Rites of Ordination: Their History and Theology

Our knowledge of the details of early ordination practice is even more limited than our knowledge of the form of the ordained ministry at this period because of the paucity of sources at our disposal. Besides the Apostolic Tradition and its derivatives (which may not always reflect actual practice), the only liturgical text for ordination older than the seventh century is the Euchologion of Sarapion of Thmuis, compiled in Egypt in the middle of the fourth century, and that contains only the prayers to be used and not any rubrics that might have informed us of the context and ritual structure into which they were to be fitted.¹

As indicated in an earlier chapter, the Apostolic Tradition seems to be made up of a number of layers from different periods of time between the second and the fourth century and from different parts of the world. It is therefore quite difficult to use it as reliable historical evidence for the practice of ordination at any particular date and in any particular place. On the other hand, it may be possible to separate those strata to a certain extent in order to chart some trends in the evolution of ordination against the other evidence we have reviewed in the preceding chapter. The task is not made easy, however, by the fact that, apart from a few fragments, the original Greek text is not extant and has to be deduced, insofar as that is possible, from the translations and versions that exist in various ancient languages.² It also needs to be remembered that this is not a liturgical text as such, a book that was actually used in the celebration of rites, but a collection of instructions and some prayers, which may not have ever been followed verbatim in any ancient Christian congregation.

This section confronts us with two distinct difficulties in accepting the extant text as its oldest form. First, the various linguistic versions differ markedly with regard to their mention of the participation of other bishops in the whole procedure. While both the Latin text and the version in Apostolic Constitutions 8 include “those bishops who are present” in the list of those who are to assemble for the ordination, the Sahidic, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions have “deacons” instead, and insert a somewhat clumsy reference to bishops in the next sentence: “all the bishops who have laid their hands on him shall give consent.” On the other hand, the Canons of Hippolytus does not refer to the presence of bishops at all until the final sentence of the instructions, when it suddenly and rather oddly says: “they choose one of the bishops and presbyters; he lays his hand…”³ Gregory Dix thought that this was a sign of what he called “theoretical presbyterianism” on the part of the redactor of the Canons of Hippolytus,⁴ but in the light of the variations in the other versions, it seems more likely that Edward Ratcliff was correct when he claimed that “discernible between the lines of the several versions of Apostolic Tradition there are signs which can be taken as indicating that, in its original form, the direction instructed the presbyters to conduct the proceedings.”⁵

We may therefore propose that the first part of the directions in Apostolic Tradition 2.1–4 originally looked something like this:

This is our first explicit reference to ordinations taking place on a Sunday, but it does not seem to have been a universal practice. Alistair Stewart-Sykes has pointed out that in the fictitious Life of Polycarp, his ordination as bishop is said to have taken place on the Sabbath, and that the same practice appears to underlie the directions for a bishop’s ordination in the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions, as the enthronement of the new bishop there is to take place early in the morning, followed by the celebration of the Eucharist, after the recitation of the ordination prayer on the previous day (presumably Saturday).⁶ This difference of day may well be related to differing practices with regard to Saturday fasting. Later evidence indicates that ordinations, like baptisms, were usually preceded by a period of preparatory fasting, and so are likely to have taken place on Sundays in those regions where Saturdays were days on which fasting was permitted and on Saturdays in those regions where it was not.

If the reconstruction above is what the earliest form was like, then the various references to the involvement of other bishops would have been supplied later by the individual redactors of the versions in order to bring the text into line with what had by their day become the standard contemporary practice. As we have seen, the oldest reference to the involvement of other bishops appears in the letters of Cyprian and even he does not claim that it was universal at the time, so there is nothing intrinsically improbable in locating the original form of these directions somewhere in the first half of the third century.

The second reason not to accept the extant text as the oldest form is that the rite looks as if it is a composite one, formed by the combination of two originally distinct elements, the above section and then what follows it in Apostolic Tradition 2.5. This is suggested particularly by an apparent double imposition of hands and by the rather strange use of the conjunction ex quibus, “from whom,” in the Latin version at what seems to be the point at which the two texts are joined: “from whom let one of the bishops present, being asked by all, laying [his] hand on him who is being ordained bishop, pray, saying…”⁷ In the first of the two rites the presbyters originally laid hands together on the candidate and all prayed in silence for the descent of the Holy Spirit; in the second—and very probably later—rite, it was one of the bishops (or was it one of the presbyters?) who acted on behalf of the others, laying hands alone on the candidate and saying an ordination prayer. It thus reveals two quite different ways of conducting an ordination. The former has otherwise disappeared almost without trace in later traditions, where communal prayer occurs only as a preliminary to an ordination prayer proper, and a collective imposition of hands appears only in texts derived from the Apostolic Tradition itself.⁸

