Maclear and Williams on Article XXXVI: Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers

i. The present Title of the XXXVIth Article varies considerably from that in the original draft. In 1553 it ran, ” Of the booke of Praiers, and Ceremonies of the Churche of Englande1.” Thus it covered the whole Prayer- Book. But in 1 563 the part of the Article relating to the Prayer-Book itself was omitted2, and it was restricted to the Ordinal or the “Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.”

ii. The Ordinal. On Jan. 31, 1550, six prelates and six other men of the realm, ” learned in God’s law,” were

1 Or as it ran in Latin, ” De I.ibro 2 It was incorporated with the Pre-

Pr.-ecationum et c.-eremoniarum Ec- face to the Prayer-Book. clesix Anglicans:.”

appointed to prepare an Ordinal as a companion to the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI.1, and this with a few changes was added to the revised Prayer-Book of 1552. The Ordinal, thus drawn up, was again revised by Convoca- tion in 166 12, and has ever since been retained in the Church of England.

iii. Object. It was to confirm the authority of this Ordinal that the present Article was inserted by the Con- vocation of 1562 in place of the old XXXVth Article, which covered the whole Prayer-Book. The intention of those who drew it up was to confute the views of two opposite parties: — (a) the Mediaevalists, who objected to the Ordinal on the ground that it lacked some, as they supposed, essential ceremonies ; (/3) the extreme Reformers, who took grave exception to it as containing some super- stitious forms and phrases.

iv. Analysis. As against the first class of objectors the Article asserts that

(a) The Ordinal set forth in the reign of Edward VI. contains all things necessary to both ” Con- secration and Ordering ” ;

(j8) As against the second it affirms that it contains nothing ” that of itself is superstitious and un- godly” ;

(7) It concludes by stating clearly and explicitly that “all such are rightly, orderly, and law- fully consecrated and ordered,” who either have been or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of this Book3.

v. The First Objection to the validity of our Orders on the part of Roman divines is founded on an alleged flaw in their derivation. They are derived through Matthew Parker1, who was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury on Sunday, December 17, 1559. He was consecrated ac- cording to the Ordinal of the Church of England in the chapel of Lambeth Palace by William Barlow, who was Bishop of Bath and Wells before Mary’s accession, and was then Bishop-elect of Chichester ; by John Scory, formerly Bishop of Chichester, then Bishop-elect of Hereford ; by Miles Coverdale, formerly Bishop of Exeter2; and by John Hodgkyns3, Bishop suffragan of Bedford. A story, invented some fifty years later, endeavoured to throw discredit on Parker’s consecration by representing that it took place in a tavern in a ludicrous manner4. But no historical fact is more certain than the due and orderly performance of the

its ritual deformities, the Prayer-Book was ” full of corruptions,” that in the Ordinal there was one paragraph, which they never hesitated to condemn as ” manifest blasphemy,” and some, for this reason, steadily refused to sign the Articles in 1571, when called into the presence of the High Commission- ers.” Hardwick, Hist. Art., p. 206.

1 He had been chaplain to Eliza- beth’s mother and her father, and in king Edward’s time, Dean of Lincoln. The queen had an especial affection for him, and he was held in high esteem by her leading ministers.

2 Scory and Coverdale were con- secrated at Croydon on Aug. 30, 1551, by Cranmer of Canterbury, Ridley of London, and Hodgkyns, Bishop suf- fragan of Bedford.

3 Hodgkyns was consecrated on Dec. 9, 1537, according to the Sarum Pontifical by Stokesley, Bishop of London, Hilsey, Bishop of Rochester, and Wharton, Bishop of S. Asaph.

