Gibson on Article XXXVI: Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers

In its present form this Article dates from 1563, when it was entirely rewritten. The corresponding Article in the Edwardian Series was of a much more general character, referring to the Book of Common Prayer as a whole, and not only to the Ordinal.

Of the Book of Prayers and Ceremonies of the Church

of England,

” The Book which of very late time was given to the Church of England by the King’s authority and the

Parliament, containing the manner and form of praying, and ministering the sacraments in the Church of England, likewise also the book of Ordering Ministers of the Church, set forth by the foresaid authority, are godly, and in no point repugnant to the wholesome doctrine of the Gospel, but agreeable thereunto, furthering and beautifying the same not a little ; and therefore of all faithful members of the Church of England, and chiefly of the ministers of the word, they ought to be received, and allowed with all readiness of mind, and thanksgiving, and to be commended to the people of God.” ^

As originally drafted and signed by the royal chaplains, it had contained some words referring expressly to the ceremonies of the book as in no way repugnant to the liberty of the Gospel, but rather agreeable to it, and tending to promote it. To this serious objection was taken by John Knox, whose dislike of the ceremonies ordered in the book was perhaps not unnatural ; and it is probable that it was in consequence of his remonstrances that all that part which referred especially to the ceremonies was omitted before publication.^

’ ** De libro precationum et cJBreraoniarum Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Liber qui nupemrae authoritate Regis et Parliameuti Ecclesiie Anglicanae traditos est, continens modum et formam orandi, et sacrameuta admin i> strandi in Ecelesia Anglicana: Similiter et libellus eadem authoritate editiis de ordinatione ministonim ecclesiae, quoad doctrinee veritatem, pii sunt, et salutari doctrinse Evangelii in nullo repugnant sed congruunt, et eandem non parum promovent et illustrant, atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus membris, et maxime a ministris verbi cum omni promptitudine auimorum et giatiarum actione, recipiendi, appro* bandi, et populo Dei commendandi sunt.”

• The clause in question appears in this form in the MS. signed by the royal chaplains: ** Et quoad eeremoniarnm rationem saliUaH Evangelii libertati, si ex stta TuUura eej’emonia; illce cestimentur^ in nullo repugnant, sed probe congruunt, et eandem in eomplurimis inprimis promovent, atque ideo,” etc. The words in italics were altogether omitted or modified in the published Article. For the part taken by Knox in securing the change, see vol. i. p. 14, with the references there given.

As it now stands, the object of the Article is to assert emphatically the validity of Anglican Orders, and this against objections raised from two opposite quarters. On the one hand, the “Nonconformist” and Puritan party denounced the Ordinal as containing in it things that were of themselves superstitious or ungodly; on the other hand, the disaffected Romanists might deny that the form used could be said to contain all things

necessary to such consecration and ordering.

And thus, as against both parties, it was deemed advisable

to assert definitely that whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the aforenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites ; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

The principal subjects, then, to be treated of here are these —

1. The objections of the Puritans.

2. The objections of the Romanists.

I. TIle Objections of the Puritans.

Since many of those who objected to the Ordinal, as containing that which was “superstitious and ungodly,” objected not only to the special formula, ” Receive the Holy Ghost,” etc., used in conferring orders on the priesthood (which they denounced as “manifest blasphemy”), but also to Episcopacy itself, it seems desirable to consider here —

(a) The question of the threefold ministry.

(b) The formula of Ordination.

(a) The question of the threefold ministry. — The Preface to the ” Form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons according

to the order of the Church of England” (1550), begins with the statement that “it is evident unto all men diligently reading the 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 evidence for the existence of the threefold ministry, /rom the second century onwards, is so full and complete, that it is not likely to be questioned, and need not be summarised here. All that the opponents of Episcopacy can do is to endeavour to show that there are in later times a few possible exceptions to the rule,^ and to deny that it is found in the New Testament, and can be traced back to ” the Apostles’ time.” It will be well, therefore, to examine the evidence of the New Testament, and for this purpose it will be convenient to break up the Apostolic age into three distinct periods, each of which requires to be discussed separately.

(L) The foundation of the Church. In this S. Peter is the most prominent figure, and the period is closed by his imprisonment and departure from Jerusalem in the year 44. Even at this early time we can discern the germs and beginnings of what afterwards grew into the threefold ministry. The Apostles are naturally the leaders and rulers of the Church, and at first its only ministers. But as the work grows under their hands some portion of it is delegated to the seven, who, though never called ” deacons ” in the Acts, are plainly the first representatives of that order, selected by the whole multitude of the faithful, but receiving their appointments from the Apostles {o{><; KaraaTijaofiev, ” whom we may appoint,” Acts vi. 3), and set apart for their office

with the imposition of hands and prayer (ver. 6).^ Of the origin of what we term the second order of the ministry no account is given us, but by the end of this period we find it already in existence, for in Acts xi 30 (just about the time of Peter’s imprisonment or release) we read that the Christians at Antioch ” determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea ; which also they did, sending it to the elders […] by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.” This is the earliest mention of an order of ministers which we shall find appointed everywhere during the next period. Since its origin is nowhere related in the Acts (our sole authority for this period), it can only be a matter of conjecture. Possibly it was suggested to the Christian Church by the organisation of the Jewish communities, in which ” the elders ” occupied a recognised position.2 However this may be, the fact remains that in this first period we find something fairly corresponding to our three orders of ministers, viz. Apostles, with the oversight of the whole Church, and,

^ The reasons for maintaining that the appointment of the “seven” gives the origin of the diaconate are briefly these : (1) Although the title diiKoyos does not occur, yet the corresponding verb and substantive (StaKoyeiv and diaKovLa) are both used (vers. 1, 2). (2) The functions are substantially those exercised by the later deacons (cf. Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 186). (3) From the position of the narrative in the Acts and the emphasis laid on it by the writer, it is clear that he regarded it “not as an isolated incident, but as the establishment of a new order of things in the Church ” (Lightfoot, ubi mpra). (4) Tradition is unanimous as to the identity of the two offices, and that from the earliest times. See lurther. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. 2), vol. i. p. 739.