In addition, the ordination prayer is so very different from the majority of later ordination prayers that it seems unlikely to have been typical of those of the pre-fourth-century period. (Indeed, Eric Segelberg attempted to discern an original text beneath what he regarded as later strata, but his reconstruction is not convincing.⁹) We are fortunate in that this is one of the rare places in the document where a Greek text had been preserved that seems close to the form of the original.

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, dwelling on high and looking on that which is lowly, knowing all things before their creation, you who gave [the] rules of [the] church through the word of your grace, who foreordained from the beginning a righteous race from Abraham, appointing rulers and priests, and not leaving your sanctuary without a ministry, who from the beginning of the world was pleased to be glorified in those whom you chose; and now pour forth the power that is from you, of the spirit of leadership that you gave to your beloved servant Jesus Christ, which he gave to your holy apostles, who established the church in [every] place [as] your sanctuary, to the unceasing glory and praise of your name.

Knower of the heart, Father, bestow on this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate to feed your holy flock and to serve as high priest for you blamelessly, ministering night and day; unceasingly to propitiate your countenance, and to offer to you the gifts of your holy church; and by the high-priestly spirit to have authority to forgive sins according to your command, to assign lots¹⁰ according to your bidding, to loose every bond according to the authority that you gave to the apostles, to please you in gentleness and a pure heart, offering to you a sweet-smelling savor; through your servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom [be] glory, power, honor to you, with the Holy Spirit, now and always and to the ages of ages. Amen.¹¹

The recalling of God’s activity among the people of the old covenant and especially his raising up of both rulers and priests is not merely incidental: it witnesses to a belief in the fundamental continuity of God’s work throughout history, the promise of the new covenant in the old and the fulfillment of the old covenant in the new. The mention of both rulers and priests is an indication of the dual character of the office to which the bishop was seen as succeeding, and this is confirmed by the second half of the prayer, where, on the one hand, it is the power of the spirit of leadership that God is asked to pour forth so that the bishop may shepherd his people, and on the other hand, it is also said to be in order that he may serve as high priest.

Not only does the prayer use this latter expression rather than the more common “priest” to designate the bishop and speak of him as possessing authority “through the high-priestly spirit,” but its overall strongly sacerdotal character and its detailed listing of the powers of the episcopate is unlike most ancient ordination prayers for a bishop. While it is true that most of these prayers do have some reference to the priestly character of the episcopal office, in nearly every case this is peripheral to the main imagery of the prayer, and so appears to be a later addition. Only the classic Roman ordination prayer has as its central theme the priestly character of the episcopate, and even this does not enumerate the individual functions belonging to the order, as that in the Apostolic Tradition does, but concentrates instead on the inner qualities requisite in a true bishop as the spiritual counterpart of the Old Testament high priest. Similarly, no other extant prayer from ancient times lists in its primary stratum the powers and functions of the episcopate in the way that this one does. In other prayers, the fundamental images are generally those of shepherd and teacher, with either the precise liturgical and pastoral functions associated with the office left largely unspecified (as, for example, in the case of the Byzantine rite) or with their being added in what are obviously secondary strata in the prayer originating in later centuries (as in the East and West Syrian rites).¹²

In contrast to this, nowhere in this prayer is there any explicit reference to prophetic or teaching functions to be exercised by the new bishop, suggesting that such a ministry was not seen as fundamental to the episcopal office in the tradition in which the prayer arose. Finally, while it contains a clear affirmation that the choice of the candidate was seen as the work of God (“whom you have chosen for the episcopate”) and not just that of the congregation, the bishop’s office is not directly equated with that of the apostles: it is merely the same spirit of leadership which they received that is being sought for the ordinand. Moreover, the prayer implies that the bestowal of the Holy Spirit was effected by a fresh outpouring at each ordination in response to the prayer of the church and not by its transmission from ordainer to ordinand, as in later thought.

