(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 5)
Chapter 4. Of the state of the primitive Church, and the mode of
government in use before the papacy.
The divisions of this chapter are, - I. The mode of government
in the primitive Church, sec. 1-10. II. The formal ordination of
Bishops and Ministers in the primitive Church, sec. 10-15.
Sections.
1. The method of government in the primitive Church. Not in every
respect conformable to the rule of the word of God. Three
distinct orders of Ministers.
2. First, the Bishop, for the sake of preserving order, presided
over the Presbyters or Pastors. The office of Bishop. Presbyter
and Bishop the same. The institution of this order ancient.
3. The office of Bishop and Presbyters. Strictly preserved in the
primitive Church.
4. Of Archbishops and Patriarchs. Very seldom used. For what end
instituted. Hierarchy an improper name, and not used in
Scripture.
5. Deacons, the second order of Ministers in the primitive Church.
Their proper office. The Bishop their inspector. Subdeacons,
their assistants. Archdeacons, their presidents. The reading of
the Gospel, an adventitious office conferred in honour on the
Deacons.
6. Mode in which the goods of the Church were anciently dispensed.
1. The support of the poor. 2. Due provision for the ministers
of the Church.
7. The administration at first free and voluntary. The revenues of
the Church afterwards classed under four heads.
8. A third part of the revenues devoted to the fabric of churches.
To this, however, when necessary, the claim of the poor was
preferred. Sayings, testimonies, and examples to this effect,
from Cyril, Acatius, Jerome, Exuperius, Ambrose.
9. The Clerics, among whom were the Doorkeepers and Acolytes, were.
the names given to exercises used as a kind of training for
tyros.
10. Second part of the chapter, treating of the calling of
Ministers. Some error introduced in course of time in respect
to celibacy from excessive strictness. In regard to the
ordination of Ministers, full regard not always paid to the
consent of the people. Why the people less anxious to maintain
their right. Ordinations took place at stated times.
11. In the ordination of Bishops the liberty of the people
maintained.
12. Certain limits afterwards introduced to restrain the
inconsiderate license of the multitude.
13. This mode of election long prevailed. Testimony of Gregory.
nothing repugnant to this in the decretals of Gratian.
14. The form of ordination in the ancient Church.
15. This form gradually changed.
1. Hitherto we have discoursed of the order of church
government as delivered to us in the pure word of God, and of
ministerial offices as instituted by Christ, (chap. 1 sec. 5, 6;
chap. 3.) Now that the whole subject may be more clearly and
familiarly explained, and also better fixed in our minds, it will be
useful to attend to the form of the early Church, as this will give
us a kind of visible representation of the divine institution. For
Al though the bishops of those times published many canons, in which
they seemed to express more than is expressed by the sacred volume,
yet they were so cautious in framing all their economy on the word
of God, the only standard, that it is easy to see that they scarcely
in any respect departed from it. Even if something may be wanting in
these enactments, still, as they were sincerely desirous to preserve
the divine institution, and have not strayed far from it, it will be
of great benefit here briefly to explain what their observance was.
As we have stated that three classes of ministers are set before us
in Scripture, so the early Church distributed all its ministers into
three orders. For from the order of presbyters, part were selected
as pastors and teachers, while to the remainder was committed the
censure of manners and discipline. To the deacons belonged the care
of the poor and the dispensing of alms. Readers and Acolytes were
not the names of certain offices; but those whom they called clergy,
they accustomed from their youth to serve the Church by certain
exercises, that they might the better understand for what they were
destined, and afterwards come better prepared for their duty, as I
will shortly show at greater length. Accordingly, Jerome, in setting
forth five orders in the Church, enumerates Bishops, Presbyters,
Deacons, Believers, Catechumens: to the other Clergy and Monks he
gives no proper place, (Hieron. in Jes. c. 9.)
