon, and not rather Philip the apostle, as seems to me far more probable; for Philip the deacon was, by his office, to reside at Jerusalem, and take care of the poor. Thither the alms of the faithful were sent to relieve the saints at Jerusalem. But you further urge, ‘Surely Stephen was a deacon,’ and let Philip also, if you please, it signifies little to the purpose. Sure I can shew out of Scripture preachers that were in no spiritual order—neither presbyters, nor deacons neither, as Aquila and Priscilla, his wife too, and Apollos likewise, to whom they both preached, and instructed him more fully. Sure they did not ordain Apollos a deacon; nor can I believe any of the apostles ordained him deacon, and sent him forth to preach before he was well catechised in the Word. He was not so much as baptised in Christ, but knew only the baptism of John. If not baptized, surely not ordained deacon; yet he prevailed, and mightily convinced the Jews. . . . . It is evident, then, from Scripture, that the first institution of deacons was a mere lay office—I will not say a profane office (as some too grossly and irreverently have termed it), but a pious and honourable office in the Church of God, to serve tables, to take care of God’s poor; but as I have shewed, in process of time, it became quite another thing, and so different from the original institution, that it made Chrysostom, and divers others great and good men, doubt whether the apostles did not constitute two sorts of deacons—some for the lay office, some for spiritual offices. Had Chrysostom consulted only Scripture, he would never have doubted nor dreamed of two sorts of deacons, there being no mention at all but of one; but he, seeing the practice of the Church, which he was unwilling to condemn, so different from that one apostolical institution of deacons, this so confounded the good man that he knew not well what to make of it, and willing to piece Scripture and the present practice together, to put a new patch upon an old garment, made the rent the wider, rending the deaconship in two pieces, which of old was but one, only to serve tables; which office, he that used well, purchased to himself a good degree, a good esteem; and so it might be a recommendation to the degree of priesthood, though no necessary step to it.—P. 52.

After perusing these extracts, the reader will not wonder at the strange applications which have been made of the office of deacon in the course of ecclesiastical history, and which are made still in the Church of Rome. Part of the office, after it had lost its original design, was to direct the people, in their Church devotions, where each part began, they being too ignorant to know themselves. Hence the deacons were called “holy criers.” By licence from the bishop they had authority to preach, to restore penitents, and grant absolution, and to represent the bishops in general councils—functions which involve the leading duties of the ministerial office. In the Church of Rome it is the deacon’s office to incense the officiating priest or prelate—to lay the corporal on the altar—to receive the patten or cup from the subdeacon, and to present it to the person officiating—to incense the choir—to receive the pix from the officiating prelate, and carry it to the subdeacon; and at the pontifical mass, when the bishop gives the blessing, to put the mitre on his head, and to take off the archbishop’s pall and lay it on the altar!—Vide Encyclopedia Britannica, 7th edit., “Deacon.” According to the ordination of deacon in the Church of England, he is to assist in the dispensation of the communion, but he is limited to the administration of the wine!