This rite also raises questions. The direction that the presbyters as well as the bishop are to lay their hands on the ordinand is unparalleled in ancient ordination rites, except for those directly dependent on this text. The Latin version reads: “And when a presbyter is ordained, let the bishop lay [his] hand on his head, the presbyters also touching [him], and let him say according to those things that have been said above, as we have said above about the bishop, praying and saying….”¹³ Does it therefore contain the remnant of a very old tradition, one that may antedate the existence of a distinct episcopate when presbyters collectively laid hands on a new member of their order? And did the emergence of the episcopal office lead to the need to include in Apostolic Tradition 8.6–8 the explanation that the presbyters’ touching did not mean that they were doing what the bishop did? “But on a presbyter let the presbyters also lay on hands on account of the common and like spirit of the clergy. For the presbyter has the power of this alone, that he may receive, but he does not have the power to give. For this reason he does not ordain the clergy, but at the ordination of a presbyter he seals while the bishop ordains.”¹⁴ And was it the possibility of misinterpretation that caused the practice subsequently to disappear from virtually all other ecclesiastical traditions? Or was it merely a local custom that did not survive later standardization, or even merely the invention of the compiler?

There is a further puzzling feature about these directions, in that they seem to suggest that the same prayer should be used for a presbyter as for a bishop, but then immediately provide the text of a quite different prayer. This has produced a variety of explanations by scholars, among them that it meant that the first part of the prayer for a bishop should be used, but when the petitions pertaining to the episcopate were reached, this one should be substituted, a suggestion strongly rejected by others as requiring too much subtlety of thought in the readers. No one view has won general approval.¹⁵

Several scholars have claimed to see a strongly Jewish background to the prayer for a presbyter. Thus, Gregory Dix was of the opinion that its substance might go back to the earliest Jewish-Christian synagogues governed by a college of presbyters, or even to pre-Christian Jewish practice,¹⁶ and a similar view was put forward by Albano Vilela.¹⁷ Pierre-Marie Gy, however, was more cautious, admitting that “one could suspect some rabbinic background, especially in connection with the typology of the seventy elders and Moses,” but adding the warning that “for the ordination of rabbis, as for the berakah, one should not give excessive value to rather late texts.”¹⁸ This caution seems very wise in the light of Lawrence Hoffman’s conclusions about rabbinic ordination at this early period referred to in the first chapter.¹⁹

However, this prayer certainly has a more primitive feel to it than the prayer for the bishop, especially as the text has only the briefest reference to Christ at the beginning and end and a total absence of any clear New Testament allusions. Its central focus is on the typology of the seventy elders appointed by Moses to govern (Num 11:16f.) and on the presbyterate’s corporate role in governing the Christian community. There is no clear indication of the existence of a distinct episcopal order, and no hint of a sacerdotal understanding of the presbyterate here, although elsewhere the directions about appointing a deacon deny that the deacon is ordained to the priesthood (8.2), implying that presbyters are—a statement apparently belonging to a different stratum of the document.

Allen Brent has argued that because of this different vision of the role of the ordained ministry from the more sacerdotal picture of the episcopate, both prayers cannot have been “part of an original single rite of the Roman community,”²¹ and Alistair Stewart-Sykes has taken Brent’s line of argument further still and claimed, improbably, that the prayer for the bishop is the older of the two and that for the presbyter a third-century interpolation, but from within the same school as that in which the bishop’s prayer arose.²² It seems on the contrary to have stemmed from a community where bishops were unknown that was led by a corporate presbyterate, and is probably much older than the prayers for a bishop and a deacon.

Apostolic Tradition 9.1–2 contains an unusual provision for those who had confessed the faith under persecution and been imprisoned: they consequently have the “honor of the presbyterate” and do not need to receive the imposition of hands for it. While some scholars claim that it was only the “honor” of the presbyterate that they received and not its active ministry, others disagree, and Brent has argued that, even though this provision is apparently not otherwise evidenced elsewhere, it can be detected behind Cyprian’s opposition to presbyters reconciling those who had lapsed under persecution.²³

The directions concerning the appointment of a deacon (Apostolic Tradition 8) are surprisingly lengthy and exhibit a somewhat confused air, suggesting that they have undergone a series of amendments over time. They are insistent that the bishop alone lays his hand on a deacon and that the deacon has no part in the priesthood or in the counsel of the clergy, in contrast to the presbyters. This implies that all these things had been matters of contention as the relationship between presbyters and deacons had been gradually worked out. It is said that a candidate for the diaconate is to be “chosen according to those things that have been said above,” but in fact nothing had been said about how presbyters were to be chosen, so this can only refer to the appointment of the bishop, where election by the community was prescribed. If this is what is intended, it contrasts with both the Didascalia and the letters of Cyprian, which state that the bishop appointed deacons, although Cyprian did usually consult the clergy and people before acting, and remnants of a popular approbation can also be seen in a number of later ordination rites.²⁴