• So Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 189, and cf. Gore, p. 399. But it is important to remember that, though the Tianu was certainly borrowed from the synagogue, yet the functions of the Christian presbyters, as found in the writings of the New Testament and the earliest Fathers, mark out the office as really a new one of a spiritual character. For these functions see 1 Pet. v. 2 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2, v. 17 ; Titus i. 9 ; S. James V. 14 ; Clem. Rom. ad Cor. xliv.

locally, elders and deacons. Indeed, we may go a step further, and maintain that something approaching to the local Episcopate already obtained in Jerusalem ; for the message of S. Peter after his release from prison, when read in the light of later notices, is highly significant, ” Tell these things unto James, and to the brethren ” (Acts xii. 17). Why “unto Janus” 1 The only explanation is that he already occupied the position which we find him holding at a later period, of ‘president of the local Church (see Acts xv. 13-21, xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 9, 12), or, as the tradition of the Church has ever regarded him, first bishop of Jerusalem.

(ii.) The second period is that of the organisation and extension of the Church. In it the prominent figure is the Apostle Paul, whose missionary labours formed the main instrument for planting the Church in various regions. The period is perhaps best closed, not by the Apostle’s death, but by the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. Our authorities for it are the narrative in Acts xiii.-xxviii. and the apostolic Epistles. In it we trace the extension of the different orders of ministers as new Churches are founded.

For the diaconate we have the evidence of the Epistle to the Philippians (a.d. 60), which shows us two orders of resident ministers existing at Philippi, iiriaKoiroi Kal BidKovoL (c. i. ver. 1). Still earlier (during S. PauFs second missionary journey), Rom. xvi. 1 shows us a woman deacon at Cenchrese ; and at a later period, after the Apostle 8 first imprisonment, 1 Tim. iiL 8 seq., bears evidence of the extension of this order to the Church of Ephesus, though it is interesting to note that in the almost contemporary Epistle to Titus there is no mention of hiuKovou It may, perhaps, be inferred from this that they were only appointed as the work grew, and the need for them was felt. In Ephesus, a Church which

had existed for some years (cf. Acts xx. 17), they were required. In the newly-founded Church in Crete the necessity for their help would not exist.

For the second order of the ministry as well the evidence during this period is full and complete. A representative passage is Acts xiv. 23: “When they had appointed for them elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.” This refers to S. Paul’s first missionary journey, but it clearly indicates a custom which he followed everywhere. Only, having once stated it, S. Luke does not concern himself with recording it in other cases. In view, however, of such passages as Acts xv. 6 (Jerusalem), xx. 17 (Ephesus), Titus i. 5 (Crete), S. James v. 14, 1 Pet. v. 1, we are justified in assuming the existence of Trpeafivrepoi everywhere as a permanent feature of ecclesiastical organisation, and Acts XX. 17 compared with ver. 28 (“he called to him the elders of the Church ” … ” the flock in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, iirldKOTroi), and Titus i. 5, 7 (” appoint elders in every city … if any man is blameless … for the bishop, eiricrKoiro^, must be blameless ”), enable us to identify the irpeafivrepoc with the iiriaKOTroi, whom we find mentioned, evidently as resident officers of the Church, in Phil. L 1 and 1 Tim. iii 1}

^ There has recently been a tendency in some quarters to deny this identity, and maintain that the offices were distinct (So R^ville, Les Origines de V Episcopal), but on quite insufficient grounds. It has not been thought necessary to enter into the questions which have been raised of late years with regard to the origin of the name iirlaKoiros, and the original character of the office, because throughout this work tJie genuine- 7USS of the whole of the New Testament is assumed, and if we admit as genuine the First Epistle of S. Peter, and the Pastoral Epistles, together with the discourse to the Ephesian cldei-s in Acts xx., it appeal’s to me simply impossible to deny that (whatever may have suggested the name, which is really of a very general and indefinite character) the office was

it]

With regard to the first order of the ministry, it is evident that a general superintendence of the affairs of the Church was exercised by the Apostles themselves. S. Paul ” went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches” (Acts xv. 41). The “apostles and elders” were gathered together to consider the question of circumcision (Acts xv. 6). Letters of apostolic counsel and direction are written by them with superior authority, and by their hands ministers are set apart. But as the years passed Churches multiplied, and the original company of the Apostles became fewer in number, it became necessary to make provision for the future. Consequently, towards the close of this period we meet with men like Timothy and Titus exercising apostolic powers, commissioned to take the general oversight of Churches, to ” set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint elders in every city” (Titus 15; cf. 1 Tim. i. 3). These men are plainly superior to the iirlaKOTroi or irpeafivrepoi over whom they exercise authority, and they are empowered to ordain others, whereas we never read of any such power being given to the elders.^ But it would seem to be inaccurate to speak of Timothy and Titus as bishops of Ephesus and Crete, for in each case the Apostle directs them to return to him when they have accomplished the work for which he left them in these places (see 2 Tim. iv. 9 ; Titus iii. 12, with which cf. 2 Tim. iv. 10, which shows that after Titus rejoined

a spiritual one from the first. The use of the name in 1 Pet. ii. 25, as applied to Christ, •* the shepherd and bishop of your souls,” is surely decisive as to this. On the theories in question reference may be made to Gore, as above.

