(5) It must be borne in mind that supposing Paphnutius had attempted to ordain any one in the ecclesiastical sense, he would have done what, in the patriarchate of Alexandria, had been already (in Colluthus' case) pronounced null and void, and Daniel by the decision of the synod would have been regarded as a layman. But, as we have said, there is no reasonable case to be made out for his having done so.

WESTERN CHURCH.

1. The presbyter Novatus is said to have ordained Felicissimus deacon, and it is contended (Hatch B. L. p. 110, n52.) that St. Cyprian did not regard the act as invalid. What is the state of the case? 'He appointed Felicissimus deacon (Felicissimum diaconum constituit),' St. Cyprian says (Ep. lii. 2), and there is, it is urged, 'nothing in the context to support the view that he uses the word in the unusual sense of "procured the appointment.' Is there nothing? St. Cyprian goes on to say that the same Novatus, when he left Africa and got to Rome, made Novatian a bishop. He uses the same word in both cases: 'qui istic adversus ecclesiam diaconum fecerat illic episcopum fecit.' He made Felicissimus a deacon, we may presume, in exactly the same sense as that in which he made Novatian a bishop. And in what sense did he do that? We know from the contemporary letter of Cornelius, the outraged bishop of Rome (ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 43) he [Novatian] compelled three bishops, boorish and most foolish men, . . . to give him the episcopate by a shadowy and vain imposition of hands.' Cf. Cyprian Ep. xlix. 1 :‘ei manum quasi in episcopatum imponi.' Novatus then made Novatian a bishop and Felicissimus a deacon in this sense, that he got them made such by people, who, however 'boorish' or 'foolish,' were none the less bishops (unless indeed Felicissimus was a deacon before, which is possible; see s.v. Dict. Chr. Biog.).

2. Dr. Hatch alleges in the same note that presbyter-missionaries in the Middle Ages ordained under exceptional circumstances of necessity, e.g. St. Willehad and St. Liudger, of the eighth century, are both in their lives said to have 'constituted Churches and ordained presbyters over them'; see Pertz Monumenta Hist. German. ii. pp. 381, 411: 'ecclesias [Willehadus] coepit construere ac presbyteros super eas ordinare.' In both cases, however, a little investigation makes it plain that ordinare is used in the sense of 'appointing,' as it is used of secular persons (see just above). In the case of Willehad, his biographer tells us he remained a presbyter too long, because it was feared that the lawlessness of the Frisians would not tolerate the authority of a bishop. He therefore continued 'cuncta potestate praesidentis ordinans-secundum quod poterat,' i.e. up to a

presbyter's power.

Afterwards Charles the Great had him made bishop, 'consecrari fecit.' Then he redoubled his efforts and went about 'confirmans populum qui olim baptizatus fuerat.' He could not therefore confirm till he was made bishop. Is it likely then that he could ordain? In ruling Churches and appointing presbyters, however, he had only been doing what many 'ruling presbyters' in the mission field had done since, and are doing. In the case of Liudger, we are told that he was kept from being consecrated bishop by a sense of unworthiness and tried to get some one else consecrated in his place. Here then was not even a case of necessity, if such could be admitted, for a presbyter ordaining. The word is clearly used in his case, as in Willehad's for 'appointing,' and both cases fall together. Both missionaries come in a close relation to the see of Rome and its strict discipline.

3. Dr. Hatch says further: Ordination by other than a bishop, with the permission of the pope, is allowed even by the schoolmen and canonists, although the question is discussed among them whether the pope's licence can extend to the conferring of all orders, or should be limited to orders below the presbyterate (/.c. p. 110, n.52). Now there need be no question here of orders below the presbyterate. What the matter comes to is this: a few medieval canonists (see opinions quoted in Morinus de Sacr. Ord. p. iii. ex. iii. 1-5 f.) maintained the theory that the papal licence could enable a presbyter validly to confer his own order (and even a confirmed Christian his own confirmation). But (a) this was a mere abstract question; there is no instance of a pope having attempted to give such a licence. And (b) Dr. Hatch's 'even' is singularly out of place; this was an instance of papalism overriding catholicism. The men who made these claims on behalf of the pope were least of all maintainers of ancient discipline or liberty; they would have made almost any claim on his behalf. St. Thomas Aquinas says, in Lib. iv. Sent. dist. 25. qu. 1. art. I: 'Papa, qui habet plenitudinem potestatis pontificalis, potest committere non episcopo ea quae ad episcopalem dignitatem pertinent, dummodo illa non habeant immediatam relationem ad verum corpus Christi. Et ideo ex eius commissione aliquis sacerdos simpliciter potest conferre minores ordines et confirmare, non autem aliquis non sacerdos; nec iterum sacerdos maiores ordines, qui habent immediatam relationem ad corpus Christi, supra quod consecrandum papa non habet maiorem potestatem quam simplex sacerdos.'

