The Ordinal
I. Origins
The Preface to the Ordinal as it appeared in 1550 begins with the words, “It is evident unto all men diligently reading 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 fine restraint of these words is characteristic of the entire Prayer Book tradition. The English Reformers, in the spirit of their time, turned to the Scriptures as the primary rule of faith and practice — but, unlike others, they did not stop there. They took the wider view that the Scriptures could not and did not contain exhaustive regulations for the conduct of the Church in all future generations. The Bible must be interpreted by the actual life and growth of the Church; the witness of History must be weighed, in order to determine what elements of the Christian faith are essential, as well as what developed under the varying pressure of circumstances.
Thus the English Church accepted the ministry in its historic form, and proclaimed its intention to perpetuate it as such. But this was stated in the most general terms, without attempting to fix upon the Church any particular theory of the origin of the ministry, or of its place in the teaching and purpose of our Lord. It left scholars free to face without prejudice the historical questions which must arise.
This characteristic Anglican position is particularly important at the present time, when, in view of the movement toward Reunion, questions concerning the ministry of Christ's Church ought no longer to be matters of controversy, but altogether matters for careful research. In what follows, we have endeavored to present only the facts as to the historic rites of ordination; touching upon the conflicting theories of Orders only to the limited extent to which they are involved in the actual forms used, and therefore cannot be wholly excluded from an impartial interpretation of those rites.
There is little clear evidence of such rites in the New Testament. Our Lord commissioned the Apostles, as he did the Seventy — unless indeed the accounts are doublets, — he is reported as charging both groups in some detail as to the principles which should govern their work; but there is no suggestion of any method of that commissioning other than his word. In the passage in John 20:21–23, the words “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” represent the Johannine interpretation of Pentecost, and intimate a gift bestowed upon the whole Church. Certainly these words were not used as a necessary formula in the early ordination services, nor interpreted as the essential “Form” until the Middle Ages.
Outside the Gospels, the other New Testament documents present as the one and only ceremony of ordination the laying on of hands — the familiar Jewish rite of solemn benediction.1 This was used by the Apostles in commissioning “elders” or “overseers,” and deacons.2 And we have an explicit account of the ordaining of the Seven Deacons, which seems to have established the outlines of the procedure of all later ordinations of whatever grade. The candidates were elected by the people on consideration of their character and ability; they were formally presented, and ordained with prayer and imposition of hands.3
II. The First Text
No further light for this study appears until the beginning of the third century, when Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition furnishes us with a first and basic text of the rite.4
All three orders were elected by the people, and ordained on a Sunday. After a last opportunity to voice objections to the choice, there was a pause for silent prayer. Then the candidate was ordained with a single prayer, accompanied by the imposition of hands. Hippolytus explains in detail that the Bishop alone laid his hand upon a Deacon, who was his immediate assistant and agent, but who was not a partaker of the powers of the college of Presbyters; that the whole Presbytery joined in the laying on of hands upon a Presbyter, not however as ordaining, since it was their distinctive characteristic that they had no such power, but as welcoming the ordinand into their rank; and that at a consecration to the Episcopate, one Bishop, by the delegation of all, imposed his hands and said the Ordination Prayer.5
Hippolytus' prayers of ordination, reconstituted from the parallel documents, are as follows; phrases surviving in later Western ordinals being in capitals:
To the Diaconate
O God, who hast created all things, and adorned them by thy Word, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom thou didst send to minister6 thy will and manifest to us thy desire; bestow the Holy Spirit of grace and zeal and diligence upon this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to minister6 to thy Church, and to bring forth the holy things which are offered by thine appointed High-Priests to the glory of thy Name: that having ministered6 to thee blamelessly and purely, he may be found worthy of a good degree and thy favour; through thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, etc.
To the Presbyterate
O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look upon this thy servant, and fill him with the Spirit of grace and counsel for the Presbyterate, that he may help and govern thy people with a pure heart, even as thou didst regard thy chosen people, and didst enjoin Moses to choose out presbyters, whom thou didst fill with thy Spirit, which thou hast bestowed upon thy servant. And now, Lord, grant that thou preserving in us the Spirit of thy grace, we may be found worthy to serve thee in faith with simplicity and a pure conscience,7 praising thee through thy Servant Jesus Christ; by whom, etc.