^ It is instructive to compare the address to the Ephesian elders in Acts XX. with the apostolic charges to Timothy in the two Epistles addressed to him. While to Timothy is given the power to ordain others, together with instructions concerning the qualifications of those on whom he shall *’ lay hands,” there is no indication in the address to the elders that any such power had l)een intrusted to them.

the Apostle, instead of returning to Crete he was sent elsewhere, to Dalmatia). All that can be claimed for them is a ” moveable Episcopate ” ; ^ nor need we at this early period expect to find more. Time was required for the full ecclesiastical system to grow up into its present form ; and the diocesan system, with its territorial bishops with definite regions assigned to each, was a later growth. In the period now under consideration we find no trace of it outside Jerusalem, where, as we have seen, it existed from the beginning. But the order of bishops as chief ministers of the Church may be distinctly traced to the Apostles. Men like Timothy and Titus form the link between the later regionary bishops and the Apostles themselves. It is probable also that with them we should include the ” prophets ” of the New Testament as exercising similar powers, for not only are they mentioned in various places as occupying positions of importance, and sometimes joined very closely with the Apostles (see Acts xi. 27, xiii. 1, xv. 32, xxi. 10 ; 1 Cor. xii 28 ; Eph. ii. 20, iiL 5, iv. 11) ; but also in the Ac^axh T(ji)v ZdiheKa airoaToKoiVy while the iirlaKOTroi koX BcaKOPoi are the two orders of resident ministers (exactly as in the New Testament), aTroaroXoi, koI irpo^rfraL appear as itinerant ministers, exercising a general superintendence, and superseding the local officers from time to time.

We may, then, sum up the results of our investigations so far. At the close of the second period two orders of resident ministers (eV/o-zcoTrot orirpea-fivrepoi and hiaKovoi) are found in fully organised Churches; and superior to them are Apostles and apostolic men, who visit their Churches from time to time, set in order things that are wanting, and appoint local officers as they are needed. But so far the precedent set at

• The phrase Is due to Bishop Lightfoot.

Jerusalem has not been followed elsewhere, and beyond this Church the diocesan system is not yet in existence, (iii.) The third period lasts from the fall of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) to the close of the century and the death of the last surviving Apostle, S. John (a.d. 100). For this period our authorities are much less full than for the period immediately preceding it. But sufficient remains to enable us without any hesitation to assign to this time the change from the general to the local ministry, with the introduction of an approximation to the diocesan system, if not everywhere, at least in some of the Gentile Churches ; and since the change falls in the lifetime of S. John, there can be no doubt that it was made under his guiding influence. The proof that the change was made during these years may be put in this way. We have seen that in A.D. 70 there was no such thing as the diocesan system except in Jerusalem. At the beginning of the second century we find from the Epistles of Ignatius that this system is already in existence, and firmly planted in the Churches to which he writes.^ This necessarily throws back its origination to the first century, and to the period subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 70. There are other slight indications which confirm this, and show us the change in progress.^

• Nothing can be stronger than the language of Ignatius on the position of the bishop as superior to the presbyters, and the necessity of doing nothing without him. There is scarcely one of his Epistles in which this is not insisted on. See £^h. i. ii. iv.; Magn, ii. iiL iT. yi. yii. xiii. ; Troll, i. ii. iii. vii. ; Philad. i. iii. iv. vii. viii. ; Smym, viii. ix.

• No reference is made in the text to the ’* angels ” of the seven Churches of Asia (Rev. i.-iii.), because of the uncertainty which there is concerning the meaning of the term. If the ea/rly date of the Apocalypse be accepted, it is scarcely possible to identify the “angels” with the “bishops.” If, however, the later date be adopted, the objection against the identification falls to the ground. Cf. Lightfoot On Philipp. p. 197.

(a) The Aihaxh ratv BoiBeKa airoarokmv, which has been previously referred to, may perhaps belong to the early part of this period.^ As has been already mentioned, it bears witness to the existence of the earlier state of things with two orders of resident ministers, iirlaKoirot and BiuKovoi, and superior to them the diroa-ToXoi Kal 7rpo(f>rJTaL^

(h) The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corinthians was written about the year 96. It contains an important passage on the Christian ministry, c. xL-xliv. The passage requires to be quoted at some length. Clement starts by saying that ” we ought to do all things in order, as many as the Master hath commanded us to perform at their appointed seasons. Now the ofierings and ministrations He commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons. And where and by whom He would have them performed He Himself fixed by His supreme will: that all things being done with piety according to His good pleasure, might be acceptable to His will They, therefore, that make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed: for while they follow the institutions of the Master they cannot go wrong. For unto the high priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the Levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman’s ordinance.” ’ It would be impossible to state the general principle of ecclesiastical order more strongly

• The exact date is quite uncertain, but it would probably be correct to place it sometime between 70 and 120.

’ See c. xi. xiii. xv., and cf. Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 276 seq.