2. All, therefore, to whom the office of teaching was
committed, they called presbyters, and in each city these presbyters
selected one of their number to whom they gave the special title of
bishop, lest, as usually happens, from equality dissension should
arise. The bishop, however, was not so superior in honour and
dignity as to have dominion over his colleagues, but as it belongs
to a president in an assembly to bring matters before them, collect
their opinions, take precedence of others in consulting, advising,
exhorting, guide the whole procedure by his authority, and execute
what is decreed by common consent, a bishop held the same office in
a meeting of presbyters. And the ancients themselves confess that
this practice was introduced by human arrangement, according to the
exigency of the times. Thus Jerome, on the Epistle to Titus, cap. 1
says, "A bishop is the same as a presbyter. And before dissensions
were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and
it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Cephas,
churches were governed by a common council of presbyters.
Afterwards, that the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the
whole charge was devolved upon one. Therefore, as presbyters know
that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who
presides, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters
more by custom than in consequence of our Lord's appointment, and
ought to rule the Church for the common good." In another place he
shows how ancient the custom was, (Hieron. Epist. ad Evang.) For he
says that at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, as far down as
Heraclas and Dionysius, presbyters always placed one, selected from
themselves, in a higher rank, and gave him the name of bishop. Each
city, therefore, had a college of presbyters, consisting of pastors
and teachers. For they all performed to the people that office of
teaching, exhorting, and correcting, which Paul enjoins on bishops,
(Tit. 1: 9;) and that they might leave a seed behind them, they made
it their business to train the younger men who had devoted
themselves to the sacred warfare. To each city was assigned a
certain district which took presbyters from it, and was considered
as it were incorporated into that church. Each presbyter, as I have
said, merely to preserve order and peace, was under one bishop, who,
though he excelled others in dignity, was subject to the meeting of
the brethren. But if the district which was under his bishopric was
too large for him to be able to discharge all the duties of bishop,
presbyters were distributed over it in certain places to act as his
substitutes in minor matters. These were called Chorepiscopi, (rural
bishops,) because they represented the bishops throughout the
province.
3. But, in regard to the office of which we now treat, the
bishop as well as the presbyters behoved to employ themselves in the
administration of word and sacraments. For, at Alexandria only, (as
Arius had there troubled the Church,) it was enacted, that no
presbyter should deliver an address to the people, as Socrates says,
Tripartite. Hist. Lib. 9. Jerome does not conceal his
dissatisfaction with the enactment, (Hieron. Epist. ad Evagr.) It
certainly would have been deemed monstrous for one to give himself
out as a bishop, and yet not show himself a true bishop by his
conduct. Such, then, was the strictness of those times, that all
ministers were obliged to fulfil the office as the Lord requires of
them. Nor do I refer to the practice of one age only, since not even
in the time of Gregory, when the Church had almost fallen,
(certainly had greatly degenerated from ancient purity,) would any
bishop have been tolerated who abstained from preaching. In some
part of his twenty-fourth Epistle he says, "The priest dies when no
sound is heard from him: for he calls forth the wrath of the unseen
Judge against him if he walks without the sound of preaching."
elsewhere he says, "When Paul testifies that he is pure from the
blood of all men, (Acts 20: 26,) by his words, we, who are called
priests, are charged, are arraigned, are shown to be guilty, since
to those sins which we have of our own we add the deaths of other
men, for we commit murder as often as lukewarm and silent we see
them daily going to destruction," (Gregor. Hom. in Ezek. 11: 26.) He
calls himself and others silent when less assiduous in their work
than they ought to be. Since he does not spare even those who did
their duty partially, what think you would he do in the case of
those who entirely neglected it? For a long time, therefore, it was
regarded in the Church as the first duty of a bishop to feed the
people by the word of God, or to edify the Church, in public and
private, with sound doctrine.
4. As to the fact, that each province had an archbishop among
the bishops, (see chap. 7 sec. 15,) and, moreover, that, in the
Council of Nice, patriarchs were appointed to be superior to
archbishops, in order and dignity, this was designed for the
preservation of discipline, although, in treating of the subject
here, it ought not to be omitted, that the practice was very rare.