To the Episcopate
O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, … who settest the bounds of thy Church by the word of thy grace, who didst foreordain from the beginning a righteous race from Abraham, who didst appoint them rulers and priests, and didst not leave thy sanctuary without a ministry, who from the foundation of the world hast been well-pleased in those by whom thou hast chosen to be praised; now pour out the power which is from thee of thy directive Spirit, which thou didst bestow by thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ upon the holy Apostles, who established thy Church in every place of thy sanctification, to the continual glory and praise of thy Name. O Father, who knowest the hearts,7 grant to this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to the Episcopate, to feed thy holy flock, and to exercise his High-Priesthood unto thee without blame, ministering8 before thee day and night,9 and continually to propitiate thy countenance, and to offer thee the Gifts of thy holy Church; and by the high-priestly Spirit to have authority to remit sins according to thy commandments, to choose clergy according to thine ordinance, to loose also every bond according to the authority which thou gavest to the Apostles, and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering thee a sweet-smelling savour; through thy Servant Jesus Christ, through whom, etc.
The prayer for the ordering of a Deacon, in spite of its brevity, a little vagueness in the application of its terms, and some doubtfulness as to the transmission of its text, does sufficiently express the duties of his office as an assistant to the pastoral and liturgical functions of the Bishop. Much more of the essential detail of this prayer has survived to the present day than in the case of either of the other Orders. Naturally, the most frequently used rite, by which all clergy entered Holy Orders, has varied least.
The prayer for the Consecration of a Bishop is also adequately expressive of his functions. The Bishop is in possession of the Church's High-Priesthood, and is the primary minister of all Sacraments. His duties are to feed the flock, offer the holy Gifts, remit sins, choose clergy, and bind and loose.
But the prayer for a Presbyter is unexpectedly vague, void, and perfunctory. Nothing more is specified than that he is to take his part in the administration of the Church, assisting the Bishop as the “Elders” assisted Moses in ruling Israel. Nor is it likely that this is a mere fanciful analogy, like the term “Levites” applied to the Deacons in later Roman rituals; the status and the functions of the Presbyters in the early Church are too exactly like those of the Jewish Elders not to render it most probable that the origin of this Order lay in a direct inheritance from Judaism.10
There is no indication of any “sacerdotal” functions in the prayer of Hippolytus. This is in accord with the historical fact that in the early period the College of Presbyters was little more than the Bishop's Council of Advice.11 At the first, there was a very slow growth of suburban and rural churches, which of course had to be manned by presbyters; and within a city, a plurality of parishes was regarded as an unwarrantable division of the faithful. As late as the fourth century, the great centers of Rome and Alexandria, which were too populous to be gathered into a single “cathedral” congregation, but which were reluctant to divide the episcopal authority with suffragan bishops, stood almost alone in a rapid growth of the parochial system within their borders.12 In most places, the Bishop habitually celebrated the one Eucharist for all the faithful, assisted by the Deacons; the like was true of the rites of Baptism and Absolution: so that the liturgical duties of the Presbyters were few.
Hence we shall find that all the Ordinals testify that the essentially suffragan ministry of the Presbyterate was very slow to achieve a clear expression of its functions, as history shows that it was slow to enter upon a full exercise of those functions.
III. The Fourth Century
About the year 350, the witness of Hippolytus is closely paralleled in the first Eastern text, furnished by Serapion of Egypt.13 Here also are three prayers, but without rubrical directions. The prayer for a Deacon intimates that the Order is after the pattern of the first Seven Deacons; the special blessing is “the Spirit of knowledge and discernment”; the duties of the office are to “serve in this ministration (diakonêsai en têi leitourgiái tautêi).” For a Presbyter, the analogy is that of the Seventy Elders; the grace is “a portion of the Holy Spirit, from that Spirit which was upon the Onlybegotten, for the grace of wisdom and knowledge and right faith”; the office is “to serve in a subordinate capacity (hÿpêretêsai)14 with a pure conscience” — but there is also mention of the ministry of the word (presbeÿein ta theiá sou lógia), of the ministry of reconciliation (katalláxai ton laón sou), and of the management of a parish (oikonomêsai ton laón sou), in line with what has been said as to the early development of the parochial system in this region. The Bishop is “in succession of the holy Apostles”; he is to receive “grace and the Divine Spirit, which thou gavest to all thine own servants and prophets and patriarchs”; his duty is, solely and simply, to “feed the flock.” In none of Serapion's prayers is there any mention of any sacrificial ministry.