F.

THE THEORY OF THE MINISTRY HELD BY

AMBROSIASTER, JEROME, ETC.

THE position explained above (pp. 157-163) is to be here justified by quotations.

I. AMBROSIASter. (a) His theory of ordination and the priesthood. in 1 Tim. iv. 14: 'Gratiam dari ordinationis significat [Paulus] per prophetiam et manuum impositionem. . . . manus vero impositiones verba sunt mystica quibus confirmatur ad hoc opus electus, accipiens auctoritatem teste conscientia sua ut audeat vice Domini sacrificium Deo offerre.' Cf. the reason why Christian 'levitae et sacerdotes' should abstain from the indulgences of marriage (in 1 Tim. iii. 13); 'Dei antistes' (in 1 Tim. v. 19); in huius persona totius populi salus consistit' (in 1 Tim. vi. 16); 'vicarius Christi' (in 2 Tim. i. 9) ; 'actores Dei' (in 1 Tim. iii. 13). He holds, however, that the original arrangements in regard to the ministry were freer than those which prevailed subsequently. When Churches had been established in all places and officers appointed, arrangements were made different from those with which things had begun. At first all used to teach and all to baptize, on whatever days and at whatever time there was opportunity. . . . So that the people might increase and be multiplied, all at the beginning were allowed to preach the Gospel and baptize and explain the Scriptures in Church; but when the Church embraced all places, places of meeting [conventicula] were established and rulers [rectores] and other offices in the Churches appointed, that none of the clergy who had not been ordained to it should venture to take to himself an office which he knows not to have been committed or granted to him.' There is thus a difference But even this very primi

between modern and ancient arrangements. tive practice of the earliest beginnings of the Church did not mean an indiscriminate condition of things. Even in the earliest days, we are told in the same passage, there were apostles, prophets, evangelists (who are deacons and not priests') and so on. Nor does he include among the things permitted to all, even for a time, the sacerdotal functions of sacrifice or laying-on of hands.2

1 in Eph. iv. 11, 12.

2 He uses the general Christian priesthood only as a ground for the position that all Christian people can become priests (i.e. in the ministry): 'In lege nascebantur sacerdotes ex genere Aaron Levitae; nunc autem omnes ex genere sunt sacerdotali ideoque ex populo potest fieri sacerdos (1.c.).

(b) His recognition of the divine authority of the episcopate and of the principle of succession. 'In episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus sacerdos est, hoc est, princeps est sacerdotum et propheta et evangelista et cetera adimplenda officia ecclesiae in ministerio fidelium' (in Eph. iv. 11); 'in episcopo omnium ordinationum dignitas est' (in 1 Cor. i. 17); 'et quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia, singulos episcopos singulis ecclesiis praeesse decrevit' (in 1 Cor. xii. 28); 'Paulus et Timotheus utique episcopi erant' (in Phil. i. 1); Archippus was a bishop (in Col. iv. 17); the Apostles were bishops (in Eph. iv. II, in 1 Cor. xii. 28). St. Paul is so exact in his directions in the Pastoral Epistles not from anxiety for Timothy, but on account of his successors, that they might observe the ordination of the Church, and that they too, who in their turn hand on the form to their successors, might begin from themselves, i.e. in spiritual discipline (in 1 Tim. vi. 16). Whatever changes were made were made under the authority of an (apostolic) council: immutata est ratio prospiciente concilio.' 1