The ordination prayer itself appears to combine the typology of the diakonia of Christ, found from Ignatius of Antioch onward, with that of the Old Testament Levite (although the word itself is not used) occurring in Origen and other later writings, whose duty is to serve the “high priest.” This suggests that this prayer belongs to the same stratum of material as the ordination prayer for the bishop, although as the Latin version is incomplete here, its reconstruction has to be rather tentative:

Thought to have been compiled in Greek in Egypt in the early fourth century but preserved only in an Arabic translation of a missing Coptic intermediary, this work is a fairly radical reworking of the Apostolic Tradition with significant additions. As suggested above, however, it may well preserve traces of an older form of that work in its directions about the ordination of a bishop. Its version of the bishop’s ordination prayer is also interesting, as it excises all the high priestly language from the prayer in the Apostolic Tradition.²⁵ It is tempting to wonder if once again it has retained a more primitive text, but a close comparison of the two suggests that this is unlikely, and that it is the compiler of the Canons of Hippolytus who has been responsible for deleting an aspect of the episcopal office that was foreign to his local tradition.

In the case of the ordination of a presbyter, apparently confused by the seemingly contradictory instructions in this regard in the Apostolic Tradition, the Canons of Hippolytus simply directs that

We have already encountered a reference to seating as part of the ordination of a bishop in Eusebius’ account of the ordination of Fabian at Rome;²⁷ it is also mentioned in other early works²⁸ and is a standard feature of later rites of East and West, which is hardly surprising as the bishop’s chair was an important symbol of his presidential role in the community. In the West it developed into a separate rite of enthroning. The minimizing of the distinction between bishops and presbyters is echoed in other fourth-century writings.²⁹

In the case of a deacon, the directions extend his service from the bishop alone to the presbyters as well and spell out more clearly his responsibility toward the sick and needy, but the prayer itself does not mention any of these aspects. Entirely independent of the prayer in the Apostolic Tradition, it refers to “Stephen and his companions” as the model for the diaconate rather than the servanthood of Christ, and asks that the ordinand may be filled “with power and wisdom like Stephen” (Acts 6:8, 10). There is no explicit reference to any liturgical functions of the diaconate. It refers simply to the quality of the minister’s life, asking that he may triumph over all the powers of the devil, be without sin, set an example to others, and “save a multitude in the holy church.”³⁰

This church order is usually thought to have been composed in or around Antioch in the second half of the fourth century. The principal source for its ordination rites is the Apostolic Tradition, but it has made significant alterations to this that reflect either what was current practice in the region where it was composed or alternatively what the compiler desired to see introduced there.

One of the most notable features of the rite for a bishop is the direction that deacons are to hold the book of the gospels open over the head of the ordinand at exactly the point where one would have expected there to be a laying on of hands, which is not mentioned. This raises the possibility that the imposition of the gospel book is not meant merely to supplement the laying on of hands but to replace it. The ceremony is mentioned in other fourth-century sources, which interpret it in different ways. Palladius (Dialogus historicus 16) alludes to it only briefly, but Severian of Gabala in Syria explains it as a symbol of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the candidate. He believed that the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire on the apostles at Pentecost was the sign of their ordination, and that “the custom remains even to the present: because the descent of the Holy Spirit is invisible, the Gospel is placed on the head of him who is to be ordained high priest; and when this is done, one must not see anything other than a tongue of fire resting on his head—a tongue, because of preaching, a tongue of fire, because of the saying, ‘I have come to cast fire on the earth.’”³¹

There is also a reference to the practice in a homily attributed to Chrysostom. Here it is interpreted as being a symbol of the submission of the bishop to the law of God, and the equivalent in the New Covenant of the high priestly crown of Aaron: “In the ordinations of priests [i.e., bishops] the Gospel of Christ is placed on the head so that the ordinand may learn that he receives the true crown of the Gospel, and so that he may learn that even if he is the head of all, yet he acts under these laws, ruling over all and ruled by the law, judging all and being judged by the Word.…The fact that the high priest has the Gospel is a sign that he is under authority.”³² As with many of the homilies included among Chrysostom’s works, its authenticity has been questioned, and it has on other grounds been ascribed to Severian of Gabala by several scholars. However, the fact that the interpretation given to the ceremony here differs from that in the work of Severian cited earlier may cast some doubt on this attribution.