• “The ‘Nag’s Head’ fable was not alleged till the beginning of the seventeenth century, and even Canon

Estcourt allows that it is very un- fortunate it was ever seriously put forward ; for 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.” Estcourt, Question of Anglican Ordinations discussed, p. 154. “When the fiction was put for- ward the aged Earl of Nottingham, who (then being 23 years of age) had been, as a connection of Parker’s, present at the actual consecration in Lambeth Chapel, when the story was told at the Privy Council, declared it to be false, and referred in confirmation of this statement to the account which had been drawn up at the time and given by the Archbishop to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. The king thereupon sent for it, and it was found to corroborate the earl’s state- ment. The chaplain to the earl’s son also declared that his father had often heard from the old earl the same account of the consecration.” See Burnet’s History of the Reformation, vol. v. p. 553.

ceremony in the chapel of Lambeth Palace. Then it is objected that the evidence is insufficient to show that Bishop Barlow, who acted as the head of the Commission for consecrating Parker, was himself consecrated. This, however, would not amount to an insuperable defect, even if it were true, for all the Bishops laid their hands on Parker, and all repeated the zvords1 , and thus each performed the complete act of consecration. But, in point of fact, there is no valid ground for doubting the fact of Barlow’s consecration. It is true that the record of it is absent from the Lambeth register. But this register was care- lessly kept, and is acknowledged to be incomplete2. It lacks the record of the consecration of Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and Stokesley, Bishop of London, who were consecrated in the reign of Henry VIII., and of some six or seven prelates, who are known to have been consecrated during Cranmer’s primacy. The omission, therefore, of Barlow’s name in the record may be regretted, but it is no real defect as regards his consecration, and when it is con- sidered that Parker was elected by the Chapter of Canter- bury, and confirmed without opposition at Bow Church3; that he was consecrated by four bishops, all of whom laid their hands upon him ; that no official or formal protest was made at the time against his consecration ; that no rival claimant to the See was put forward4 ; and that for

eleven1 years the Roman Catholics in England did not formally withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Anglican Episcopate, it is difficult to see how any really valid objec- tion can be made to the claim of Parker to have been rightly and duly consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury2.

vi. The Second Objection is to the form and matter of Anglican Ordinations as lacking certain essential cere- monies. The essence, we are told, of valid Ordination, the necessary form and matter, includes at the consecra- tion of a Bishop the delivery to him of the pastoral staff and ring, and at the Ordination of a Priest, the handing to him of the chalice and paten with the words, ” Receive the power to offer sacrifice.” This omission, it is urged, vitiates the Anglican Ordinal. But it may be replied with- out fear of contradiction that the delivery of the pastoral staff and ring to a Bishop cannot be traced back further than the eighth century, and the porrection, as it is called, to the Priest of the sacred vessels3 was unknown to the

and was admitted to the temporalities of his See on March i\ by Royal letters after homage had been made to the queen in the usual manner. See Patents, 2 Eliz. p. 14; Strypc, Parker, Bk. ii. ch. i.

2 “When,” writes Dr Lingard, “we find Barlow during ten years, the re- mainder of Henry’s reign, constantly associated, as a brother, with the other consecrated Bishops, discharg-

ing with them all the duties, both spiritual and secular, of a consecrated Bishop, summoned equally with them to Parliament and Convocation, tak- ing his seat among them, according to seniority, and voting on all subjects as one of them ; it seems most un- reasonable to suppose, without direct proof, that he had never received that sacred rite, without which, according to the laws of both Church and State, he could not have become a member of the episcopal body. ” See Lingard, History of England, vol. vi., pp. 329, Appendix ; Dalbus, Les Ordinations Anglicanes, p. 18. “The result of my investigation,” says Dr Dollinger, “is that I have no manner of doubt as to the validity of the Episcopal succession in the English Church.” Bonn Conference 1874, p. 51.

