“XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.
The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed 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 36th Article, which has served as a source of much controversy over the last four centuries, chiefly concerns itself with the validity of the 1550 Ordinal. It has three key points – that it contains all things necessary to consecration/ordination, that it has nothing which of itself is superstitious and ungodly, and that all who are consecrated/ordained according to the book are rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated/ordained. These three points can be easily shown to defend the Ordinal against three different parties present in 16th century England, namely the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterian party, and the Dissenters.
The first point, that the Ordinal contains all things necessary to consecration or ordination, aims to combat the claims that the Ordinal has a “defect of form and intention” compared to such liturgies as found in the Roman Pontifical. While broadly similar to the Roman rite in the use of a long consecratory prayer, the Veni, creator Spiritus, and the calling down of the Holy Spirit, the Edwardian Ordinal does represent a departure from the medieval Western tradition. Rather than focusing on “offering Christ for the quick and the dead, to have Remission of pain or guilt,” as the 31st Article would put it, it suggests that the role of a priest is to firstly, preach the word of God, and secondly to minister the holy Sacraments. This is a severe difference from the Roman Rite, which suggests that “a priest’s duties are to offer sacrifice, to bless, to govern, to preach, and to baptize.” The essential form of the sacrament in the English Ordinal is essentially the prayer that Christ himself used in the upper room, when he appeared to the disciples and sent them – “Receive the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven: and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.” To this is added a petition that the priest may be a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of his holy Sacraments. In no portion of this Ordinal is the priest ever suggested to offer a sacrifice in the same way a Roman priest would. The same is true of the Ordinal in the Apostolic Constitutions – presbyters are ordained to “assist and govern [God’s] people with a pure heart,” not to offer a sacrifice.
The Roman Pontifical has a quite different prayer – “Almighty Father, we pray that you bestow on these servants of yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew in their hearts the spirit of holiness, so that they may be steadfast in this second degree of the priestly office received from you, O God, and by their own lives suggest a rule of life to others.” This demonstrates the second major Roman objection to the English Ordinal – the lack of explicit reference to the priesthood or presbyterate in the essential form of the rite. The same is true, also, of the consecration of Bishops, for which the essential prayer is “Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee, by imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness.” A common thread appears in the English Ordinal that is only incidentally present in the Roman form, namely, a description of the essential duty of bishops and priests. For priests, it is the remission of sins, for bishops, the imposition of hands. The Roman form naturally includes the duties of the priest throughout the text, but the essential form of the rite only includes a passing reference to “suggesting a rule of life to others.” The prayer for ordination as found in Book VIII of the Apostolic Constitutions shows itself as an ancestor of the Edwardian Ordinal, with the essential form being as follows – “Now look down also upon this your servant, who is put into the presbytery by the vote and determination of the whole clergy; and replenish him with the Spirit of grace and counsel, to assist and govern your people with a pure heart, in the same manner as you looked down upon your chosen people, and commanded Moses to choose elders, whom you filled with Your Spirit.” The second clause orders the new presbyter to “assist and govern” just as God does for us. This is a strong assertion of an essential aspect of the presbyteral ministry, though it is different than that which is found in the English Ordinal. It should be noted that the Apostolic Constitutions does maintain the explicit reference to the office to which the individual is ordered, and even to the manner of their choosing. The English Ordinal does, however, in the longer form of the ordering prayer, refer to the ordinands as “ministers,” while the Apostolic Constitutions only refer to it in what can be called the essential form. In either case, the ministry and explicit duties are imposed by the Holy Ghost in all three forms, Roman, English, and Apostolic. This imposition of duties by the Spirit is, without a doubt, the necessary form of the ordination.
The second point, that the Ordinal has nothing which of itself is superstitious and ungodly, aims to combat the claims that the Ordinal, or specifically the ceremonial directions contained therein, are contrary to the word of God or ritualistic. The rubrics in question from the 1550 Ordinal are as follows –
Bishops
After the Gospel and Creed ended, first the elected Bishop having upon him a Surplice and Cope shall be presented by two Bishops (being also in surplices and copes, and having their pastoral staffs[1] in their hands) unto the Archbishop of that Province, or to some other Bishop appointed by his commission.
Then the Archbishop shall lay the Bible upon his neck, saying.
Then shall the Archbishop put into his hand the pastoral staff, saying…
Priests
And then the Archdeacon shalt present unto the Bishop, all them that shall receive the order of Priesthood that day, every of them having upon him a plain Alb.
The Bishop shall deliver to every one of them, the Bible in the one hand, and the Chalice or cup with the bread, in the other hand, and saying…
Deacons
After the exhortation ended, the Archdeacon, or his deputy, shall present such as come to be admitted to the Bishop every one of them, that are presented, having upon him a plain Alb.