The chief reason for which these orders were instituted was, that if
any thing occurred in any church which could not well be explicated
by a few, it might be referred to a provincial synod. If the
magnitude or difficulty of the case demanded a larger discussion,
patriarchs were employed along with synods, and from them there was
no appeal except to a General Council. To the government thus
constituted some gave the name of Hierarchy - a name, in my opinion,
improper, certainly one not used by Scripture. For the Holy Spirit
designed to provide that no one should dream of primacy or
domination in regard to the government of the Church. But if,
disregarding the term, we look to the thing, we shall find that the
ancient bishops had no wish to frame a form of church government
different from that which God has prescribed in his word.
5. Nor was the case of deacons then different from what it had
been under the apostles, (chap. 3 sec. 6.) For they received the
daily offerings of the faithful, and the annual revenues of the
Church, that they might apply them to their true uses; in other
words, partly in maintaining ministers, and partly in supporting the
poor; at the sight of the bishop, however, to whom they every year
gave an account of their stewardship. For, although the canons
uniformly make the bishop the dispenser of all the goods of the
Church, this is not to be understood as if he by himself undertook
that charge, but because it belonged to him to prescribe to the
deacon who were to be admitted to the public alimony of the Church,
and point out to what persons, and in what portions, the residue was
to be distributed, and because he was entitled to see whether the
deacon faithfully performed his office. Thus, in the canons which
they ascribe to the apostles, it is said, "We command that the
bishop have the affairs of the Church under his control. For if the
souls of men, which are more precious, have been intrusted to him,
much more is he entitled to have the charge of money matters, so
that under his control all may be dispensed to the poor by the
presbyters and deacons, that the ministration may be made reverently
and with due care." And in the Council of Antioch, it was decreed,
(cap. 35,) that bishops, who intermeddled with the effects of the
Church, without the knowledge of the presbyters and deacons, should
be restrained. But there is no occasion to discuss this point
farther, since it is evident, from many of the letters of Gregory,
that even at that time, when the ecclesiastical ordinances were
otherwise much vitiated, it was still the practice for the deacons
to be under the bishops the stewards of the poor. It is probable
that at the first subdeacons were attached to the deacons, to assist
them in the management of the poor; but the distinction was
gradually lost. Archdeacons began to be appointed when the extent of
the revenues demanded a new and more exact method of administration,
though Jerome mentions that it already existed in his day. To them
belonged the amount of revenues, possessions, and furniture, and the
charge of the daily offerings. Hence Gregory declares to the
Archdeacon Solitanus, that the blame rested with him, if any of the
goods of the Church perished through his fraud or negligence. The
reading of the word to the people, and exhortation to prayer, was
assigned to them, and they where permitted, moreover, to give the
cup in the sacred Supper; but this was done for the purpose of
honouring their office, that they might perform it with greater
reverence, when they were reminded by such symbols that what they
discharged was not some profane stewardship, but a spiritual
function dedicated to God.
6. Hence, also, we may judge what was the use, and of what
nature was the distribution of ecclesiastical goods. You may every
where find, both from the decrees of synods, and from ancient
writers, that whatever the Church possessed, either in lands or in
money, was the patrimony of the poor. Accordingly, the saying is
ever and anon sounded in the ears of bishops and deacons, Remember
that you are not handling your own property, but that destined for
the necessities of the poor; if you dishonestly conceal or
dilapidate it, you will be guilty of blood. Hence they are
admonished to distribute them to those to whom they are due, with
the greatest fear and reverence, as in the sight of God, without
respect of persons. Hence, also, in Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine,
and other like bishops, those grave obtestations in which they
assert their integrity before the people. But since it is just in
itself, and was sanctioned by a divine law, that those who devote
their labour to the Church shall be supported at the public expense
of the Church, and some presbyters in that age having consecrated
their patrimony to God, had become voluntarily poor, the
distribution was so made that aliment was afforded to ministers, and
the poor were not neglected. Meanwhile, it was provided that the
ministers themselves, who ought to be an example of frugality to
others, should not have so much as might be abused for luxury or
delicacy; but only what might be needful to support their wants:
"For those clergy, who can be supported by their own patrimony,"
says Jerome, "commit sacrilege if they accept what belongs to the
poor, and by such abuse eat and drink judgement to themselves."