IV. Western Rites of the Seventh Century
In the seventh century we have a pure Roman text, in the “Leonine” Sacramentary,15 and a pure Gallican order in the Missale Francorum,16 substantiated also by Isidore of Seville.17
In both cases, the rites were still essentially what they had been in the time of Hippolytus. The candidates were presented to the people for their acceptance; then there was a Bidding, and a pause for congregational prayer; then a single solemn Prayer of Ordination, accompanied by the Imposition of Hands. The chief divergences of these parallel rites of ultimately common origin were that the original pause for silent prayer was occupied at Rome by the Ordination Litany; and that the Gallican rite in the sixth century had added an anointing of the hands of priests and bishops. The Gallican texts also present a special collection of General Rubrics under the title “Ancient Statutes of the Church,”18 dating from the fifth century, and identical in their directions for the three Holy Orders with the provisions of Hippolytus, save for the added Eastern ceremony of imposing the open Book of Gospels on the head and neck of a Bishop, to symbolize the derivation of his commission directly from Christ.
In both, the prayers are expanded from the simplicity of Hippolytus and Serapion, and are stiff with stately rhetoric; but their actual content of thought remains the same. For a Deacon, the analogy of the Levites is proposed in the Roman prayer, the Seven Deacons in the Gallican; in both his office is defined as “to minister at the altar.” For a Presbyter, the analogy is of the Seventy Elders and the Sons of Aaron in the Roman, Titus and Timothy in the Gallican; both mention the “honor of the Presbyterate,” and the teaching office; otherwise, his duties in the Roman are only to assist the Bishop — whereas the Gallican rite for the first time succeeded in importing a definitely “sacerdotal” note, by transmuting an original supplication that his ministry might transform the mystical Body of Christ “into a perfect man,” into an explicit prayer for power to “transform the Body and Blood of Christ.”19 For a Bishop, the forms are identical in both sources — it has been surmised that one or the other may have been lost — mentioning High-Priesthood, and authority to rule the Church; although the Gallican includes a passage not found in the pure Roman books20 recounting also preaching, the ministry of reconciliation, the power of the Keys, and stewardship over the household of God.
V. Synthesis of the Latin Ordinal
The ninth century saw a complete consolidation of these parallel and mutually equivalent Gallican and Roman forms. The various Orders, major and minor, to and including the Priesthood, were now conveyed successively in the same service; so the Litany was put before the ordination to the Diaconate. The relevant Rubric from the “Ancient Statutes” was inserted before the rite for each Order. Then in each followed the Roman Bidding, succeeded immediately by the former Litany-Collect for that Order; then the Roman Ordination Prayer; then the doublet of these, the Gallican Bidding and Prayer.
Compromise by combination may sometimes have its merits; but this duplication of essential forms simply destroyed the very idea that they were essential forms. As we have seen, from the time of Hippolytus to the present day the proper Ordination Prayer for the Priesthood has been nearly as vague as it could be as to the functions and powers of the Order conferred. And from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries, speakingly dramatic ceremonies were added to symbolize those functions and powers, thus opening the door to seize upon various of them as constituting the vital “Form” and moment of Ordination. Such were the Gallican Unction of Hands, the Investiture with the Chasuble, and the so-called “Presentation of the Instruments” derived by analogy from the Gallican rites of Minor Orders21 — all of which have at various times been maintained to be the effectual means of conferring the Priesthood.22
Another source of confusion was the obscuring of the one undoubted apostolic ceremony of the Imposition of Hands, by a change due to the multiplicity of candidates to be ordained at the same service. If several men are to be ordained at one time, it is impossible for the Bishop to hold his hands upon the head of each during a long prayer of ordination; the only feasible alternative, as we have seen in the case of Confirmation,23 is for him to hold his hands outstretched over the whole group collectively, in the form in which the solemn general Benedictions and Absolutions of the Church are necessarily conveyed. But the Roman rite underwent a further degeneration. At present, hands are outstretched only during the former Litany-Collect; and the proper Ordination Prayer, which since the tenth century has been cast in “eucharistic” or preface-like form, is now said manibus extensis ante pectus, i.e. in the conventional posture of public prayer, with no reference of gesture toward the ordinand.
Meanwhile the initial Rubric from the “Ancient Statutes” before each Order, which explicitly directed the imposition of hands in exactly the terms used by Hippolytus, had the peculiar effect of attracting the Imposition to that place in the service; whereby the ritual of ordination to each grade was made to commence with an Imposition, either in silence,24 or with the words “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.”25
Finally, the form for the Priesthood acquired another Imposition at the conclusion, accompanied by the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins,” etc., to round out the dramatizing of each several element of grace and power imparted by thus committing the ministry of reconciliation.
