(p. 133). This is the only apparently strong point in Dr. Hatch's plea. The passage (referred to above, p. 137) describes a solemn rite by which a man is consecrated to a priestly office. Three bishops stand before the altar, others with the presbyters praying in silence, and 'while the deacons hold the divine Gospels open upon the head of him who is being ordained (xeiρoтovovμévov), the chief bishop offers a long prayer of consecration. At the end of which one of the bishops is to lift up the sacrifice (i.e. the oblation) upon the head of him who has been ordained (XELPOTOVNOÉVTOS) and on the morrow he is to be enthroned.' Are we to conclude that there is here represented a consecration without laying. on of hands? This is very improbable because (1) the ceremony is specified in the case of the bishop, as of the presbyter and deacon, in the canons of Hippolytus and in the Egyptian Church ordinances upon which the ordinal in the Constitutions is based. (2) it is specified in the Constitutions in the case of the deacon and presbyter. (3) In the same book of the Constitutions (viii. 46) a passage occurs sufficient to disprove the hypothesis: ἴστε γὰρ πάντως ἐπισκόπους παρ' ἡμῶν ὀνομα σθέντας καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διακόνους εὐχῇ καὶ χειρῶν ἐπιθέσει, τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν πραγμάτων δεικνύοντας οὐ γὰρ ὁ βουλόμενος παρ' ἡμῖν ἐπλήρου τὴν χεῖρα [i.e. was consecrated] ἀλλ ̓ ὁ καλόνμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ — bishops and presbyters and deacons were appointed by prayer and the laying-on of hands.' Presumably, therefore, in the rite as described the laying-on of hands is implied in the word χειροτονεῖν. The word was supposed, in the fourth century at least (see quotations from Chrysostom and Jerome p. 350), to have that implication.1 Also, it should be noticed, 'manual acts' are often omitted in early sacramentaries. Thus the directions for the manual act of laying on hands is omitted in some of the accounts of the rite of ordination in the Ordo Romanus; e.g. ap. Hittorp. p. 31 we have simply 'consecrat illos,' although a late date is indicated by the mention of the incense being blessed, the introits, the litany, the vestments; cf. ib. p. 107. On the other hand it is specified in an 'ordinal' which Dr. Hatch (Dict. Chr. Ant. s. v.) thinks represents one of the earliest remaining western types (Hittorp. p. 88; Martene, Ordo ix, Ant. Eccl. Ritus ii. p. 151). It is not specified in Martene's Ordo i (l.c. p. 86 f.), nor in a very brief order in Muratori Lit. Rom. Vet. i. p. 512 f., nor in the Maronite rite (in Morinus de S. Ord. p. ii. p. 419 f.). It is only later that 'ritualia,' giving complete rubrical directions, are written.

...

1 Apost. Const. viii. 28 distinguishes xecpobereîv, i.e. to give certain benedictions of penitents, from xeɩporoveiv="to ordain.' xetpoтoveîv is a technical term for one special sort of laying-on of hands.

Now what was the significance attached to this laying-on of hands?1 It was conceived of as giving ministerial authority, and not only authority, but something which accompanied the authority-a gift of special grace empowering a man for its exercise.

Thus, in the fifth century, Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, the literalist interpreter of a temper which Dr. Newman characterizes as 'English,' no less than the mystic writer who passes for Dionysius, believed that the laying-on of hands conveyed a specific grace of order. He believed this even when the rite was administered to a man without his knowledge. He records (Relig. Hist. xix) how a bishop, wishing to ordain a recluse, got into his cell by surreptitious means and laid his hand on him and performed the prayer and then spoke at length to him and made plain to him the grace which had come upon him.' He regarded the grace as given by the laying-on of hands in virtue of the prayer which invoked the Spirit. 'We ought,' he says, commenting on 1 Tim. v. 22, 'first to examine the life of the man who is being ordained, and so to invoke upon him (κaλeîv èπ' avтóv) the grace of the Spirit.'