(c) His theory of the original identity of bishops and presbyters. 'Timotheum presbyterum a se creatum episcopum vocat [sc. Paulus], quia primi presbyteri [i.e. chief presbyters] episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente eo sequens ei succederet. Denique apud Aegyptum presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit episcopus. Sed quia coeperunt sequentes presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus retinendos, immutata est ratio prospiciente concilio, ut non ordo sed meritum crearet episcopum multorum sacerdotum iudicio constitutum, ne indignus temere usurparet et esset multis scandalum' (in Eph. iv. 12). Here it is implied that at one period the difference of presbyter and bishop was not one of 'order' but only of selection. Again, when he has to account for St. Paul passing from the bishop to the deacon (1 Tim. iii. 10), he writes thus: Quare, nisi quia episcopi et presbyteri una ordinatio est? Uterque enim sacerdos est, sed episcopus primus est, ut omnis episcopus presbyter sit, non tamen omnis presbyter episcopus; hic enim episcopus est, qui inter presbyteros primus est. Denique Timotheum presbyterum ordinatum significat; sed quia ante se alterum non habebat, episcopus erat. Unde et quemadmodum episcopum ordinet, ostendit; neque enim fas erat aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret maiorem; nemo enim tribuit, quod non accepit.' A little further, on ver. 13: 'Nunc autem septem diaconos esse oportet et aliquantos presbyteros, ut bini sint per ecclesias, et unus in civitate episcopus.'

Take this language altogether, and I think we shall draw the conclusion that the commentator did indeed minimize the distinction of

grade within the sacerdotium. But I do not think we have any

1 Cf. Lightfoot Dissert. p. 203, n.5.

reason to suppose that he would have regarded the presbyters of his own day as possessing, under any circumstances, the power which the earliest presbyters possessed; because the ordinations in his own day were distinct, and the presbyter who attempted to lay on hands would do what is, in his words (in Eph. iv. 11), 'praesumere officium quod sciret non sibi creditum vel concessum.'

II. The AUTHOR OF THE QUAESTIONES-probably the same 'Ambrosiaster'—at any rate uses the same idea of the ministry (in Qu. ci) in order to castigate in the spirit of Jerome the Roman deacons. He says: 'in Alexandria et apud totam Aegyptum, si desit episcopus, consecrat presbyter.' There is another reading however consignat, as in the commentaries. Whichever word is used the reference is to confirmation; cf. Isidor. Hispal. de Eccl. Off. ii. 25 unctione chrismatis consecrari' (of those who are confirmed), and see s. v. in Ducange Gloss. Med. et Inf. Latin. Consigno is the regular word for confirmation, but is never used for ordination.

III. JEROME repeats the theory of the commentator, adding to it the remark discussed above about the Alexandrian election to the episcopate.

(a) His sacerdotalism. Jerome is a great sacerdotalist. He believes indeed in the priesthood of the laity (adv. Lucifer. 4: 'sacerdotium laici, id est baptisma'), but not in such sense as militates against even an extreme sacerdotalism (ib. 21). Twice in his works the idea occurs-'a priest can intercede for a layman, but, if a priest falls, who can intercede for him?' (ib. 5, Ep. xiv ad Heliodorum § 9.) Again and again he dwells on the sacerdotal authority and sacrificial function. (b) His recognition of the apostolic authority of the episcopate. 'Ecclesia multis gradibus consistens ad extremum diaconis, presbyteris, episcopis finitur' (adv. Lucifer. 22); 'quid facit excepta ordinatione episcopus quod presbyter non faciat? omnes [episcopi]

apostolorum successores sunt' (Ep. cxlvi ad Evangelum). The present monepiscopal constitution is attributed to (apostolic) decree (on Titus i. 5) in toto orbe decretum est.' The Apostles are represented as ordaining bishops and priests: 'quod fecerunt et apostoli, per singulas provincias presbyteros et episcopos ordinantes' (in Matt. XXV. 26).

(c) His theory of the original identity of bishops and presbyters. This he (Ep. cxlvi ad Evangelum) proves from the language of Scripture, and continues: 'quod autem postea unus electus est qui ceteris praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est; ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet.' Then follows the passage about Alexandria, and the conclusion just quoted, 'quid facit, excepta ordinatione etc.?' So to the same effect in Tit. i. 5: 'Idem est