Green on Article XXXVI: Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers

maner and fourme of praiying, and ministring the Sacramentes in the Churche of Englande, likewise also the booke of ordring Ministers of the Churche, set foorth by the forsaied aucthoritie, are godlie, and in no poincte repugnaunt to the holsome doctrine of the Gospel but agreable thereunto, ferthering and beautifying the same not a litle, and therfore of al faithfull membres of the Churche of Eng¬ lande, and chieflie of the ministers of the worde, thei ought to be receiued, and allowed with all readinesse of minde, and thankes geuing, and to bee commended to the people of God.

menta administrandi in Ecclesia Anglicana : similiter et libellus eadem authoritate editus de ordina- tione ministrorum Ecclesiae, quoad doctrinae veritatem, pii sunt, et salutari doctrjnae Evangelii in nullo repugnant sed congruunt, et ean- dem non parum promovent et il- lustrant, atque ideo ab omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae fidelibus mem- bris, et maxime a ministris verbi cum omni promptitudine animorum et gratiarum actione, recipiendi, approbandi, et populo Dei commen- dandi sunt.

§ 2 .—OBJECT.

To defend the validity of English Orders, and the Ordinal itself, against objections on the part both of Romanists and Puritans.

§ 3. — EXPOSITION.

( 1 .) The Ordinal (of 1550) contains all things necessary.

The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Order¬ ing of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by autho¬ rity of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering.

Roman Catholics deny the validity of English Orders. The grounds upon which this denial has been given at various times are : —

(a) That there is a break in the continuity of English Orders because the Elizabethan bishops were not properly conse¬ crated (The Nag’s Head Fable).

(b) That Parker’s consecration was invalid because Barlow, his chief consecrator, had never received consecration.

(c) That the succession was broken owing to the fact that the consecrators of Parker were “vacant” bishops; i.e., without jurisdiction.

These grounds are now by educated and candid Roman Catholics for the most part given up as untenable.1 (< d ) If, therefore, English Orders are invalid, it must be be¬ cause there is something wanting in the Ordinal itself. Upon this point the whole question now turns. It is admitted on all hands that English Orders were valid up to the year 1550* If they have been invalid since that date, it must be because some necessary thing was omitted in the Ordinal of 1550.

In order to investigate this matter the Ordinal of 1550 must compared with the Pontifical which it superseded : —

(i.) In the Ordinal the forms for admission to the Minor Orders disappear.

In Anglo-Saxon times five Minor Orders were recog¬ nised : (1) Ostiarius, (2) Lector, (3) Exorcist, (4) Acolyte, (5) Subdeacon. But before the Reformation these had long practically ceased to exist, although such Orders were

With regard to —

(a) The Nag’s Head Fable.

This is rejected by Conrayer (“ Dissertation snr la Validity des Ordina¬ tions des Anglois.” Published 1723) and by Lingard (vol. vi., Appendix, pp. 670, 671) as unworthy of credit. It originated at Antwerp, forty-five years after the event, with an exiled priest named Holywood.

(0 Barlow’s Consecration.

This is denied because there is no record of it. But the same argument might be used with regard to the consecration of many other bishops of the period ; e.g., Gardiner and Lee (Archbishop of York). “Did any one call in question the consecration of those bishops on that account? Why should we doubt the consecration of Barlow and not that of Gardiner? I fear the only reason is this — Gardiner did not consecrate Parker, and Barlow did” (Lingard, quoted in Hook’s “Parker,” p. 241, note). In answer to the argument ex silentio, it should be remembered that Barlow officiated as a bishop in the reign of Henry VIII. at the consecration of Skip (November 23, 1539), and of Bulkeley (February 19, 1542), and that he was treated as a bishop by Queen Mary’s Commissioners, and deprived as such (Bailey’s “Defence of Holy Orders in the English Church,” pp. 39-41). At the same time it should also be noted that, even if Barlow was never consecrated, this would not invalidate Parker’s consecration, because there is no doubt with respect to the consecration of the other three bishops present, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins.

(c) Lack of jurisdiction of Parker’s consecrators.

Parker’s consecrators were bishops by consecration, and were already also bishops elect to sees which had been vacated by death. Thus there was no intrusion, and the mere fact that they had not “ potestas jurisdic- tionis” (since there was no Archbishop to confirm them in the sees to which they had been elected) could not, on any principle, invalidate their “ potestas ordinis .”

still taken at the universities, perhaps with the very un¬ worthy object in view, that those who took them might be able to plead “ benefit of clergy

In the Ordinal of 1550 the Church thus provided for the continuance of those Orders only which, in the light of history, it deemed permanent.

(ii.) On comparing the Ordination of Deacons with the cor¬ responding portion of the Salisbury Pontifical, two points of difference only appear : —

(a) The characteristic vestments of a deacon (the stole and dalmatic) are no longer delivered to the person ordained.

(b) Deacons are not compared in the Ordinal to the Levites of the Old Testament.

So far it will be generally admitted that nothing essential was omitted in the Ordinal. We come to a difficulty, however, when we ask, ‘ What are the essentials of Priestly Ordination ? * To this question somewhat varying answers have been given : —

(ct) It is obvious that any acts or words used in conferring Orders which are not universal cannot be held to be essen¬ tial. The only essentials, therefore, to valid Ordination are the laying on of hands and prayer, since these alone have been used by the whole Church from the beginning (Acts vi. 6, xiii. 3 ; 1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6).