The difficulty underlying all this confusion of forms in the medieval period was a confusion of mind between the idea of a commissioning and a consecration. When Innocent I said that it would have sufficed at the beginning if the ordinand had simply been told, “Be a Priest!” and intimated that probably something of that sort had been done originally, he spoke of course in ignorance; we have seen that what the early Church actually did was to offer a prayer that he might be a good priest. So in its preoccupation with a theoretical Aristotelian “character” imprinted indelibly upon the soul, the medieval Church lost sight of the greater matter of a personal priestly character filled with the Spirit, and transfigured into the likeness of Christ — yet it was the latter conception, not the former, which the primitive Church contemplated as the divine effect of Holy Orders.
Ruling princes of the Church made the mistake of imitating the formal commissions, the ceremonial investitures, the symbolic presentations of official insignia, which characterized the installation of secular dignitaries; and thus while they externalized with dramatic pomp the functions of an ecclesiastical Order, they lost account of the most vital element of the inward and spiritual grace to be received.
This temper which was not content with a prayer to God as the only essential for the bestowal of Orders, also sought some kind of declarative or even imperative formula. This has affected even the Eastern rites, where the “Form” of Orders is considered to be the proclamation, “The Divine Grace, which ever healeth the infirm and supplieth that which is lacking, advanceth N. the most pious Deacon to a Presbyter,” etc. But happily this proclamation is immediately followed by a proper Ordination Prayer, accompanied throughout by the Imposition of Hands.
VI. Anglican Ordination Services
No Anglican Pontifical was printed before the Reformation. Existing only in manuscript, regarded as the personal possession of the Bishop, and subject to any alterations which he might consider desirable, and which could be easily made by the stroke of a pen in the margin, there was no uniformity of use, but a great variety of detail and order from church to church.
Hence the basis of Cranmer's work was not precisely the Sarum Pontifical, which approximated Roman standards, so much as other local rites with which he was familiar; some of which were conservative, retaining ancient features which had become obscured in Roman use. The Pontifical of Archbishop Bainbridge (†1514), for example, at the beginning of the sixteenth century still retained the actual Imposition of Hands during the priest's Ordination Prayer; and this and like survivals may have influenced Cranmer's restoration of the Imposition of Hands as the essential ceremony. Certain Canterbury Pontificals26 justify the position of the Litany and the Veni Creator in the Ordinal of 1550, which differs here from the Sarum order.
It has been commonly held that Reformation influence was represented in a tractate of Bucer's, De ordinatione legitima, which was supposed to be a draft drawn up for Cranmer's guidance in framing the new Ordinal, and to have been the source of long passages appearing verbatim in the Ordination of Priests. But scholars have now come to the conclusion that this tractate was in fact intended as an appendage to Bucer's Censura of the First Prayer Book; that it was based on a Latin translation of the 1550 Ordination of Priests specially made for him (Bucer knew no English): and therefore that it is Cranmer's own original work which appears in the Ordinal.27 The passage in question, in the long Exhortation to Priests, was an expression of Cranmer's highest ideals for the personal and pastoral side of the priest's office, such as has never been equalled, and which has led the souls of generations of clergy to more absolute devotion to the obligations of their high calling.
The chief new features of the ordination services are this Exhortation, and the detailed Examinations of Deacons and Priests, parallel to those previously in use at the consecration of Bishops. There was some precedent for both.28 But it is one of the distinguishing marks of the Anglican Communion that the Examination of Priests imposes upon them responsibilities for teaching and maintaining right doctrine, thus adding a new significance to their office.
We have mentioned that Cranmer restored the apostolic ceremony of the Imposition of Hands as the essential “matter” of the rite. But the prevailing misconceptions of his time, which placed their emphasis upon one or another imperative formula, effectively forestalled him from reverting to the apostolic “Form” of an Ordination Prayer, such as we find in Acts 6:6. In default of any information as to the actual usage of the early Church, he attempted to carry the origin of Orders back to some example of our Lord, and naturally selected John 20:22, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” as the Form for a Priest or Bishop — qualified in each case with some other biblical phrases identified in his mind with the respective offices.