7. At first the administration was free and voluntary, when
bishops and deacons were faithful of their own accord, and when
integrity of conscience and purity of life supplied the place of
laws. Afterwards, when, from the cupidity and depraved desires of
some, bad examples arose, Canons were framed, to correct these
evils, and divided the revenues of the Church into four parts,
assigning one to the clergy, another to the poor, another to the
repair of churches and other edifices, a fourth to the poor whether
strangers or natives. For though other canons attribute this last
part to the bishop, it differs in no respect from the division which
I have mentioned. For they do not mean that it is his property,
which he may devour alone or squander in any way he pleases, but
that it may enable him to use the hospitality which Paul requires in
that order, (1 Tim. 3: 2.) This is the interpretation of Gelasius
and Gregory. For the only reason which Gelasius gives why the bishop
should claim any thing to himself is that he may be able to bestow
it on captives and strangers. Gregory speaks still more clearly: "It
is the custom of the Apostolic See," says he, "to give command to
the bishop who has been ordained, to divide all the revenues into
four portions, namely, one to the bishop and his household for
hospitality and maintenance, another to the clergy, a third to the
poor, a fourth to the repair of churches." The bishop, therefore,
could not lawfully take for his own use more than was sufficient for
moderate and frugal food and clothing. When any one began to wanton
either in luxury or ostentation and show, he was immediately
reprimanded by his colleagues, and if he obeyed not, was deprived of
his honours.
8. Moreover the sum expended on the adorning of churches was at
first very trifling, and even afterwards, when the Church had become
somewhat more wealthy, they in that matter observed mediocrity.
Still, whatever money was then collected was reserved for the poor,
when any greater necessity occurred. Thus Cyril, when a famine
prevailed in the province of Jerusalem, and the want could not
otherwise be supplied, took the vessels and robes and sold them for
the support of the poor. In like manner, Acatius, Bishop of Amida,
when a great multitude of the Persian were almost destroyed by
famine, having assembled the clergy, and delivered this noble
address, "Our God has no need either of chalices or salvers, for he
neither eats nor drinks," (Tripart. Hist. Lib. 5 and Lib. 6 c. 16,)
melted down the plate, that he might be able to furnish food and
obtain the means of ransoming the miserable. Jerome also, while
inveighing against the excessive splendour of churches relates that
Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, in his day, though he carried the
body of the Lord in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass,
nevertheless suffered no poor man to be hungry, (Hieron. ad
Nepotian.) What I lately said of Acatius, Ambrose relates of
himself. For when the Asians assailed him for having broken down the
sacred vessels for the ransom of captives, he made this most
admirable excuse: "He who sent the apostles without gold has also
gathered churches without gold. The Church has gold not to keep but
to distribute, and give support in necessity. What need is there of
keeping what is of no benefit? Are we ignorant how much gold and
silver the Assyrians carried off from the temple of the Lord? Is it
not better for a priest to melt them for the support of the poor, if
other means are wanting, than for a sacrilegious enemy to carry them
away? Would not the Lord say, Why have you suffered so many poor to
die of hunger, and you certainly had gold wherewith to minister to
their support? Why have so many captives been carried away and not
redeemed? Why have so many been slain by the enemy? It had been
better to preserve living than metallic vessels. These charges you
will not be able to answer: for what could you say? I feared lest
the temple of God should want ornament. He would answer, Sacraments
require not gold, and things which are not bought with gold please
not by gold. The ornament of the Sacraments is the ransom of
captives," (Ambrose. de Office. Lib. 2 c. 28.) In a word, we see the
exact truth of what he elsewhere says, viz., that whatever the
Church then possessed was the revenue of the needy. Again, A bishop
has nothing but what belongs to the poor, (Ambrose. Lib. 5 Ep. 31,
33.)