In the fourth century we have found St. Gregory of Nazianzus conceiving with great richness of thought of the effect of ordination; and speaking of St. Basil on his deathbed as 'giving his hand and the Spirit in ordination of the most genuine of his followers.' So St. Basil himself, speaking of those who had left the Church, says: 'they had no longer the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; its communication failed when the succession was broken off (74 diakoπîvai TÒν ȧKOλov@lav). For those who first went into schism had their ordinations from the fathers, and through the laying-on of their hands they

1 Dr. Hatch has endeavoured to minimize it (B. L. p. 135 and Dict. Chr. Ant. ii. p. 1508). Jerome no doubt says that the value of the outward rite lay, in one respect, in its preventing the possibility of people being ordained without their knowing it: 'ordinatio clericorum non solum ad imprecationem vocis sed ad imposi tionem impletur manus, ne scilicet, ut in quibusdam risimus, vocis imprecatio clandestina clericos ordinet nescientes' (in Isai. lviii. x)—a function which it fulfilled but imperfectly, as we know from some curious stories of Theodoret (Relig. Hist. xiii, xix). But it was much more than this to Jerome, as we have seen; the whole rite made a man a priest, with sacerdotal powers and authority. St. Augustin also says (de Bapt. iii. 16. 21): 'Quid est aliud [manus impositio] nisi oratio super hominem?' But he is not speaking of ordination. The laying-on of hands in ordination did, according to Augustin, see p. 194, 'impose a sacrament', which was indelible. The pseudo-Dionysius sees in the laying-on of hands more than fatherly sheltering and subjection to God: it ἐμφαίνει τὴν τελεταρχικὴν σκέπην, ὑφ' ἧς . . . ἕξιν καὶ δύναμιν ἱερατικὴν δωρουμένης, κ.τ.λ. (ap. Morinus de S. Ord. p. ii. p. 58.)

2 The early Church did not use the imperative formula, 'Receive the Holy Ghost.' St. Augustin certainly implies this (de Trin. xv. 26). But no more is implied in this formula than in saying, 'I baptize,' or (as St. Gregory in this case) he gives the Holy Spirit.'

had the spiritual gift; but those who broke off, having become laymen, had neither the authority to baptize nor to ordain, being no longer able to impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they had themselves fallen.' We have already heard St. Athanasius explaining to the recalcitrant Dracontius, that in being ordained he had received a grace of the Spirit, which was in him whether he liked it or no, and for the exercise of which he was responsible. The prayer for the ordination of a bishop in the Apostolical Constitutions runs: 'Thyself [O God], now by the mediation of Thy Christ, pour out through us [the ordaining bishops] the power of Thy ruling Spirit' (di huv èixеe τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ ἡγεμονικού σου πνεύματος, viii. 5). St Peter in the Clementine Homilies is represented as laying-on hands and invoking for him who is being made bishop the authority to bind and loose aright (Hom. iii. 72; cf. Ep. Clem. 2).

When we turn to the West we find a similar set of conceptions attached to the ordination of the clergy. The author of the Quaestiones in Vet. et Nov. Test. speaks thus (Qu. xciii): When the Lord is said to have breathed on the disciples a few days after his resurrection and to have said Receive 'ye the Holy Ghost,' He is understood to have been conveying ecclesiastical power (ecclesiastica potestas collata intelligitur esse): and because it really belongs to ecclesiastical authority (ad ius ecclesiasticum), He adds 'Whose sins ye retain,' etc. This inbreathing of Christ is a certain grace, which by succession is infused into those who are ordained (per traditionem infunditur ordinatis), by which they are made more acceptable.' He then quotes St. Paul's words to Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 14) and explains that this outward act of Christ was enacted 'ut ex eo traditioni ecclesiasticae Spiritus sanctus infusus credatur.' The contemporary Ambrosiaster, writing also from Rome, speaks more definitely (see App. Note F) of the "grace of ordination' as attached to the laying-on of hands. He only,' says Lucifer (de S. Athan. i. 9), ‘can be filled with the virtue of the Holy Spirit for the governing of His people, whom God has chosen, and on whom hands have been laid by the catholic bishops, as Moses' hand was laid upon Joshua.' We have seen that St. Cyprian understood by ordination the laying-on of hands and that he regarded ordination, when rightly administered in the Church, as bestowing sacerdotal authority. His conception is illustrated by that of another African bishop, the author of the de Aleatoribus, 'Since we bishops have through the laying-on of hands received the same Holy Spirit within the shelter of our breast, let us cause no sadness to Him who dwells within us. 'Before Cyprian, the great theologian Hippolytus uses the