Pseudo-Dionysius, writing in the fifth or sixth century, is the first to mention explicitly that the ordination included the imposition of the hand as well as the imposition of the book, which he describes simply as “the Scriptures,” rather than the Gospels. He believed that the book was laid on the bishop because it symbolized “all the sacred words and works” given to him, which he transmitted proportionally to others.³³

But what was the original meaning of this ceremony? The diversity of the interpretations given to it implies that its earlier purpose had been forgotten. Edward Ratcliff conjectured that it may possibly have been the vestige of an ancient practice of attempting to discern the divine choice of candidate by reference to the passage at which the book fell open, a version of the casting of lots used at the appointment of Matthias (Acts 1:26),³⁴ but this seems very unlikely as in every case the ceremony is firmly associated with prayer for the ordinand rather than with the remains of the electoral process in the rite. Its real origin, therefore, still remains a mystery. The evidence suggests that the custom was originally peculiar to Syria, and the fact that its meaning was in doubt by the end of the fourth century implies that it was no recent innovation there but already of some antiquity. It is conceivable that it may have been adopted when a separate episcopal office first emerged from a corporate presbyterate, and it was thought inappropriate for presbyters to lay hands on a bishop as they had presumably done up until then when ordaining new presbyters. Alternatively, the ceremony may have been introduced when neighboring bishops began to attend those episcopal ordinations and challenge the right of the local presbyterate to conduct the proceedings. Rather than deciding whether presbyters or bishops should perform the imposition of hands on the ordinand, the dilemma may perhaps have been resolved by the adoption instead of the imposition of the book of the gospels by deacons, the Gospel of Christ symbolizing the action of Christ himself ordaining a new member of the apostolic college.

If this conjecture is correct, then only later would the imposition of the book have become a supplement to the imposition of the hand, as the Syrian tradition accommodated itself to ordination practice elsewhere. It is therefore possible that in the case both of the Apostolic Constitutions and also of papal ordination at Rome,³⁵ the absence of any explicit reference to an imposition of the hand really does mean that the gesture was not used. On the other hand, not too much significance can be given to the absence of any direct reference to the imposition of hands in the latter case, as the early Roman ordines do not always mention it in the case of the conferral of all the other orders, where presumably it was in fact employed.

As is the case with all its euchology, the Apostolic Constitutions expands considerably the text of the prayer from the Apostolic Tradition. In addition to piling up attributes of God the Father, this version gives a more prominent place to Christ: it was through his incarnate mission that structures of the church were established, it is through his mediation that God is now asked to pour forth the power of the Spirit, and it was through him that the Eucharist the new bishop will offer was instituted. Additional references are also made to the Spirit: the structures of the church were established “by the witness of the Paraclete,” and among the gifts sought for the new bishop is “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps not surprisingly, the Old Testament typology, too, is expanded, with the priestly theme being given some precedence over that of leadership. Although acknowledgment is made here that Samuel was both priest and prophet, this latter image is not taken up in the rest of the prayer, which adheres closely to the list of episcopal functions enumerated in the Apostolic Tradition, merely adding that the bishop is to “gather the number of those being saved” and making a more explicit reference to the celebration of the Eucharist. In this process it defines the “sweet-smelling savor” more narrowly than in the Apostolic Tradition, as referring to this liturgical act rather than to the offering of the bishop’s whole life. Finally, we may note that the episcopal college itself is also given greater prominence in the prayer: the “bishops present” are closely associated with the apostles, and they are also designated as the agents through whom God is asked to pour forth his Spirit on the ordinand.³⁶

This prayer also is, not surprisingly, considerably expanded from its source in the Apostolic Tradition. It strengthens the christological dimension somewhat with an opening reference to God’s activity through Christ in both creation and preservation, and it then asks for the increase of the church and of the number of those who preside in it—thus maintaining the concept of the presbyterate as the collegial leadership of the church found in the Apostolic Tradition. To this vision, however, the prayer adds references to a ministry of the word and of healing to be exercised by the new presbyter (“labor in word and deed”; “filled with works of healing and the word of teaching, he may in meekness instruct your people”), and employs the sacerdotal term hierourgias, “holy services,” to denote these presbyteral functions. These additions, as we shall see later, reflect the role that is assigned to the presbyterate in other Eastern ordination prayers. It is also worth noting that the Apostolic Constitutions does not follow its primary source, the Apostolic Tradition, here and prescribe a laying on of hands by bishop and presbyters but directs that the bishop alone is to do so, the presbytery and deacons merely standing around.³⁷