Of all the old subsidiary ceremonies, the only one retained was the “Presentation of the Instruments,” in the giving of a New Testament (in lieu of the former Book of Gospels) to a Deacon, of the Bible and eucharistic vessels to a Priest, and of the Pastoral Staff to a Bishop. Cranmer knew that none of these were scriptural; but the dominant theory of his time accounted them the essential ceremonies of ordination, and though he did not so consider them, he nevertheless continued their use, as a sort of warranty of the bona fides of his “intent that these Orders should be continued.”
The Ordering of Deacons prescribed a Presentation of the candidates; a Challenge, “Brethren, if there be any of you who knoweth any impediment,” etc.; the Litany, in full, with a special Suffrage for the candidates; followed by the Litany-Collect, which also served as the initial Collect of the Communion;29 the Epistle; the imperative formula, “Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in the Church of God committed unto thee: in the name of the Father,” etc., unaccompanied by any proper ordination-prayer at all; the presentation of the New Testament; after which one of the new Deacons read the Gospel. At the end of the Communion Office, before the Benediction, there was a true Super populum Collect, a Commendatory Prayer30 over the new Deacons, taken from the old Ordination Prayer, and strikingly preserving some of the very phrases first found in Hippolytus.
The Ordination of Priests had a proper Introit (omitted in 1552), but no Collect — apparently the Collect of the day was used. After the Gospel, the Veni Creator was sung in a lengthy and prosaic paraphrase. Then followed the Presentation, Challenge, Litany, Litany-Collect (a brief summary paraphrase of the old Ordination Prayer), the new Exhortation and Examination, a new Ordination Prayer emphasizing exclusively the evangelistic work of the ministry, the imperative form, “Receive the Holy Ghost: 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,” etc., and the presentation of the Bible and eucharistic vessels — the latter however being discontinued in 1552. The Commendatory Prayer for the new priests at the end was specially composed, and again spoke of the ministry of the word.
In 1662, this order for Priests through the Litany-Collect was transferred to the beginning of the service, exactly as in the case of the Diaconate, to simplify its use in combination with the ordering of Deacons, which has always been very common. Thus here also the Litany-Collect took the place of the Collect of the day. The Veni Creator was transferred to a more effective place immediately before the Ordination Prayer, as in the Consecration of a Bishop, and furnished in a briefer and more accurate alternative translation.
At the Consecration of a Bishop, there was also a proper Introit, but no Collect, until in 1552 the former was dropped, and in 1662 a form of the Collect for St. Peter's Day was employed at the Communion. The ordination took place after the Gospel and Creed, with Presentation, Bidding, Litany, Litany-Collect borrowed from and duplicating that in the Ordination of Priests, Examination, Veni Creator, Ordination Prayer — the only one in the three services which corresponds with its Latin prototype — the imperative formula, “Take the Holy Ghost: and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is given thee by this Imposition of our hands,” etc., the imposition of the Bible on the ordinand's neck and the presentation of the Pastoral Staff — these last converted in 1552 to the presentation of the Bible accompanied by the combined Charge of the two former ceremonies. The final Commendatory Prayer of this service was taken from a Collect for the enthroning of a Bishop.31
The revision of 1662 added a specific designation of the name of the Order conferred in the case of a Priest or Bishop, by interpolating “for the office and work of a Priest (Bishop) in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands,” after “Receive the Holy Ghost” in the respective formulas of ordination. This addition was prompted by the contention of the Presbyterian divines at the Savoy Conference, when they claimed a parity of the Presbyterate and Episcopate, on the ground that there was no real distinction between the “forms” employed to confer them. At the same time and for the same reason, certain transfers were effected of the Epistles and Gospels read at the two services, in order to clarify what the Church had always believed and practiced.
Thus there is no foundation for the intimation of the papal Bull Apostolicæ Curæ, that the Church of England realized at this time that its Forms for conferring these sacerdotal Orders were defective, and filled them up — too late to do any good, since by the Roman hypothesis Priesthood had by this time already become extinct in this Church. The underlying Roman contention is perhaps true, namely that the “Form” of a Sacrament must designate unmistakably what it purports to effect — at least if we add the indispensable qualification, that it must so designate it to the understanding of those who participate in the rite. The moment these Forms became equivocal to English churchmen, they needed to be changed. But originally, it was quite sufficient that the scriptural citations, “Whose sins,” and “Remember that thou stir up,” were fixed in the minds both of those who constructed and those who used the services as denoting definitely the Priesthood and the Episcopate respectively.