1 Ep. clxxxviii.

De Aleat. c. 3, 'Quoniam episcopi idem [? eundem] Spiritum sanctum per impositionem manus cordis excepimus hospitio, cohabitatori nostro nullam maestitiam

following language as to the relation of the Holy Ghost to the ministry (Ref. Omn. Haer. proem.): 'No other will refute these errors save the Holy Ghost given in the Church, which the Apostles first received and then imparted to right believers; and forasmuch as we are their successors, sharing the same grace and high priesthood and teaching and accounted guardians of the Church, we shall not suffer our eyes to sleep.' The same idea prevails in the 'canons' ascribed to him, p. 132. Irenaeus also regards church officers as endowed with special spiritual gifts; he speaks of the presbyters who hold the succession from the Apostles, who with the succession of the episcopate have received the sure gift of truth (charisma veritatis) according to the good pleasure of the Father' (iv. 26. 2). 'God, says St. Paul, hath put in the Church first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers; where, then, the gifts of the Lord have been put, there we should learn the truth' (iv. 26. 5). Lastly, though Clement of Rome does not, any more than Irenaeus, allude to the ceremony of ordination, he connects the mission of the ministry with that one mission by which 'Christ is from God, and the Apostles from Christ' (c. 42). Such, then, is the continuous conception of churchmen in respect of the grace of ordination and the right of laying-on of hands; and it has its origin in the simple and decisive expressions of the New Testament.

H.

MONTANISM.

(See pp. 190 ff.)

THE true nature of Montanism seems to emerge very clearly from an examination of the ancient writings bearing on it, which are not of very considerable bulk. They are mainly—(i) the anti-Montanist writers of the second, or early third, century, quoted by Eusebius H. E. v. 16-19; (ii) Didymus de Trin. especially iii. 41; (iii) Epiphanius Haer. xlviii (both these writers drawing on more ancient sources); and (iv) the Montanist writings of Tertullian, its chief western advocate. There are also important references in Hippolytus Ref. Omn. Haer. viii. 19; and pseudo-Tertull. de Praescr. ad fin. Other references are collected, and all the sources analysed, in Bonwetsch's admirable Gesch. des Montanismus § 1; cf. also Harnack Dogmengesch. i. pp. 318-330; and Dict. Chr. Biog. s. v. MONTANUS (Dr. Salmon).

proponamus.' This tract has been edited by Harnack (Texte u. Untersuch. V. 1), and by him assigned to Victor, bishop of Rome, c. A.D. 195, but it is more probably by an African bishop.

From these authorities it appears

1. That the primary claim of Montanus and his followers was that of supernatural inspiration. Montanus claimed to be a passive organ through which Almighty God spoke-apparently even to be Almighty God, in the sense that his voice was God's voice. A similar claim was made by his prophetesses, Prisca (Priscilla) and Maximilla. In this consisted the New Prophecy (Epiphan. Haer. xlviii. 11, 12; Didymus de Trin. iii. 41; and the anonymous presbyter ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 16).1 The inspired utterances of these first Montanist prophets were collected and reckoned by the Montanists as additional scriptures (ovvTάTTEL Kaivàs ypapás, Euseb. H. E. vi. 20); Tertullian constantly quotes them as inspired oracles (see de Exh. Cast. 10; de Res. Carn. 11; de Fuga 9, 11; de Pud. 21; adv. Prax. 8, 30; adv. Marc. iii. 24). If the highest sort of inspiration was supposed to belong to these prophets only (and the Fathers taunt them with the cessation of the gift), yet ' revelations' continued in the society. Tertullian quotes, to prove the materiality of the soul, the visions of a 'spiritual' sister who had the gift of revelations' (de An. 9). As claiming inspiration, the Montanists claimed to be in a prophetic succession. They claimed to succeed to the ancient prophets and to those of the new covenant (ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 18). They argued that their inspiration was only a new instance of an old phenomenon (see the Montanist preface to the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas, and note especially 'things of later date are to be esteemed of more account,' and the conclusion of the account). The Church judged them on their claim. She tried the spirits,' and decided that this was a case not of supernatural inspiration but of false prophecy, or even demoniacal possession. As thus judged and condemned, they were excommunicated by the Asiatic Churches, and the orthodox held them in such horror that under persecution they would not even die with them (ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 16 ad fin.). They were afterwards excommunicated at Rome also (see esp. Dict. Chr. Biog. iii. pp. 936, 944).

The arguments used against the Montanist claims seem to have been (a) that the prophetic gift failed with the death of the first claimants to it (ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 17):

(b) that their prophecies of wars and revolutions and the speedy end of the world did not come true (ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 16, and Epiphan. l.c. § 2):

1 The claim to speak with the voice of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost indiscriminately, carried with it, according to Didymus, a confusion of the Divine Persons (.c. and elsewhere). Epiphanius, however (l.c. § 1), says the Montanists were orthodox. The pseudo-Tertullian draws a distinction in this respect between two sects. Tertullian makes their orthodoxy emphatic.

2 There is perhaps no reason to make this claim an afterthought, with Harnack Dogmengesch. i. p. 323.