’ C. xl. The translation is Bishop Lightfoot’s, Apost. Fathers, Part I. vol. ii. p. 292. The original Greek may be seen on p. 121.

t^

than is here done by Clement ; and even if (with Bishop Lightfoot ^) we decline to press the analogy of the threefold ministry, yet still it remains true that a general comparison of the Christian ministry with that of the Jews is made, and that Clement regards the ministry as a necessary and Divine institution. Further, in the following passage, a portion of which has been already quoted under Article XXIII.,* he proceeds to state with equal clearness the principle of the succession: ” The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having, therefore, received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.^ … And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance,* that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministrations. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ … these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out

» Op. eU. p. 123. » C. xlii.

” See above, p. 678.

from the^ ministrations. For it wiU be no light sin

[…]

with an appointment from the Apostles in the S instance, and afterwards from others in a^Z. S their airangement. The nnlv r^.o-ki •

whethpr PW. / ^ possible question is

Whether Clement recognises what is caUed monarchial episcopacy as existing at Corinth TTi.. . ™°°f’cniax ” bishon ” Cm fv,. i °”°’”- -Hie own position as bhop ( n the modern sense) of the Church of Eome .8 thoroughly well established, but the passage rsfc cited shows that .W..0.0. and -.p.finl S

[…]

of Corinl h’°r P'''"" ’ ’"" ’”” ” Church l;?r , "" *’ presbyters. It is possible then that the local and diocesan system had nol as ye; been adopted at Corinth. But on the principles of eelst

[…]

be mentioned, because the narrative conta nd “in t STrefle’?” ?.’ ’ ''''''' ” such mal apoZli days V it […] ’ a estai convertible terms; but the position of ‘the bX presiding over the Church seems to be implied anT moreover the organisation of the Churches i! expressly attributed to S. John, who is said to have come Zl Patmos to Ephesus, and to have gone also when cane” to the neighbouring regions of the Gentiles ; in some to

I.

appoint bishops, in some to institute entire new Churches, in others to appoint to the ministry some one of those indicated by the Holy Ghost.” ^ This exactly fits in with what we find elsewhere; and taken together we may say that the JtSax??, the Epistle of S. Clement of Kome, and the narrative preserved by Clement of Alexandria, give us glimpses of the change that was passing over the system of the Church during the last quarter of the first century, — the change, that is, whereby the chief pastor became permanently resident as the highest officer in each Church, and the name of bishop or €7riV/co7ro9 was attached exclusively to him. The Epistles of Ignatius, as referred to above, show us the change complete : and there is no necessity to pursue the history further here.

Against the view which has here been taken, that to the Apostles and thek successors alone belonged the right of ordaining others, transmitted by them to the iirlaKOTTOL of the later Church, two passages of Scripture have sometimes been urged.^

(i.) The incident in Acts xiii. 1-3, where Paul and Barnabas are “separated for the work” by some who were not Apostles. The answer to this is twofold : first, it may be urged that if this is to be regarded as their actual ordination, it is still not an instance of Presbyterian any more than of Episc(ypal ordination ; for if bishops are not mentioned, no more are presbyters. Those who are spoken of are called ” prophets and teachers,” and, as has already been shown, the position of the prophets seems

1 Quoted in Eusebius, H. E. III. xxiii.

2 It seems unnecessary to refer further to the view sometimes urged, that as iiriaKoiroi and TrpeffPurepoi are convertible terras in the New Testament, their subsequent distinction is an invention of a later date, for the facts already summarised go to show that the “bishops” of the second century and later are the successors of the Apostles and of men like Timothy, rather than of the New Testament ixlffKoroi.

[…]

than with that of the second order of the ministry But

r ” ‘i H T,,’”’”’ -hther it was an ordination at all. Indeed, the arguments against regarding it as one sm overwhelming. To begin with both Pau and Barnabaa are included among the “prophets and teache,, and Barnabas actually heads the list Therefore whatever ministerial authority those who laid theL hands on them possessed, Paul and Barnabas already possessed the same. Moreover, S. Paul always claimed that his apostolic commission came to him direct from CW Himself and “not from men, neither through men (Gal. l 1); and though on this view there is no actual mention of the ordination of S. Barnabas, yet it is worthy of note that on a previous occasion he appl as the delegate and representative of the Church of Jerusalem, invested with powers which it may fairly be said presuppose a formal commission from the Church see Acts xi. 22, f.eVrXa. Bap.dfiau). It app then, to be practically certain that the incident narrated in Acts xiii. was no ordination, but only a setting apart of the two Apostles to the Gentiles for their special work, done according to ancient custom, with prayer and imposition of hands.

(ii) It is said that Timothy is spoken of as having been ordained ” with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery “(1 Tim. iv. 14). Yes; but if the text is referred to it will be seen that the expression employed 18 thiB, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy (8.a ,ro.r’a9), with the laying onof the hands of the presbytery ” (/er eVteWw Ta.!/ xcp<op TOO wpevr,pCov). It came to him, then primarily throvyh (Sui) prophecy, and only with the’ accompaniment of (d) the laying on of the hands of the presbyters present: and “prophecy,” it must be

i !

repeated, is closely connected with the Apostolate; besides which, in 2 Tim. i. 6 S. Paul speaks of the gift as being m Timothy ” thrmigh the laying on ” of his own hands (hia ts- iirMaem r&v x’P Z®*)’ Jy therefore, he himself took the chief part in the ordination of his disciple, and the presbyters present were probably jomed with him, as they are to this day when men are set apart for the priesthood.

