Beveridge on Article XXXVI: Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers

yet in both it hath reference but to one and the same manner of consecration of archbishops and bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons; for though there be some expressions inserted into the latter, which were not in the former book, yet they both agree in that which is the form and substance of consecration and ordination; both of them appointing that in the conse- eration of a bishop, the archbishop and bishops present shall lay their hands upon his head ; that in the ordering of priests, the bishop and priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of priest- hood; and that in the ordering of deacons, the bishop only

nn2

548 Of Consecration of Art.

shall lay his hands severally upon the head of every one of them: and so that the bishops shall be consecrated by the archbishop of the province or metropolitan, other bishops being present and laying on their hands with him; priests by the bishop of the diocese, or some other bishop appointed by him, other priests being present and laying on their hands too with him; deacons by the bishop only: in which con- sisteth the form and substance of all their ordinations. And therefore also in the speaking to them I need do no more than shew that the several orders of bishops, priests, and deacons are to be consecrated and ordered according to that form and manner; even that a bishop be consecrated by the archbishop of the province, (or some other bishop appointed by lawful authority,) the other bishops there present joing with him in laying on of hands; that a priest be ordered by a bishop, other priests there present and laying on their hands too; and that a deacon be ordered by the bishop only.

And for the proof of this I shall refer myself wholly to the judgment of the primitive church ; who, having the happiness to live nearer the apostles’ times than we do, were better acquainted with the apostles’ practice in these things than we. And for my own part I dare not but look upon the practice of the primitive church in this case to be lawful in itself and binding unto others. For if we once suppose that the pri- mitive church generally erred in their ordination of ministers, then we must grant also that there hath been never a lawful ministry since, the lawfulness of their ministry depending principally, yea only, upon the lawfulness of their ordination ; and if there were no lawful ministers to ordain them, they who were ordained could not be lawful ministers ; and if there be no lawful ministry, there cannot be any true church, because the word is not lawfully preached nor the sacraments lawfully administered in it. And therefore we must needs grant that in this besure, though in. nothing else, the general practice of the primitive church must be allowed of.

Now to find out the general practice of the primitive church in this case we must not consult particular persons, but rather universal and provincial councils, wherein whole

XXXVI. Bishops and Ministers. 549

churches met together. The practice and judgment of parti- cular persons cannot be said to be the practice and judgment of the whole church ; but what whole councils decreed or did cannot be looked upon but as the practice and judgment, not of many particular persons only, but of the church itself. First therefore for the consecration of bishops. The ancient council at Antioch put forth this decree, ‘ Let not a bishop be ordained without the assembly and presence of the metropolitan of the province. And he being present, it is very convenient that all his fellow bishops in the province be present with him, and it is fitting that the metropolitan should by his letter call them together. And if they can all meet, it is better. But if that be difficult, many of them should how- soever be present, or else give in their suffrages by their letters ; and so the constitution be made with the presence and suffrage of many of them. But if it be done otherwise than is here decreed, let the ordination be invalid, or of no force.” The first council at Nice: >“ But this is altogether manifest, that if any one be made a bishop without the sen- tence of the metropolitan, this great council decrees: that such a one ought not to be a bishop.” And so the council at Laodicea determined, ©“ that bishops be consecrated by the _ judgment of the metropolitan and bishops there about, unto ecclesiastical government, being before long examined in the matter of their faith and polity, or dispensation of right rea- son ;” ¢* which canon,” as Balsamon saith, “ forbids bishops to

cil. Antioch. can. 19. [p. 6or. vol. I.

[…]

Conc. Hard.]

[…]

ART.

550 Of Consecration of

be chosen by the multitude, and decrees that they be conse- crated by the metropolitans and other bishops.” The second council at Arles: ©“ Let no bishop without the permission of the metropolitan, nor any metropolitan bishop without three bishops of the same province, presume to ordain a bishop.” And again: ‘< But let this be clear above all things, that he that is made a bishop without the metropolitan, according to the great synod, (viz. the Nicene before cited,) ought not to be a bishop at all.” To these we might add also the first of the apostolical canons, § “‘ Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.” The council of Hippo, » “ Let not a bishop be ordained by less than three bishops.” The like was also decreed by the first council at.i Arles, and another at j Rhe- gium. And what these bishops were to do at the consecration of a bishop, the fourth council at Carthage expressly tells us, decreeing thus: * “ When a bishop is ordained, let two bishops hold the book of the gospels over his head, and one pouring forth the blessing upon him, let the other bishops that are present touch his head with their hands, or put their hands upon his head.” So then in the primitive church both the metropolitan or archbishop, and other bishops, were to be present at the consecration of a bishop, and put their hands upon him, which exactly answers the manner of making and