The primary objection to these ceremonial rubrics is the elevation of the minister (whether they be deacon, priest, or bishop) over the laity. This sentiment isn’t expressed solely by the Continental party in the Reformation-era English Church. In fact, an early example can be found in a letter from Pope Celestine I[2], in which he argues against the adoption of new clerical dress by the churches of Gaul, saying “[Bishops[3]] must be distinguished from the common people and the rest by our learning, and not by our clothes; by our mode of life, and not by our costume; by purity of mind, and not by elegance of dress. For if we begin to busy ourselves with novelties, we shall tread under foot the traditions handed down to us from the fathers in order to make room for worthless superstitions.”[4]
This last sentence is key to our understanding of the use of vestments and other ritual in the 1550 Ordinal – they are not novelties. They do not represent a break with the catholic tradition found in England prior to the Reformation in the same way that a black academic gown worn by the minister at Communion might. Ultimately, as the First Prayer Book puts it, the goal of Cranmer and by extension Matthew Parker is to maintain the “Godly and decent order of the ancient fathers.” This practice, hearkening back to the ancient Church, reflects a far more utilitarian use for vestments than that of the Roman Church, or in many ways, the modern Anglican church. The deliberate choice of an alb contrary to a surplice, or the delivery of chalices and scripture contrary to the delivery of a pastoral staff, serve not to create theological differences, but merely to ensure godly order in the church, and remind the ordinand of their duties.
It should be noted that at the time of the Thirty-Nine Articles’ adoption (1571), all of the aforementioned ceremonial rubrics had been removed from the Ordinal. However, Parker’s Advertisements require that at a minimum, all ministers saying public prayers “shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves,” and that in cathedral or collegiate churches “the principal minister shall use a cope with gospeller and epistoler agreeably.” While this does not restore all the manual acts found in the 1550 Ordinal, basic vestments were required, and the delivery of the Bible was maintained. The change in rubrics reveals even more clearly the principle behind Anglican vestments and ritual – the maintenance of godly order. Quite contrary to the claims that surplices and copes are ‘popish rags’ with superstitious meaning, they reflect the desire of St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, saying “Let all things be done decently and in order.”
The third point, that all who are consecrated/ordained according to the Ordinal are rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated/ordained, aims to combat not a claim, but rather, the Non-conformist/Dissenting Party found in 16th/17th century England. This point is not so much a theological proposition as it is an enforcement of English law. The At the ordering of priests and deacons, as well as the consecration of bishops, the 1559 Ordinal mandated that the following oath be sworn:
I A. B. do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen’s highness is the only supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other her highness’ dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes: as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm, and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen’s highness, her heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authorities granted or belonging to the Queen’s highness, her heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this realm, so help me God, and the contents of this book.
This oath is truncated compared to that found in the 1550 Ordinal, which presupposes that the main opponent to the royal supremacy would be the Bishop of Rome. In the post-Reformation era, this oath allowed the monarch to maintain ceremonies, polities, doctrines, and other various ecclesiastical issues which would have been gotten rid of had it been a decision made by the church herself. Abp. Parker used this idea of the royal supremacy in his Advertisements, so as to claim the backing of the Crown. The strict legality of Anglican ordinations/consecrations by English law can be contrasted with the ordination of dissenters, non-conformists, and later in the history of English religion, the non-jurors. All these parties presumed to ordain and consecrate without the permission of the established government.
However, Article 19 states that “the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of Faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly Ministered, according to Christ’s Ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” This would, according to some, vindicate those who establish themselves outside of the established church. In order to combat this, the final clause of Article 36 is necessary.
These three key points establish the basis for episcopal polity in the reformed English Church, as well as protect conservative elements of ritual and ceremonial and the established church. It can be argued that this is one of the most “catholic” or “orthodox” of the articles, insofar as it ensures both a catholic form of government and a catholic form of worship. The near-Erastian implications of the third clause, however, leave the appellation of this article subject to debate. Perhaps through further study, we may find some greater truth or understanding of our theology through this Article and the Ordinal it rests on.
Jacob Hootman is a lay reader at St. Laurence Anglican
Church in Southlake, Texas. He also serves as a member of the Liturgy and
Worship Task Force of the Anglican Church in North America.
[1] This, no doubt, refers to the crozier.
[2] 422-432 AD
[3] The Latin word used is “sacerdotes.” It should be taken here to mean Bishop, as Celestine is writing to the bishops of Gaul.
[4] Epistle IV, to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne (Labbé and Cossart and Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Collectio, Florence, 1762; t. iv, col. 431).