We conclude, then, that the statement in the Preface to the Ordinal is strictly true, and that “from the Apostles’ times there have been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church ; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ” ; and thus the “Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons,” cannot be said to contain anything that is of itself superstitious or ungodly, because it recognises and retains the Episcopal order. Before passing on to the next objection, it may be well to add a few words concerning the mind of the Church of England on the necessity of Episcopacy. Certainly all that the actual terms of the Article now under consideration bind us to is this : that Episcopacy is not in itself superstitious or ungodly. This amounts to no more than saying that it is an cdlowdble form of Church government^ and leaves the question open whether it is the only one. This question is not decided for us elsewhere in the Articles ; for even where we might have reasonably expected some light to be thrown upon it, we are met with a remarkable silence. Thus there is no mention of Episcopacy in the Article on the Church ; and in that ” de vocatione ministrorum,” as was pointed out in the remarks upon it, there is a singular vagueness in the description of those who ” have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.” The Articles, then, leave us without any

real guidance on the question whether Episcopacy is to be regarded as necessary. Nor need we feel surprise at this, for at the time when they received their final form English Churchmen were standing on the defensive, and engaged in a severe struggle with a strong Presbyterian party, who objected to Episcopacy altogether. As against these men they were mainly concerned to defend the Episcopal form of Government as allmvable, and with this they were content.^ For the deliberate judgment of the Church of England we must look elsewhere. We find it in the Book of Common Prayer, which received its final form nearly a hundred years later than the Articles. The statements there made in the Preface to the Ordinal are conclusive as to the view taken by the Church. They may be summed up as follows : —

(L) The threefold ministry has been the rule of the Church from the Apostles’ days ; and no one has ever been allowed to exercise that ministry without a proper commission from lawful authority, (ii) It is to be continued in the Church of England. (iii) And therein no one is to be accounted a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon, without Episcopal ordination. The formal and deliberate assertion of this last fact dates from the final revision of 1662. The other two statements come down to us from the first Prayer Book

Ml

’■:<

■\

of Edward vi. (1549), and belong to a time when the question of Presbyterian orders had scarcely been seriously raised in this country. Had the question never been raised they might have been deemed sufficient. When, however, it had been raised, and attempts had been made by certain persons (as they were in Elizabeth’s reign) to minister in the Church of England without an Episcopal commission, it was well that their right to do so should be more expressly denied, and this is what is done by the addition to the Preface of the words referred to above. Thus the Church of England, as judged by her formal documents, recognises none but Episcopal orders. But even so, it is interesting to notice how she treats the subject entirely from a practical point of view, pronouncing on it, not as an abstract theological question, but only as it concerns herself. She is not called upon to judge others. But her own position she is called upon to make clear : nor does she shrink from the responsibility. She sees that Episcopacy has been the Church’s rule from the days of the Apostles. She in the providence of God has retained it, and it is her duty to hand it on without breach of continuity. It may be “charity to think well of our neighbours.” It is certainly “good divinity to look well to ourselves ” ; * and therefore she feels compelled to insist upon Episcopal ordination in every case, and can recognise no other.

(5) The formula of Ordination, — Besides objecting to Episcopacy in itself, the Puritans denounced as superstitious and imgodly the words used by the bishop in conferring the order of the priesthood : ” Receive the Holy Ghost [for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of

II

our hands].^ Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments ; in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” The words appeared to them “ridiculous and blasphemous,” and they maintained that the bishop might “as well say to the sea, when it rageth and swelleth. Peace, be quiet, as say, Receive,” etc.^ Their objections led Richard Hooker to consider the form very fully, and with his vindication of it we may well rest content. The main points in his defence of it are these : (1) The term “the Holy Ghost” is often used to signify the gifts of the Spirit as well as the Person of the Holy Ghost. (2) Authority and power for the ministry is a spiritual gift. (3) He, then, through whom the power is given may surely say, ” Receive.” (4) If our Lord, in ordaining, used the words (S. John xx. 22), why may not His ministers, seeing that the same power is now given ? (5) The use of the words teaches and acts as a constant reminder that, ” as disposers of God’s mysteries, our words, judgments, acts, and deeds are not ours, but the Holy Ghost’s.” ^

Of course, if it be held that no special spiritual power is given to Christ’s ministers, and that they are not ” sent ” by Him, as He was ” sent ” by the Father, the words may well appear not only ridiculous, but blasphemous. But by those who hold that such powers have been granted for the benefit of the Church, and transmitted in the line of the regular ministry, no serious

• The words in brackets were only added in 1662. They were therefore, as a matter of fact, not before the Puritans of Elizabeth’s reign.

=• Admonition to Parliament, and “T.C.” quoted in Hooker, Y. Ixxvii. 5.

! *\

difficulty can be raised concerning the use of this particular imperative form of words, although it cannot be considered as essential, since it is of comparatively late introduction into the Church, not being found in the older Pontificals and Ordination Services.^

II. The Objections of the Romanists.

The Eoman objections to the validity of Anglican orders have been singularly varied; those which at one time were most confidently relied on being at another quietly discarded in favour of fresh ones which a diligent search had been able to discover. They may be divided into two classes : (a) historical difficulties as to the succession; and {h) alleged insufficiency of the form, and lack of “intention.” Apparently at the present time the tendency is to rely exclusively on the latter. But the former have been urged with such persistency that it is necessary to recapitulate them here, and give a brief outline of the answer returned to them.