[…]

h Ut eipiscopus minus quam

a tribus episcopis non ordinetur. Concil. Hippon. [39. p. 972. ibid. |

i De his qui usurpant sibi quod soli debeant episcopum ordinare ; placuit ut nullus hoe sibi preesumat, nisi assumptis secum aliis septem episcopis. Si tamen non potuerint septem, sine tribus fratribus non audeant ordinare. Concil. Arelat. 1. can. 20. [p. 266. ibid.]

j Concil. Rhegiens. c. 1, 2. [p. 1748. ibid. ]

[…]

_

• XXXVI. Bishops and Ministers. 551

consecrating bishops now in use amongst us, and decreed in this article.

And as for the second, viz. the ordering of priests, the practice of the primitive church may be seen also in these par- ticulars: first, the apostolical canons (though perhaps not apostolical, yet besure very ancient) say, !“ Let a priest be ordained by one bishop, and so a deacon and other clergymen.” In the fourth [third] council at Carthage ™ Aurelius said, “There may be one bishop by whom, through the permission of God, many priests may be ordained,” or, as the Greek translation hath it, ”“ By the permission of God one bishop may ordain many priests.”

The council at Antioch: °“ A bishop may also ordain priests and deacons, and handle all things with judgment, but undertake to do nothing further, without the bishop of the metropolis, nor he without the sentence of the others.” Hence is that of the council at Chalcedon : P “ If any bishop shall for money make ordination, or sell that grace which cannot be sold, or for money ordain any bishop, suffragan, priest, or deacon, he that is convinced of doing this, let him be in danger of losing his own degree ;” plainly implying that it was he only that ordained him. The council of Nice: 4“ If any (of the Paulianists) was in ancient time in the clergy, if they appear unreprovable, being baptized again, let them be ordained by a bishop of the catholic church.” It was by a

[…]

tioch. can. g. [p. 597. vol. I. Conc. Hard. |

[…]

552 Of Consecration of

bishop they were to be ordained ; and therefore, saith the second council at Seville, *‘« A bishop can alone of himself give honour to priests and ministers, but he cannot take it away alone.”

Nay, so strict was the primitive church in having priests ordained by bishops only, that in the time of ordination, though the bishop was present and did some things, yet unless he did all’he ought to do, the person was not looked upon as ordained, as we see in the aforesaid council at Seville: ®“Tt is told us,” say they, “concerning some of the clergy, whereof whilst one should be ordained to the priesthood, and two to the ministry of the Levites, the bishop, being troubled with sore eyes, is reported to have put his hand upon them only, and that a certain priest, contrary to the ecclesiastical order, gave the blessing to them, who, though if he was yet alive, might after accusation be condemned for so great bold- ness, yet seeing he being left to divine trial cannot be accused by human judgment, these that are alive, let them lose the degree of priesthood, or of the Levitical order, which they got perversely.” And thus in the primitive church if any one was convinced not to haye been ordained by a bishop, he was looked upon as‘a layman, be he ordained by whom he would else; and therefore the second general council held at Constantinople decreed, t“ concerning Maximus the Cynic, and that disturbance that was made at Constantinople by him, that Maximus neither was nor is a bishop, neither are any of these that were ordained by him in any degree of the

r Episcopus enim sacerdotibus et ministris solus honorem dare potest, auferre solus non potest. Concil. Hispal. 2. c. 6. [p. 559. vol. III. ibid.

8 Relatum est nobis de quibusdam clericis quorumdam unus ad presby- terium, duo ad Levitarum ministe- rium sacrarentur, episcopus oculo- rum dolore detentus, fertur manus suas super eos tantum imposuisse, et presbyter quidam illis contra ec- clesiasticum ordinem benedictionem dedisse, qui licet propter tantam audaciam poterat accusatus damnari si adhuc viveret, sed quia jam ille

examini divino relictus, humano ju- dicio accusari non potest, hi qui supersunt gradum sacerdotii, vel Levitici ordinis, quem perverse ad- epti sunt, amittant. Ibid. can. 5.