(b) There is the view that the “ traditio instrumentorum ” is necessary to a true Ordination. To this the Schoolmen incline, but the custom cannot be traced farther back than the tenth century, and did not obtain in England until the eleventh ; moreover, it has never in the Eastern Church formed a part of the Ordination ceremony.1 The omission of the “ traditio instrumentorum ” cannot, therefore, be held to invalidate English Orders.2

1 Pope Eugenius IV. (1431-1447) lays it down in his Epistle to the Arme¬ mans that the “ traditio instrumentorum ” is necessary to valid ordination. It is, however, remarkable that under the same Pope the COUNCIL OF Florence (a continuation of that of Basle — 1430 — and recognised as oecumenical by the Eastern Church) acknowledged the validity of Orders in the Greek Church, which had always been conferred without the delivery of the chalice and paten.

2 In the former Ordinal, incorporated with the Prayer Book of 1549, the “ traditio instrumentorum ” had been retained : —

“ The Bisshop shall deliuer to euery one of them, the Bible in the one hande, and the Chalice or cuppe with the breade, in the other hande, and saying,” …

(c) It has sometimes been urged that the recital of the words “Receive the Holy G-host” is essential to a true ordination.1 This form of words has been retained in the English Ordinal ; yet, since it cannot be traced back earlier than the twelfth century, it cannot be maintained that its use is essential.

( d ) It is sometimes objected by Roman Catholic controver¬ sialists that “ intention ” was lacking in the Bishops of the English Church at the Reformation period, and that there¬ fore the Orders conferred by them are invalid. But surely the Preface to the Ordinal may be taken as testifying to the right intention of the English Church at that time. It should be noted, too, that this very objection seems to imply that, as far as the actual forms and wording of Edward’s Ordinal are concerned, English Orders might be valid.

It thus appears that, viewing the matter historically, the only absolute essentials for true Ordination are laying on of hands and prayer. Nothing essential, therefore, was omitted in the Ordinal of 1 5 50.

With respect to the Form of Consecrating Bishops, it is some¬ times objected by Roman Catholics that the Form of 1550 is invalid because it is not specified at the time of the imposition of hands what the intention of the rite is, there being no mention of the office of a bishop. It is also urged that the addition made in 1661 to the form of words used at the imposition of hands is tantamount to an admission that the previous form is invalid.2 In answer to this objection it may be observed : —

1 This is Bellarmine’s view. Cf. Council of Trent (Session XXIII.) : —

[…]

Note that the Council does not declare the use of the words “ Accipe Spiri¬ tum sanctum ” to he essential, hut merely anathematises those who say that the form referred to is useless.

2 In the Ordinal of 1550 the form of words to be used at the imposition of hands runs thus : —

“ Take the holy goste, and remember that thou stirre up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposicion of handes : for god hath not geuen us the spirite of feare, but of powere, and loue, and of sobernesse.”

This wording remained unchanged in 1559, but in 1661 it was altered to its present form : —

“Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands ; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee by this Imposition of our hands : for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness.”

(i.) That the intention of the rite is clearly specified in the Prayer used previously in the service on behalf of the person to be consecrated : —

“ Mercifully behold this thy servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop.”

(ii.) That in the Pontifical of Pope Clement VIII. (1595) the only words used at the imposition of hands are, “ Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.”

(2.) The Ordinal contains nothing superstitious or ungodly.

Neither hath it anything, that of itself is superstitious or ungodly.

Two points in the Ordinal gave great offence to the party which sympathised with the Swiss school of Continental Reformers : —

(a) The use of the words, “Receive the Holy Ghost f which are said, at the imposition of hands, to each one ordained priest, or consecrated bishop. Against the use of this form it was objected that God alone, and not man, can confer the Holy Spirit.

The words in question are taken from our Lord’s Com¬ mission to the Apostles after His Resurrection (S. John xx. 22). As used in the Ordinal they are a prayer, but of a very special kind, for we know that it is God’s will to answer it by accompanying the outward sign of imposition of hands with a special gift of His Spirit. The words are therefore said in sure confidence that the gift accompanies the outward sign. We have, moreover, examples recorded in Scripture of spiritual gifts being conferred instrumental^ by man, acting under Divine authority ( e.g ., Deut. xxxiv. 9 ; Acts viii. 1 7, xix. 6 ; 2 Tim. i. 6).

(b) Against the use of the words, “ Whose sins thou dost forgive ,” &c., it was objected that God alone can forgive sins.

The Article defends the Ordinal from the charge of super¬ stition or ungodliness, the Church of England teaching that at Ordination the Priest receives a special gift of the Holy Ghost for his office and ministry, and also the commission to absolve in Christ’s Name. (See Notes on Article XXV., under the head of cc Penance,” pp. 190, 191.)

(3.) Those ordained or consecrated according to the Ordinal are rightly ordained and consecrated.

And therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the afore¬ named 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.

What is here stated follows of course from the first point laid down in the Article, viz., that the Ordinal con¬ tains all things necessary to a valid Consecration and Ordination. The reason why the of those ordained according to the Ordinal (of 1550) is so emphatically insisted on in the present Article is this : — When the Prayer Book was repealed in Mary’s reign, the Act mentioned the Ordinal by name as also repealed. O11 the accession of Elizabeth, when the Prayer Book was restored the Ordinal was not specified by name, it being understood to form part of the Prayer Book; but, on the ground of the omission to mention the Ordinal by name, Bonner, and others of his party, argued That all Ordi¬ nations since 1559 were in the eye of the law defective. Hence the necessity of maintaining, as in this Article, that those ordained or consecrated according to the Edwardine form were “ rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.”

validity of the Orders

2 p