This prayer has hardly any resemblance to that in the Apostolic Tradition. It rejects the servanthood of Christ as the model for the diaconate and instead refers to Stephen as the first deacon, describing him as “the protomartyr and imitator of the sufferings of your Christ,” and asking for the same gift of the Holy Spirit and power that he received (Acts 6:8, 10). It goes on to speak in general terms of the exercise of a sacred ministry, and of eventual promotion to a higher order.³⁸

This is the oldest source to include a rite for the institution of deaconesses, placed immediately after that for deacons and closely resembling it, consisting of a prayer invoking the Holy Spirit accompanied by the imposition of the bishop’s hand. It is followed by similar prayers with imposition of hands for both subdeacon and reader, again the first time such a ritual is known to have been prescribed for those offices. However, it should be noted that the word ordination appears neither at the beginning of the instruction concerning deaconesses nor that for readers, whereas it does in the cases of the deacon and subdeacon. This may be intended to indicate a subtle distinction in status between the various offices: the deacon is ordained in the presence of the presbytery and deacons; the deaconess is instituted in the presence of the presbytery, deacons and deaconesses; the subdeacon is ordained, but not in public; the reader is instituted, but not in public.³⁹ In the light of this, the disagreement between Roger Gryson and Aimé Georges Martimort as to whether deaconesses were here thought of as receiving a sacramental ordination and as being part of the clergy may not only be anachronistic but also oversimplistic: the categorization of the liturgical ministries of the early church cannot be reduced to a simple division between clergy and laity.⁴⁰

Is this partial assimilation of these rites to those for bishops, presbyters and deacons, however, simply the product of the imagination of the compiler or does it have some real foundation in the ecclesiastical tradition from which the Apostolic Constitutions came? This question obviously cannot be answered with total certainty, but that fact the later Eastern rites also do the same suggests that this trend was already evident in fourth-century Syria. The alternative possibility—that the provisions of those rites were directly influenced by the contents of the Apostolic Constitutions—seems unlikely.⁴¹

The prayer for a deaconess offers three biblical precedents to justify the office—women in the Old Testament who were endowed with prophetic spirit; the birth of Christ from a woman; and the somewhat shadowy female figures who are said to have ministered at the entrance of the tent of the testimony in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 (adding the gratuitous assumption that they also continued to exercise this ministry in the later temple). Images similar to the first two of these also occur at the beginning of a prayer for a deaconess in the Byzantine rite, albeit in the reverse order, which suggests that they may already have been traditional in the euchology of fourth-century Syria. The third, on the other hand, is not otherwise found in prayers for deaconesses, and may therefore be an attempt by the compiler to find a biblical foundation for what was apparently the principal function of deaconesses in his situation, the supervision of the admission and seating of women in the liturgical assembly, mentioned elsewhere in his work.⁴² There is no mention here of the functions of visiting women in their homes and anointing female baptismal candidates that had been assigned to female deacons in the Didascalia and are reproduced from that source earlier in the Apostolic Constitutions (3.16.1–4).

The fact that women endowed with the spirit of prophecy are mentioned may seem to suggest that deaconesses, too, had some sort of prophetic or teaching ministry, but this need not necessarily follow. The prayer for a reader also asks for the gift of the prophetic spirit and even compares the reader’s role to that of Ezra! But there is no other evidence that would support the notion that readers did have so important a standing in Christian worship at this period. Thus, both cases may owe more to the compiler’s enthusiasm to find some Old Testament typology for the office than be a reflection of the true status of the order in the church.

Finally, the prayer contains a hint that the liturgical ministry of women may not have been too readily accepted in the milieu in which it was composed: the inclusion of a petition to cleanse the candidate from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, echoing 2 Corinthians 7:1, seems to imply the existence of some doubt as to whether they were sufficiently holy for such a task, especially as the quotation has no special reference to women in its original context. Such a view would hardly be surprising in the light of common attitudes toward the ritual impurity of women in the early church.