3 The delivery of the paten cum oblatis and the calix cum vino followed the chrism, or the anointing of the

Western Church for a thousand years, and is still un- known to the Eastern Church1. If, therefore, these ceremonies constitute “the essential matter and form of orders,” all the Ordinations of the first thousand years and all those of the Eastern Church also are vitiated. The argument, therefore, from omission proves too much, and it is certain that the further back we go, the simpler do we find all the forms of ordination in all parts of the world, while the real essentials of ordination in Apostolic times were (1) imposition of hands2 and (2) prayer3.

vii. A Third Objection is that, if the laying on of hands is sufficient matter, the words ” Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” without specification of the office of Bishop or Priest, do not constitute a sufficient formula for the validity of the Consecration or Ordination. But neither Scripture nor the Church has prescribed any particular form of words to be used on such occasions, and the introduction of the phrase “for the Office and Work of a Bishop,” in the

hands of the priest. The chrism, however, was not in general use till the 9th century, and there is no men- tion of the porrection of the sacred vessels in the oldest Ordinals. See Smith’s Diet. Christian Antiquities, P- 5T5 ; Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 68, note. The delivery of the chalice and paten and pastoral staff was retained in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI., but laid aside in that of 1552.

2 See 1 Tim. iv. 14, and 2 Tim. i. 6. Even Uellarmine allows that the

M.

imposition of hands is the essential part of Ordination, and he cites the decree of the Council of Trent, Sess. iv., c. 3, concerning Extreme Unction, where it says that the minister of ex- treme unction is a Bishop or Priest duly ordained per /nanus impositionem. De Hierarchia Anglieana, p. 64.

service for the consecration of Bishops, and of the phrase “for the Office and Work of a Priest” in that for the order- ing of Priests, which took effect in 1661, removes any objec- tion, at all events, to our present Ordinal. Moreover the form of ordination does not consist merely in the words of consecration1. The whole service forms part of it, and the other prayers, which occur therein, distinctly determine the meaning of the action. Furthermore it is to be noticed that the Bishops consecrated according to the Ordinal as it was in the reign of Elizabeth, were in no worse case than were their predecessors. In none of the English Pontificals, except that of Exeter, is there any determining word at the time of the imposition of hands, and the occurrence in the English Ordinal of the charge of S. Paul to Timothy as Bishop (1 Tim. iii. 1 — 6), shews that it was in the minds of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker to confer on him the authority of a Bishop.

viii. A Fourth Objection urged that admitting the imposition of hands and prayer to be sufficient matter and form, the English forms of ordination do not confer the power of offering sacrifice, and are therefore null. But the offering of sacrifice is not, strictly speaking, the chief end of the Christian Ministry. When S. Paul has occasion to dwell on the end of the Christian Ministry, he says, Christ gave some to be Apostles; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers ; for tJie perfecting of the saints, nnto the work of ministering, unto

the building up of the body of Christ, until we all attain

unto the measure of the stature of tJie fulness of Christ* (Eph. iv. 11 — 13). The Apostle does not mention the

1 ” The form which accompanies follows does not directly mention the

the imposition of hands in Episcopal Episcopal Office. ” Palmer, Treatise

Ordination in the Roman Pontifical on the Church, ii. p. 345. Ed. 3, 1842.

itself, is merely this : ’ Receive the 2 Comp. Acts xx. 28. Holy Ghost’ ; and the prayer which

offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as the “end” of the Ministry. Moreover we do not find that all the ancient forms of Ordination expressly convey this power. There is no mention of it in the Ethiopic Ordination rites, in the ancient Coptic forms of Ordination, in the rite of the Syrian Jacobites, or in several of the most ancient Latin Sacramentaries a thousand years old1. The functions of the Priesthood are expressed in the Apostolic Constitu- tions2 in very general terms, and even Morinus allows that there is no express mention of this power in the most ancient formularies3. If it is further objected that the Church of England had no idea of conferring such power because she substituted the present form of Ordi- nation in place of others which expressly mentioned it, it may be replied that the power of sacrificing was only expressly referred to in connection with the modern rite of “the porrection of the instruments,” which with many other modern rites was discontinued by those who drew up our present Ordinal. The omission, however, certainly did not arise from any denial of the Eucharistic Sacrifice4 in the primitive and Catholic sense5.