[…]

XXXVI

Bishops and Ministers. 553

clergy, all things that were done for him or by him being disannulled.”. Having once pronounced Maximus no bishop, they presently declare all ordained by him to be laymen. And there was a remarkable passage to this purpose also in the council of Alexandria; for it being objected by the Arians against Athanasius, amongst other things, that one Ma- carius, a deacon of his, had broken a sacramental cup, the synod at Alexandria examined this amongst the other things that were laid to his charge, and find that at the time and place where his adversaries said the fact was done, ¥ there was no ecclesiastical person or clergyman there, and by con- sequence no sacramental cup. But it was said that Ischyras was there. ‘“ But Ischyras,” say they, * ‘how came Ischyras to be a priest ? who ordained him ? to wit Coluthus? For that is all they can say. But that Coluthus was but a priest him- self when he died, and all his imposition of hands made void, and all that were ordained by him in the schism are no more than laymen, and are so admitted to the sacrament, is evi- dent, so that no one doubts of it. And how then shall a private person, dwelling in a private house, be believed to have a mystical or sacramental cup ?” So that Ischyras, though ordained, yet being ordained by one that was himself no more than a priest, no bishop, he is looked upon as no priest, but a layman, a private person, and that not only by the council at Alexandria, but by another at Sardice, ‘‘ who,” say ¥ they, “gave the reward of calumny unto Ischyras, calling him bishop who was not so much as a priest.” And thus we see how in the primitive church it was bishops only that ordained priests, and they were no priests who were not ordained by

[…]

554 Of Consecration of Art.

bishops, insomuch that z St. Chrysostome, yea, and *St. Jerome himself too, could not but say that ordination, though nothing else, was peculiar to bishops; so that though presbyters should be thought to be equal to bishops in other things, yet in this business of ordination bishops must needs be acknow- ledged to be above them.

And if we search into the manner of this their episcopal ordination, Theophilus Alexandrinus saith, > “ Concerning those that are to be ordained, this shall be the form or manner, that all the priesthood shall consent and choose, and then the bishop shall examine him, or the priesthood assenting to him, he shall ordain in the middle of the church, the people being present, and the bishop asking if the people ‘also can witness for him; but let not ordination be done pri- vately.” And the fourth council of Carthage plainly, °“ When a priest is ordained, the bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, let all the priests also which are present hold their hands by the hand of the bishop upon his head.” So exactly doth our form and manner of ordering priests answer that of the primitive church.

And lastly, for the ordering of deacons, ‘which the [fourth] council at Arles saith should not be ordained before twenty- five years old, besides that of the apostolical canons before cited, “‘ Let a priest be ordered by one bishop, and so a

[…]

& Quid facit, excepta ordinatione, episcopus quod presbyter non faciat ? Hieron. ad Evagrium, [ep. 146. p. 7°: vol. I.]

[…]

¢ Presbyter cum ordinatur epi- scopo eum benedicente et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam om-~ nes presbyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manus episcopi _ caput illius teneant. Concil.

arthag. 4. can. vol. I. Conc. Hard. ] te

XXXVI. Bishops and Ministers. 555

deacon, and others also of the clergy.” And what else makes to this purpose in the foregoing discourse, I shall only add that of the fourth council at Carthage, ¢“ When a deacon is ordained, let the bishop only that blesseth him put his hand upon his head, because he is not ordained to the priesthood, but only to the ministry ;” which is the very thing which the book this article hath reference unto prescribes. All which things being put together, unless we will say there was no lawful ministry in the primitive church, and by consequence none now, (for there is no lawful ministry but what is law- fully ordained, and the ministry of the primitive church, if it was not lawfully ordained, neither could it lawfully ordain others, and so all the ministry ever since, being unlawfully ordained, was no lawful ministry,) I say, unless we grant so grand an absurdity, we must needs subscribe to this article.

e Diaconus cum ordinatur, solus ad sacerdotium sed ad ministerium episcopus qui eum benedicitmanum consecratur. Concil. Carthag. 4.c. 4. super caput illius ponat, quia non ([p. 979. ibid.]

Notes

• Ut diaconus ante 25 annos, et sacerdos ante 30 non ordinetur. Concil. Arel. [4.] ¢. 1. [tit. p. 1069. vol. II, ibid. ]