Following the model of other ordination prayers, the prayers for both subdeacon and reader employ Old Testament typology to define the offices being bestowed. The prayer for a subdeacon looks to the gatekeepers of the tent of the testimony, who are ranked immediately below priests and Levites in 1 Chronicles 9, and focuses on the responsibility for the liturgical vessels as his principal function. As we have already noted, the prayer for a reader asks for the bestowal of the spirit of prophecy on the candidate.

Another derivative of the Apostolic Tradition, thought to have been composed in Greek in the fifth century but now surviving only in Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic translations,⁴³ its version of the prayer for a bishop is even more expanded. Once again, in addition to an increase in the attributes of God the Father, Christ is given a prominent place in the early part of the prayer, this time through references to his salvific mission and the illumination he brought to the church. The Holy Spirit too features strongly, being invoked on the ordinand three times in the course of the prayer. On the other hand, the Old Testament typology is not as extensive as in the Apostolic Constitutions, the figure of Enoch alone being added to that of Abraham. The reason for this choice is to be found in a major new theme the author has woven into the prayer—the correlation between heavenly and earthly sanctuaries—because Enoch was said to have been assumed into heaven (Gen 5:21-24; Heb 11:5). The pattern for the ministry of the church is not now primarily that of the Old Testament but the unseen ministry above. In contrast to the prayer in the Apostolic Constitutions, the episcopal college is not mentioned and the apostolate receives only a brief reference. What is sought for the bishop in the prayer is chiefly the gift of the personal qualities requisite for the effective exercise of his priestly and princely office rather than the power to perform specific functions. In this there is an emphasis on an intercessory role on behalf of his people, and some hint of a teaching ministry, which is made more explicit in a preceding preparatory prayer.⁴⁴

Its prayer for a presbyter is also expanded, amplifying both the description of the Spirit being invoked on the ordinand and also the qualities that are expected of him. On the other hand, these developments do not really offer any clearer picture of the nature and function of the office being conferred. The presbyter is expected to display such virtues as “holiness” and “cheerfulness and patience,” and to offer praise day and night and bear the cross of Christ, but it is not obvious in what way his role was thought to differ from that of any other Christian, especially as the Spirit that is sought for him is said to be that which was given to the disciples of Jesus “and to all those who through them truly believed in you.” “Help and govern” do remain from the original version, but as at other points in his work the author of the Testamentum Domini is capable of maintaining fidelity to his source even when it differs from the practice known to have been current in his own locality, not too much can be built on this expression. The fact that the prayer twice asks for wisdom for the ordinand may be a hint of a teaching ministry, and there is the interesting petition that he may be worthy “to shepherd your people,” which is normally used in reference to the episcopate rather than the presbyterate. Its appearance here may imply that the presbyter was now seen as sharing to some extent in a ministry formerly exercised by the bishop. Perhaps surprisingly in a prayer of this date, there is a complete absence of sacerdotal language, even though in the directions concerning ordination “priest” is generally used in place of “presbyter.”⁴⁵

The prayer for a deacon is expanded partly by the addition of further appellatives of God and Christ, and partly by extending the petitions for the ordinand. Although the spirit of caring is no longer mentioned, God is asked to make him love orphans and widows and to give him the qualities of diligence, serenity, strength, and power. If this corresponds in any way with the realities of the historical situation and is not merely a flight of fantasy by the compiler, it suggests that concern for the needy had here become a major feature of the deacon’s office, even if it were not so in the world in which the Apostolic Tradition originated.⁴⁶

With regard to the ministry of women, this church order paints a rather curious picture. The order of widows is retained from the Apostolic Tradition, and appears to be accorded considerable importance. Thus, for example, during the eucharistic oblation the widows are directed to stand behind the presbyters, on the left side, opposite the deacons on the right, and they are to receive communion after the deacons, and before the subdeacons and readers (1.23.1). The form of institution of a widow also has some features in common with the higher orders: the same Syriac word is used to denote the process as is employed for those orders, and it takes place after she has been “chosen” and involves a prayer, but of a very general nature that includes no biblical typology or petitions for grace and power to fulfill any specific ministerial functions.⁴⁷ Elsewhere in the document widows are assigned duties that are very similar to those of the female deacons in the Didascalia (1.40.2; 2.8.12). Yet this cannot simply be dismissed as a case of the substitution of the nomenclature of its literary source, since the Testamentum also mentions the existence of deaconesses. They are accorded a role greatly subordinate to that of the widows, who apparently are to supervise them. Nothing at all is said about their appointment, and they are directed to receive communion with the laity and not with the other ministerial orders, as the widows were (1.23.14). They were to remain near the door of the church (1.19.7), which might seem to imply that their principal duty was to supervise the arrival and seating of women in the liturgical assembly, but elsewhere it is said that a deacon controlled the entrance of both men and women, and that the deacons—assisted by readers and subdeacons—kept order among women in the church (1.36.1– 4; 2.19.1). The only function that the deaconesses are described as performing is the taking of communion to any pregnant women unable to attend the Easter Eucharist (2.20.7). They are thus something of an enigma.