(a) Historical difficulties as to the succession. — Shortly after the accession of Elizabeth, objections were taken by the Eomanists to the legal status of the newly-consecrated bishops, partly in consequence of the fact that at Parker’s consecration it had been found impossible to comply with the terms of an Act of Parliament of Henry viii.’s reign, requiring a metropolitan to be consecrated by an archbishop and two bishops, or else by four bishops in the occupation of sees ; 2 partly because the Act of Mary’s reign which repealed the Prayer Book had mentioned

[…]

the Ordmal separately, whereas Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, which brought back the legal use of the Prayer Book, had not done so.^ All such objections were however, disposed of by Act of Parliament in 1566,— an Act which is only referred to here because It has sometimes been alleged as if it involved a practical confession of the invalidity of our orders. More serious are the aUegations subsequently raised, that the succession of bishops really failed at the commencement of Elizabeths reign. Shortly after her accession no fewer than ten of the twenty-seven sees were vacant by death, including Canterbury, and as fifteen bishops had been deprived, it is natural that this should appear the weakest point in the chain of our succession. Accordingly Roman controversiaHsts have strained their energies to the utmost to prove that the cham was broken, and that Parker, through whom the great majority of subsequent English bishops have derived their orders ^ was never vaUdly consecrated. It is, however, a’ very remarkable fact that no such objection was ever heard of during his lifetime. The earliest rumour of it appears in 1604, forty-five years after Parker’s consecration, and twenty.five after his death. In this year the notorious JVags Head fable” was set afloat by an exiled Eoman pnest named Holywood, who asserted that Parker had been « consecrated ” by a mock ceremony at the Nag’s Head tavern. The story is so palpably ridiculous, and Its falsehood so glaring, that it is now almost universally discredited,* and Eomans themselves have been forced to

• Denny and Lacey, ubi mpra. 2 g jj^j^ c 1

sionlllTo ’*’ however be remembered that the Itelian and Irish snccessions also met m Laud, and that, therefore, the validity of our orders is not really entirely dependent on the due consecration of Parker See Denny and Lacey, p. 6, and Appendix I.

[…]

admit that ” it is so absurd on the face of it that it has led to the suspicion of Catholic theologians not being sincere in the objections they make to Anglican orders.” ^ In refutation of it, it may be sufficient to point out the

following facts : —

(1) According to the original author of the story, it merely rested on hearsay, for Holywood asserted in 1604 that he had heard it from one Neal, one of Bonner’s chaplains, who had died in 1590.

(2) As Fuller quaintly puts it, ” rich men do not steal.” There was no possible reason for Parker to submit to such a ceremony. He was a man with a clear head, well aware of the difficulties of his position, and no possible motive can be suggested why he should have consented to be a party to such a transaction.

(3) There is abundant contemporary evidence of his consecration in due form in diocesan registers, in contemporary letters, in Machyn’s Diary, in the diary of Parker himself, and in a MS. memorandum in the handwriting of his own son.

(4) The official records in the Registry of Canterbury, and MSS. given by Parker himself to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, attest his consecration in due form at Lambeth (December 17, 1559) by Barlow (previously Bishop of Bath and Wells, and at that time elect to Chichester), assisted by Scory (late of Chichester), Coverdale (late of Exeter), and Hodgkins (suffragan of Bedford).^

The lie, for it is nothing else, concerning the mock ceremony at the Nag’s Head was nailed to the counter when it first appeared, and, finding that it was hopelessly

a For the full refutation of the story reference may be made to Lingard, vol. vi. note DD ; Haddan’s Apostolical Succession in the Church of England, p. 180 seq. ; and Denny and Lacey, p. 211 seq.

discredited, Roman Catholic controversialists very soon changed their ground, and in 1616 impugned the validity of Parker’s consecration by raising the question whether Barlow, the principal consecrator, had ever been himself consecrated. The facts with regard to Barlow are these. He was nominated first to the see of S. Asaph in Henry viiI’s reign as early as 1536. In the same year to S. David’s. In 1547 he was translated to Bath and Wells. In Mary’s reign he was deprived, and at EUzabeth’s accession appointed to Chichester. There are several documents which speak of his ” election ” and ” confirmation.” But the registers make no mention of his consecration ; and consequently it has been asserted that Bariow, whose views of the Episcopal office were certainly somewhat lax, had never submitted to it, and therefore was never really a bishop at all. Now, it must be noticed that even if Barlow had never been really consecrated, it would not affect the validity of Parker’s consecration, and therefore of orders derived through him, because we are expressly told that all the four bishops said the words of consecration and laid their hands on Parker’s head.^ But, as a matter of fact, there IS really no sort of reason for questioning Bariow’s due consecration. Once more a bare summary of the argument is all that can here be given.

(1) The registrar during Cranmer’s Episcopate has omitted eight other consecrations (which have never been doubted) out of a total of forty-five ; and the records of consecrations have been omitted or lost in other Archiepiscopates as well, in particular in Warham’s just before, and Pole’s just after Cranmer’s. These facts show that the registers were very carelessly kept, and that therefore no stress can be laid on the absence of the registration in Barlow’s case.

’ n

(2) By law, consecration was to follow confirmation within twenty days, under penalty of praemunire. For what possible reason could Barlow have subjected himself to the risk of incurring such a penalty ?

(3) There is abundant evidence that he was regarded as a bishop by his contemporaries ; even Gardiner styles him ” bishop,” and his ” brother of S. David’s.”