[…]

3 See Hierarchia Anglicana,^. 115.

4 “Les erreurs de l’Eglise Angli- cane, surtout celles qui ont pour objet Ie sacerdoce et le sacrifice eucharis- tique, n’ont-elles pas deteint sur la redaction de l’Ordinal au point d’en compromettre l’efficacite? II me sem- ble que, sur ce point, la presomption est en faveur de la these anglicane. II n’y a pas d’heresies positivement enoncees dans l’Ordinal ; tout ce qu’on peut reprocher a ses auteurs est d’en avoir ecarte toutes les expressions qui supposent un veritable sacerdoce sacri-

ficateur et un veritable sacrifice eucha- ristique. Mais c’est la chose plutot negative; l’Ordinal n’en devient pas positivement heretique.” Review of “De Hierarchia Anglicana” in La Correspondance Catholique, 23 Mai, 1805, by Neuter.

■ As regards the doctrine of Inten- tion, see above pp. 313, 314. Barlow was required to consecrate Parker, and he did so, and we cannot but be- lieve that he really intended to do and to say what he actually did and said in the matter of consecration. The fact that each one of the Bishops pre- sent pronounced the consecrating words shews that the whole subject had been cautiously and seriously con- sidered.

ix. The Objections of the Puritans are of a very different kind. The Puritans were opposed to the use of the words in the Ordination of Priests, ” Receive the Holy Ghost… Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.” They alleged that the power of remitting and retaining sins was miraculous, confined to the Apostles, and not to be expected by other Ministers, and further that as man cannot bestow the Spirit of God, it is profane to claim the power to do so. Now the formula ” Receive ye the Holy Ghost” is grounded on the words of our Lord to His Apostles on the evening of the world’s first Easter-Day, when He said to them, As the Father hath sent Me, even so send I yon1, and when He breathed on them”1 and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost* (John xx. 21, 22). The words in the original indicate that the gift spoken of was not the personal sanctifying Grace of God in their hearts, nor the miraculous baptism of the Spirit, afterwards bestowed on the day of Pentecost4, but it was the Grace of Ordination, the right to exercise that Ministry of Reconciliation, which He had rendered effectual by His Resurrection from the dead5.

2 ‘Eve<pv<rr)<re. ” The breath (trvev- /ia) is an emblem of the Spirit (John iii. 8) ; and by ’ breathing,’ as S. Augustine observes, the Lord shewed that the Spirit was not the Spirit of the Father only but also His own. Theact is described as one (evtcfrva-qire), and not repeated. The gift was once for all, not to individuals but to the abiding body.” Bp Westcott in loc.

3 The words in the original Greek are Xd/3ere Trveu/xa dytov. Here it is to be noticed that the definite article is altogether wanting. The words, therefore, might be translated Receive ye Holy Spirit, which would imply not the Holy Spirit in His fulness,

but “a gift of the Holy Spirit.”

4 “The Spirit which the Lord now imparted to them was His Spirit, or, as it may be expressed, the Holy Spirit as dwelling in Him. By this He first quickened them, and then sent, according to His promise, the Paraclete to be with them, and to sup- ply all power for the exercise of their different functions. The relation of the Paschal to the Pentecostal gift is therefore the relation of quickening to endowing. The one answers to the power of the Resurrection, and the other to the power of the Ascension (Godet) ; the one to victory and the other to Sovereignty.” Bp Westcott in loc.