9. We have now reviewed the ministerial offices of the ancient
Church. For others, of which ecclesiastical writers make mention,
were rather exercises and preparations than distinct offices. These
holy men, that they might leave a nursery of the Church behind them,
received young men, who, with the consent and authority of their
parents, devoted themselves to the spiritual warfare under their
guardianship and training, and so formed them from their tender
years, that they might not enter on the discharge of the office as
ignorant novices. All who received this training were designated by
the general name of Clerks. I could wish that some more appropriate
name had been given them, for this appellation had its origin in
error, or at least improper feeling, since the whole Church is by
Peter denominated "kleros" (clerus,) that is, the inheritance of the
Lord, (1 Pet. 5: 3.) It was in itself however a most sacred and
salutary institutions that those who wished to devote themselves and
their labour to the Church should be brought up under the charge of
the bishop; so that no one should minister in the Church unless he
had been previously well trained, unless he had in early life
imbibed sound doctrine, unless by stricter discipline he had formed
habits of gravity and severer morals, been withdrawn from ordinary
business, and accustomed to spiritual cares and studies. For as
lyres in the military art are trained by mock fights for true and
serious warfare, so there was a rudimental training by which they
were exercised in clerical duty before they were actually appointed
to office. First, then, they intrusted them with the opening and
shutting of the church, and called them Ostiarii. Next, they gave
the name of Acolytes to those who assisted the bishop in domestic
services, and constantly attended him, first, as a mark of respect;
and, secondly that no suspicion might arise. Moreover, that they
might gradually become known to the people, and recommend themselves
to them, and at the same time might learn to stand the gaze of all,
and speak before all, that they might not, when appointed
presbyters, be overcome with shame when they came forward to teach,
the office of reading in the desk was given them. In this way they
were gradually advanced, that they might prove their carefulness in
separate exercises, until they were appointed subdeacons. All I mean
by this is, that these were rather the rudimentary exercises of
lyres than functions which were accounted among the true ministries
of the Church.
10. In regard to what we have set down as the first and second
heads in the calling of ministers, viz., the persons to be elected
and the religious care to be therein exercised, the ancient Church
followed the injunction of Paul, and the examples of the apostles.
For they were accustomed to meet for the election of pastors with
the greatest reverence, and with earnest prayer to God. Moreover,
they had a form of examination by which they tested the life and
doctrine of those who were to be elected by the standard of Paul, (1
Tim. 3: 2;) only here they sometimes erred from excessive
strictness, by exacting more of a bishop than Paul requires, and
especially, in process of time, by exacting celibacy: but in other
respects their practice corresponded with Paul's description. In
regard to our third head, however, viz., Who were entitled to
appoint ministers? they did not always observe the same rule.
Anciently none were admitted to the number of the clergy without the
consent of the whole people: and hence Cyprian makes a laboured
apology for having appointed Aurelius a reader without consulting
the Church, because, although done contrary to customs it was not
done without reason. He thus premises: "In ordaining clergy, dearest
brethren, we are wont previously to consult you, and weigh the
manners and merits of each by the common advice," (Cyprian. Lib. 2.
Ep. 5.) But as in these minor exercises there was no great danger,
inasmuch as they were appointed to a long probation and unimportant
function, the consent of the people ceased to be asked. Afterwards,
in other orders also, with the exception of the bishopric, the
people usually left the choice and decision to the bishop and
presbyters, who thus determined who were fit and worthy, unless,
perhaps, when new presbyters were appointed to parishes, for then
the express consent of the inhabitants of the place behaved to be
given. Nor is it strange that in this matter the people were not
very anxious to maintain their right, for no subdeacon was appointed
who had not given a long proof of his conduct in the clerical
office, agreeably to the strictness of discipline then in use. After
he had approved himself in that degree he was appointed deacon, and
thereafter, if he conducted himself faithfully, he attained to the
honour of a presbyter. Thus none were promoted whose conduct had
not, in truth, been tested for many years under the eye of the
people. There were also many canons for punishing their faults, so
that the Church, if she did not neglect the remedies, was not
burdened with bad presbyters or deacons. In the case of presbyters,
indeed, the consent of the citizens was always required, as is
attested by the canon, (Primus Distinct. 67,) which is attributed to
Anacletus. In fine, all ordinations took place at stated periods of
the year, that none might creep in stealthily without the consent of
the faithful, or be promoted with too much facility without
witnesses.