(4) He acted in various ways which of necessity presuppose consecration, e.g, he sat in the House of Lords and the Upper House of Convocation, assisted at the consecration of other bishops, and administered his diocese for years without a single person demurring to his jurisdiction.

(5) Not the smallest doubt was thrown upon his consecration until forty-eight years after his death (1616), when the Nag’s Head fable had broken down.^

These are the only instances in which it has been possible for the most vigilant eyes to detect any possibility of doubting the succession of Anglican orders ; and the attack seems only to have brought out the strength of our case. In the latest Koman Catholic utterance this seems tacitly admitted, for all such objections, which for more than two centuries and a half had been so persistently urged, are quietly ignored. Not a word is said of them in the Papal Bull, ApostoliccB Gurce (1896); and we may therefore hope that we have heard the last of them. There remains the second class of objections previously referred, on which the whole case against our orders appears to be based at present, viz. —

(h) Alleged insufficiency of form, and lack of ” intention.”

In regard to the ” form ” of ordination, the grounds of complaint have varied from time to time. At one time it was asserted that Anglican orders were invalid because

of the disuse of the ceremony of the porrectio instrument torum, or delivery of the sacred vessels to all who are consecrated to the priesthood.^ It is well known that Pope Eugenius iv., in his decree to the Armenians (1439), made the “form” of the Sacrament of Orders consist in this ceremony ; 2 and if the Pope was right in this, there can be no question that not only Anglican orders are invalid, but also the orders of the whole Church, for it is absolutely certain that this ceremony did not exist tUl after many centuries of Christianity had elapsed. This is abundantly proved by Morinus, who shows that the ceremony is wanting in all the older ordination services of the Church; 3 and consequently the objection at the present day takes a somewhat different shape. It is no longer said that the ceremony in itself is essential; but that the form is inadequate and insufficient because everything which implies the sacerdotium, and the power of offering sacrifice, has been eUminated from the rite. The special omissions which are said to establish this are two. Firstly, from 1550 up to the last revision of the Ordinal in 1662 there was no special mention in the formula of ordination of the office for which the aid of the Holy Ghost was sought. The form was simply this : ” Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins thou dost forgive,” etc. ; and for the consecration of a bishop : « Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by

• In the first reformed English Ordinal the ceremony was retained, though the words referring to the power of sacrificing were omitted! “The bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in the one hand, and the chalice or cup loUh the bread in the other hand, and say : Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and.to minister the holy sacrament in this congregation.” The words placed in italics were, however, entirely omitted in 1552.

’)

’\

imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and love, and of soberness.” Not till 1662 were the words “for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands,” and the corresponding words in the consecration of a bishop, ” for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee,” etc., inserted. Secondly, when the English Ordinal was put forth in 1550, the words which definitely speak of the power of sacrificing were dropped : ” Accipe potestatem offere sacrificium Deo tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis.” It is said that these omissions involve an entire change in the whole conception of orders, and thus invalidate the form. In answer to this, it may be pointed out that the words omitted are confessedly of late introduction, and therefore cannot be regarded as essential.^ What was done in 1550 was to revert to a scriptural formula in each case^ and to say that to do this invalidates the form is to prove too much. In the case of priests, the form used is the very one used by our Lord Himself, and therefore must be sufficient to confer whatever powers were conferred by it in the first instance ; and we ask to confer no more. In the case of bishops, the words of S. Paul referring to the consecration of Timothy (2 Tim. i. 7) are employed, and the whole context makes it perfectly clear that it is for the office and work of a bishop that the gift of the Holy Ghost is sought. Moreover, in this case the corresponding form in the Latin Pontifical is equally indeterminate, as there, too, there is no specific mention of the office and work of a bishop. Further, with regard to the omission of the words which confer the power of sacrificing, it must be remembered that the formula of ordination as used in the Church of England includes,

and has always included, a commission to minister the sacraments ; and this must necessarily include a commission to “offer” the Eucharistic sacrifice, in whatever sense the Eucharist be a sacrifice. It has been truly said that ” the sacrifice of the Eucharist is not something superadded to the sacrament. It cannot be more than is included in * Do this in remembrance of me.’ Whatever it is or is not, it cannot be more than is covered by * the perpetual memory of that His precious death until His coming again.’ In conferring the authority to celebrate the Eucharist, the Church cannot help conferring the power of sacrifice, even if she would.” i But as was shown under Article XXXL, there is not the’ slightest ground for thinking that the Church of England ever wished to deny the Eucharistic sacrifice when rightly understood. « The Sacrifices of Masses,” as often taught in the sixteenth century, she was rightly concerned to deny. And in her desire to repudiate what was false and heretical, it may be that she went further than was necessary in omitting reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice. But this is the utmost that can be fairly said ; and it is a simple matter of fact that the commission to offer the Eucharist must be included in the ” authority … to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation,” which is given to every Anglican priest at the time of his ordination.