5 For, as S. Paul says to the Corin-

Ministry, the right to minister, is one of the gifts of the Spirit (Rom. xii. 7). This, including all that it involves, our Lord bestowed upon the Apostles, and, as we have seen1, upon all who should come after them. Hence, when the hand of the Bishop is laid upon the head of him whom he ordains, we need not doubt that the charisma of God’s Spirit is given for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God.

x. Absolution. As to the Ministry of Reconciliation no one will dispute that God alone can forgive sins and that no Priest can claim a power, which must obviously belong to Him alone. No one again will dispute that even God cannot forgive all sins, but only the sins of those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe, for these conditions of pardon are inexorably laid down by God Himself. But God is pleased to work through men upon the world of men, and He uses a human Ministry to declare and convey His forgiveness to those, who fulfil the prescribed conditions of that forgiveness, just as He uses the instrumentality of men to preach the word, to teach, to edify, and to comfort. Hence every Bishop, who has authority to ordain, has also authority to declare that “the Ministry of Reconciliation” is committed to the person whom he ordains, and the newly- ordained Priest receives by Christ’s own ordinance a divine commission to minister, and at the same time a divine commission duly to exercise the power of pronouncing the absolution of si ns on the prescribed conditions of faith and repentance being observed by the recipient2.

thians, If Christ be not raised, ye are yet in your sins (i Cor. xv. 17). See Bp Ellicott in loc.

2 As regards the whole subject see

a Sermon of Bp Andrewes on S. John xx. 23, preached before the Court in 1600, Works, vol. iii. p. 82 ff. Oxford, ■ 8+3.

Notes

• See Procter on The Book of Com- 3 The Puritans were ever clamour- mon Prayer, p. 31. ing against ” that prescripte Order of
• Lathbury, History of Convocation, seruice made out of the Masse-bookc.” p. 288. They maintained that in addition to
• Hierarchia Anglicana,-p.n. This missing, viz. Blyth of Coventry, 1503; exceptional precaution was founded Penry of Bangor, 1504; Stanley of on the precedent of Archbishop Ely, 1 506 ; Stokesley of London, Chichele’s consecration. See Pusey’s 1530; Gardiner of Winchester, 1 531. Eirenicon, i. p. 232. Iladdan, Preface to Bramhall, iii. p.
• Thus in the register kept by Arch- 17 ; Ilierarcliia Anglicana, p. 30, «. bishop Warham there is no record of 3 The certificate of his election at the consecration of Heath, who was Bow Church was signed by his four the chief consecrator of Cardinal Pole, consecrators, and is extant in Parker’s and whereas during his archiepiscopate Register, Ilierarch. Attgl. p. 14. there were 26 bishops consecrated, • 4 The mandate for Parker’s en- the records of 20 of these consecra- thronement was signed on Dec. 31, tions only are given, while 6 are 1559; he was enthroned Jan. 1, 1560;
• The Diary of Archbishop Parker, preserved in the Library of Corpus Christi College contains the following entry: — “17. Decembr. Anno 1559. Consecratus sum in Archiepiscopum Cantuar. lieu! If eu ! Domine in qua: tempora servasti me? Jam veni in profundum aquarum et tempestas demersit me. O Domine vim patior, responde pro me et Spiritu Tuo prin- cipali conrirma me.” Strype, Parker, Appendix, p. 15, gives extracts from this Diary.
• In the Eastern Church the de- livery of the sacred vessels takes place after Ordination, and no formula for the delivery is prescribed. The great Roman theologian Morinus in the latter part of the seventeenth century allows that the rite was unknown in the Church for a thousand years. See Walcott’s English Ordinal, p. 260.
• See Palmer, Orig. Lit. ii. p. 304 ; Collier, Eccl. Hist. v. pp. 366 sq. As He ascended, our Lord lifted up His hands and blessed His Apostles (Luke xxiv. 50), and this significant action was adi ipted afterwards by them at Ordinations. Thus Paul and Bar- nabas were ordained with prayer and laying on of hands (Acts xiii. 3) ; thus Timothy was consecrated (1 Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6); thus the Bishops, ordained by the Apostles (Acts xx. 28) ; thus Deacons were ordained (Acts vi. 3), and Priests (1 Tim. v. 22).
• Palmer, Treatise on the Chttrck, ii. p. 346. Ed. 3, 1842.
• On the force of these words, see above under Art. xxiii. pp. 283, 284.
• See above, p. 284.