Relatively little has been done with the offices of the Ordinal since 1662. Even the rubric directing the place of the concluding Collect has, as we have seen,32 stood uncorrected in a misleading form ever since 1552. The latest English and Scottish books, however, have accomplished a much-needed reform by restoring the proper Ordination Prayer for the Diaconate (since 1550 used as a Last Collect) to its rightful place in the service.33 These books also follow one meritorious development of the medieval Pontificals, in presenting all the Ordination Prayers in solemn “eucharistic” or preface-form. The English rite makes the use of the Litany optional at all ordinations; the American has a special Ordination Litany, of most excellent plan and admirable condensation, but somewhat uninspired literary quality.
VII. The Genius of the Anglican Ordinals
In the past, the character of a given Christian communion, its effectiveness in the world, and its relations to other bodies of Christians, have been largely determined by the kind of meaning which it has given to its official ministry. Now, and in time to come, this matter remains paramount over other questions of faith and worship among the influences that are bringing Christians together, or keeping them apart. We cannot leave this subject without some consideration of the general characteristics and implications of the services of the Ordinal.
Especially noteworthy in the Anglican ordinals is the emphasis upon the Holy Scriptures. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons signify their acceptance of the Scriptures as “containing all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation”;34 and the Priest, like the Bishop, pledges himself “to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which he shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture.”
This vow of the Priest, which is a distinguishing mark of the Anglican Ordinal, is of great significance. In the ancient Catholic Church, the Bishops were considered to be the guardians of Christian truth. This guardianship (the original “Apostolic Succession”) was handed down from one generation to another: with the consequence that as the Church developed, and questions of doctrine became important, it was assumed that they should be referred to the Bishops alone. The pre-Reformation Ordinals were consequently framed on the basis of this theory.
The Church of England, in breaking with this tradition, lifted the Presbyterate to a new importance, and opened the way to a more thoroughly representative expression of the common faith of all Christian people. The position which the Episcopal Church in America has taken in giving its General Convention — laity as well as clergy — the final decision in interpretation of doctrine, would hardly have been possible were the Bishops regarded as its sole guardians and interpreters. Likewise, the Anglican priest is free, intellectually as well as morally.
Another important element in our Ordinal is the happy balancing of the two elements in ordination — commissioning and consecrating — which, as we have noted, have often been confused. The rite essential in commissioning stands out clearly as the laying on of hands. No one can for a moment think that the presentation of the New Testament or the Bible is anything more than a symbol of certain functions which are assigned by that commission. But with the ceremony likewise goes the prayer that the Holy Spirit may make this formal commission effective for the work of the Church; and that ideal inspires the offices throughout. Thus consecration and commission stand together. Inadequate consecration and inadequate commission both make defective the work of the minister of Christ.
The liberality of these wide horizons is also reflected in those portions of our rites which express the meaning of the commission to the ministry.
In the American books, one important addition was made in 1789 in the service for Priests, by the inclusion of an alternative Sentence of Ordination: “Take thou Authority to execute the Office of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the Imposition of our hands. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God,” etc. This form omitted the words from the Fourth Gospel, “Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.” The purpose of the alternative was of course to make the service more acceptable to the evangelical groups who disliked the sacerdotal implications of the English form.
Since either alternative is sufficient, there are two obvious consequences: that either may be interpreted by the other; and that therefore the Church has deliberately intended to open the widest latitude of opinion or belief concerning the meaning of Priesthood. The Church intended to “make Priests,” who should be qualified to do what priests have always done, and designed to consecrate them to that office by prayer that they might be worthy — and left it at that.
Thus the Ordinal is definite in its expression of faith that the historic ministry is historic; it is quite as definite in its expression of its purpose to continue that ministry: but on the other hand it has not surrounded that purpose with a multitude of unessential factors. It has returned to the simplicity of the earliest rites, and effectively conformed the whole office to the spirit of the New-Testament tradition. And it has imposed upon no one, clergyman or layman, any special doctrinal interpretation. It appeals to facts, but leaves thought free.
In all the discussions of the Ministry which are so vital an element in the problems of Christian reunion, the Episcopal Church may point with reasonable satisfaction to its official Ordinal, as being at once in harmony with the age-long tradition of the Christian ministry, and yet consistent with and expressive of those ideals which in all the varied patterns of ecclesiastical organization have dominated and must dominate in the great United Church of the future.