There remains the objection that our orders are invalid through lack of ” intention.” It has been said that ” the Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is by its nature internal ; but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concerning it. When any one has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament, he is considered by the

J •

very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.” ^ This utterance of the highest authority in the Roman Church relieves us from the necessity of considering the private opinions of Barlow or Cranmer, or any others. If the due form be rightly and seriously made use of, that is all that is required. A parody or unseemly jest would not be a valid sacrament, even if the proper matter and form of words were used, because the lack of intention would be ” externally manifest ” ; but where the ceremony is performed as a Church ceremony, there the intention of the Church is present, even if the minister be himself heretical. As Hooker puts it : ” Inasmuch as sacraments are actions religious and mystical, which nature they have not unless they proceed from a serious meaning, and what every man’s private mind is, as we cannot know, so neither are we bound to examine ; therefore in these cases the known intent of the Church generally doth suffice, and where the contrary is not manifest, we may presume that he which outwardly doth the work hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God.” 2

That then with which we are concerned is not the ” private mind ” of any of the Reformers, but the form of the rite as expressing the mind of the Church of England; and if it could be proved that the rite was changed “with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament,’ then,

• The Papal Bull, Apostoliece Curas.

[…]

indeed it might be fairly held that defect of intention was established. But. as a matter of fact, the Church of England has been particularly careful to express her mtention, and to make it perfectly clear that it was no new rite which she introduced in the sixteenth century but that hr intention was to continue the arwient orders of bishops, prusts, and deaons, which had eome to her from the days of th Apostles themselves. In witness to this, appeal may be made to the Preface, which since 1550 has stood m the forefront of the Ordinal.* It is there stated that It IS evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scnp ure, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles’ time there hath been these orders of ministers in Christ’s Church— bishops, priests, and deacons, which offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation, that no man by his own private authority might presume to execute any of them except he were first caUed, tried, examined and known to have such qualities as were requisite for the same ; and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, approved and admitted thereunto. And therefore to th inient these orders should he contimied, and reverentlv used and esteemed in the Church of England, it is requisite that no man (not being at this present bishop, priest nor deacon) shall execute any of them, except he be called tried, examined, and admitted, according to the form hereafter following.” It is hard to concdve what more could be asked for. since it would be difficult to rame words which should express with greater clearness that the mtention of the Church was not to make a new ministry but to continue that which already existed. But If further proof of the mind of the Church be demanded, it may be found not only in the form of

’ A few VCTbal changes were introduced in 1662, as mar be seen bv companng the Preface as it stMids in a modem Player Book ^th the form here given in the text. ®

■I’

\i

III! I

service used which throughout speaks of ” priests ” and ” bishops,” but also in the fact that the Church of England recognises the priesthood of the Church of Rome ; and while she takes the utmost care to guard her altars from unauthorised ministrations, yet whenever a Roman priest joins the Anglican Communion, he is recognised as a priest at once, and is in virtue of his ordination in the Church of Rome admitted to celebrate the sacraments. This could not be, unless the office were intended to be the same as that which he had already received. We conclude, then, that the objection on the score of defect of intention fails, as the other objections previously enumerated have failed; and that there is nothing to make us feel a shadow of doubt as to the validity of our orders, or as to the statement of the Article, that

the Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of priests and deacons … doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering … and therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book … all such [are] rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.^

• It has been impossible in the space available to give more than the briefest outline of the objections that have been raised against the validity of Anglican Orders, and of the answers returned to them. Fuller information must be sought in some of the many excellent treatises which exist upon the subject. Among older books, A. W. Haddan’s Apostolical Siteeession in the Church of Bngland may be mentioned ; and reference should also be made to Denny and Lacey, De Hierarchia Anglicana^ which brings the subject fully up to date, and considers the objections in the latest form in which they have been presented. See also TIu Bull Apostolica Curse and the Edwardine Ordinal, by F. W. Puller ; and for the practice of the Roman Church as to the reordination in Mary’s reign of those who had been ordained according to the Edwardian Ordinal, see W. H. Frere, The Marian Reaction in its relation to the English Clergy,

Notes

• Of these the most important is tlie supposed exceptional constitution of the Alexandrian Church, on which see Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 134 seq, ; and for supposed ordinations by presbyters in East and West, ib. p. 374.
• ‘Eiri/AOKi^y, see the note on p. 578.
• It is possible to see indications of a change of view in Hooker. In Book III., though he maintains that government by bishops **best agreeth with the Sacred Scripture ” (xi. § 16), yet he does not press for it as necessary. In Book VII. c. xiv., a much stronger position appears to be maintained by him. A strong position is also taken up in Bishop Bilson’s Perpetual O&vemnumt of Christ’s Church, published in 1593 ; and Bishop Hall, in Episcopacy by Divim Right (1639), directly maintains that Episcopacy … is not only an holy and lawful, but a Divine institution, and therefore cannot be abdicated without a manifest violation of God’s ordinance. Works^ vol ix. p. 160.
• Archbishop Bramhall. So Thorndike “neither justifies nor condemns ” the orders of the foreign Protestants. See Haddan’s Apostolical Succession^ p. 168 seq.
• Hooker, Eccl. Polity, Bk. V. c. Ixxvii.
• 25 Henr. viii. c. 20. See the account of Bonner’s objections to Horn’s jurisdiction in Strype, Annals, i. p. 377 ; and cf. Denny and Lacey, Uc ffierarehia Anjlicana, p. 9.
• Estcourt, The Questum of Anglican Ordinations discussed^ p. 164.
• Cf. Brightman in Church Hvtforical Society Lecturer, vol. i. p. 171.
• See Denny and Lacey, p. 26 aeq.
• Labbe, Concilia, vol. ix. p. 434.
• Morinus, De Ordination. Pars III. exercit. vii.; cf. Denny and Lacey p. 107.
• See further, Denny and Lacey, p. 72 9eq»
• Brightnian in Church Historical Society Lectures, vol. i. p. 189.