11. In electing bishops, the people long retained their right
of preventing any one from being intruded who was not acceptable to
all. Accordingly, it was forbidden by the Council of Antioch to
induct any one on the unwilling. This also Leo I carefully confirms.
Hence these passages: "Let him be elected whom the clergy and people
or the majority demand." Again, "Let him who is to preside over all
be elected by all," (Leo, Ep. 90, cap. 2.) He, therefore, who is
appointed while unknown and unexamined, must of necessity be
violently intruded. Again, "Let him be elected who is chosen by the
clergy, and called by the people, and let him be consecrated by the
provincials with the judgement of the metropolitan." So careful were
the holy fathers that this liberty of the people should on no
account be diminished, that when a general council, assembled at
Constantinople, were ordaining Nectarius, they declined to do it
without the approbation of the whole clergy and people, as their
letter to the Roman synod testified. Accordingly, when any bishop
nominated his successor, the act was not ratified without consulting
the whole people. Of this you have not only an example, but the
form, in Augustine, in the nomination of Radius, (August. Ep. 110.)
And Theodore, after relating that Peter was the successor nominated
by Athanasius, immediately adds, that the sacerdotal order ratified
it, that the magistracy, chief men, and whole people, by their
acclamation approved.
12. It was, indeed, decreed (and I admit on the best grounds)
by the Council of Laodicea, (Can. 18) that the election should not
be left to crowds. For it scarcely ever happens that so many heads,
with one consent, settle any affair well. It generally holds true,
"Incertum scindi studia in contraria vulgus;" - "Opposing wishes
rend the fickle crowd." For, first, the clergy alone selected, and
presented him whom they had selected to the magistrate, or senate,
and chief men. These, after deliberation, put their signature to the
election, if it seemed proper, if not, they chose another whom they
more highly approved. The matter was then laid before the multitude,
who, although not bound by those previous proceedings, were less
able to act tumultuously. Or, if the matter began with the
multitude, it was only that it might be known whom they were most
desirous to have; the wishes of the people being heard, the clergy
at length elected. Thus it was neither lawful for the clergy to
appoint whom they chose, nor were they, however, under the necessity
of yielding to the foolish desires of the people. Leo sets down this
order, when he says, "The wishes of the citizens, the testimonies of
the people, the choice of the honourable, the election of the
clergy, are to be waited for," (Leo, Ep. 87.) Again, "Let the
testimony of the honourable, the subscription of the clergy, the
consent of the magistracy and people, be obtained; otherwise (says
he) it must on no account be done." Nor is any thing more intended
by the decree of the Council of Laodicea, than that the clergy and
rulers were not to allow themselves to be carried away by the rash
multitude, but rather by their prudence and gravity to repress their
foolish desires whenever there was occasion.
13. This mode of election was still in force in the time of
Gregory, and probably continued to a much later period. Many of his
letters which are extant clearly prove this, for whenever a new
bishop is to be elected, his custom is to write to the clergy,
magistrates, and people; sometimes also to the governor, according
to the nature of the government. But if, on account of the unsettled
state of the Church, he gives the oversight of the election to a
neighbouring bishop, he always requires a formal decision confirmed
by the subscriptions of all. Nay, when one Constantius was elected
Bishop of Milan, and in consequence of the incursions of the
Barbarians many of the Milanese had fled to Genoa, he thought that
the election would not be lawful unless they too were called
together and gave their assent, (Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 69.) Nay, five
hundred years have not elapsed since Pope Nicholas fixed the
election of the Roman Pontiff in this way, first, that the cardinals
should precede; next, that they should join to themselves the other
clergy; and, lastly, that the election should be ratified by the
consent of the people. And in the end he recites the decree of Leo,
which I lately quoted, and orders it to be enforced in future. But
should the malice of the wicked so prevail that the clergy are
obliged to quit the city, in order to make a pure election, he,
however, orders that some of the people shall, at the same time, be
present. The suffrage of the Emperor, as far as we can understand,
was required only in two churches, those of Rome and Constantinople,
these being the two seats of empire. For when Ambrose was sent by
Valentinianus to Milan with authority to superintend the election of
a new bishop, it was an extraordinary proceeding, in consequence of
the violent factions which raged among the citizens. But at Rome the
authority of the Emperor in the election of the bishop was so great,
that Gregory says he was appointed to the government of the Church
by his order, (Gregor. Lib. 1 Ep. 5,) though he had been called by
the people in regular form. The custom, however, was, that when the
magistrates, clergy, and people, nominated any one, he was forthwith
presented to the Emperor, who either by approving ratified, or by
disapproving annulled the election. There is nothing contrary to
this practice in the decretals which are collected by Gratian, where
all that is said is, that it was on no account to be tolerated that
canonical election should be abolished, and a king should at
pleasure appoint a bishop, and that one thus promoted by violent
authority was not to be consecrated by the metropolitans. For it is
one thing to deprive the Church of her rights and transfer it
entirely to the caprice of a single individual; it is another thing
to assign to a king or emperor the honour of confirming a legitimate
election by his authority.
14. It now remains to treat of the form by which the ministers
of the ancient Church were initiated to their office after election.
This was termed by the Latins, Ordination or consecration, and by
the Greeks "cheirotonia", sometimes also "cheirotesia", though
"cheirotonia" properly denotes that mode of election by which
suffrages are declared by a show of hands. There is extant a decree
of the Council of Nice, to the effect that the metropolitans, with
all the bishops of the province, were to meet to ordain him who was
chosen. But if, from distance, or sickness, or any other necessary
cause, part were prevented, three at least should meet, and those
who were absent signify their consent by letter. And this canon,
after it had fallen into desuetude, was afterwards renewed by
several councils. All, or at least all who had not an excuse, were
enjoined to be present, in order that a stricter examination might
be had of the life and doctrine of him who was to be ordained; for
the thing was not done without examination. And it appears, from the
words of Cyprian, that, in old time, they were not wont to be called
after the election, but to be present at the election, and with the
view of their acting as moderators, that no disorder might be
committed by the crowd. For after saying that the people had the
power either of choosing worthy or refusing unworthy priests, he
immediately adds, "For which reason, we must carefully observe and
hold by the divine and apostolic tradition, (which is observed by us
also, and almost by all the provinces) that for the due performance
of ordinations all the nearest bishops of the province should meet
with the people over whom the person is proposed to be ordained, and
the bishop should be elected in presence of the people. But as they
were sometimes too slowly assembled, and there was a risk that some
might abuse the delay for purposes of intrigue, it was thought that
it would be sufficient if they came after the designation was made
and on due investigation consecrated him who had been approved.
15. While this was done every where without exception, a
different custom gradually gained ground, namely, that those who
were elected should go to the metropolitan to obtain ordination.
This was owing more to ambition, and the corruption of the ancient
customs than to any good reason. And not long after, the authority
of the Romish See being now increased, another still worse custom
was introduced, of applying to it for the consecration of the
bishops of almost all Italy. This we may observe from the letters of
Gregory, (Lib. 2 Ep. 69, 76.) The ancient right was preserved by a
few cities only which had not yielded so easily; for instance,
Milan. Perhaps metropolitan sees only retained their privilege. For,
in order to consecrate an archbishop, it was the practice for all
the provincial bishops to meet in the metropolitan city. The form
used was the laying on of hands, (chap. 19. sec. 28, 31.) I do not
read that any other ceremonies were used, except that, in the public
meeting, the bishops had some dress to distinguish them from the
other presbyters. Presbyters, also, and deacons, were ordained by
the laying on of hands; but each bishop, with the college of
presbyters, ordained his own presbyters. But though they all did the
same act, yet because the bishop presided, and the ordination was
performed as it were under his auspices, it was said to be his.
Hence ancient writers often say that a presbyter does not differ in
any respect from a bishop except in not having the power of
ordaining.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 6...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-05.txt.txt
.