Appointment to the minor orders is described somewhat differently from that of widows: although the same word is used in the rite for a subdeacon as for widows, a different term is employed for the reader, and neither of them is said to have been “chosen,” nor does a form of prayer seem to have been prescribed for them. The reader is simply given the book of readings accompanied by an exhortation or charge from the bishop. It is said that the bishop is to pray over the subdeacon, but the text which follows is a similar exhortation or charge. In both cases, the exhortation expects the recipients will eventually be promoted to a higher rank.⁴⁸

By comparison with all these prayers, the prayer for a bishop in the Euchologion of Sarapion is extremely simple. It differs, however, not merely in its form but in its theological ideas. In contrast to the prayer in the Apostolic Tradition but in line with the modifications we have observed in its later derivatives, this prayer begins not with Old Testament typology but with God’s sending of Christ to the world, and it continues with references to his sending of the apostles and his ordination of bishops. In this way it not only emphasizes that ordination is the action of God but sets the episcopal office in line of succession to the apostolate, a concept that also recurs later in the prayer, when God is asked to make this ordinand “a holy bishop of the succession of the holy apostles.” When this theme is coupled with the fact that God is here addressed as the “God of truth,” and is asked to bestow the same Spirit as was bestowed on his “own/genuine” servants, prophets, and patriarchs, it suggests an origin in a community troubled by heresy and hence saw the bishop primarily as the guardian of true apostolic tradition, a development we have not previously encountered in ordination euchology. There is also a complete absence of Old Testament cultic imagery, as was the case in the Canons of Hippolytus, which is similarly thought to have originated in Egypt, nor is there any reference to the liturgical dimension of the office, the images used all being of teaching/leadership—prophets, patriarchs, shepherd.⁴⁹

The prayer for a presbyter describes that office as “a steward of your people and an ambassador of your divine oracles,” to reconcile the people to God. It also asks for the spirit of truth, for wisdom, for knowledge (twice), and for right faith. All this suggests that, unlike the Apostolic Tradition, it was composed in a situation where the primary, if not exclusive, focus was on a teaching ministry, and there was no sense of the presbyterate acting as a collegial governing body.⁵⁰ According to the fifth-century church historian Socrates,⁵¹ preaching by presbyters at Alexandria was prohibited after the time of Arius (ca. 250 – ca. 336), for fear of the spread of further heresies, and hence this prayer must have originated before that step was taken, or alternatively the situation must have been different at Thmuis or wherever it was composed.

It is true that the ministry of reconciliation may have been understood to involve more than the preaching of the good news, but this is not made explicit, and although the prayer does contain the same allusion to the appointment of elders by Moses as mentioned in the Apostolic Tradition, it is employed in a very different way. God is not asked to make the ordinand a presbyter like those whom Moses appointed to govern the people but to give him a share of the spirit of Christ just as God once gave a share of the spirit of Moses to others. Thus the parallel is drawn not between the two offices but between God’s action in sharing the Spirit both then and now; and the emphasis does not fall on the ordinand’s reception of the spirit of the corporate presbyterate (indeed the word presbyter does not appear anywhere in the prayer at all) but on his individual participation in the spirit of Christ. The presence of this typology does not necessarily mean that it must have been copied directly from the Apostolic Tradition, especially as there is no sign of any awareness of that document elsewhere in the collection of prayers, and it is quite possible that the author has reworked what was a common image for the presbyterate in early times.⁵²

The prayer for a deacon to some extent combines the diaconal models of Christ and of Stephen and his companions encountered in the other early prayers. It sets the institution of the diaconate within the context of God’s sending of Christ, and refers unequivocally to “the seven deacons,” who, it says, were chosen “through your only-begotten.” It is no more explicit than the other texts, however, with regard to the nature of the office to which the deacon is ordained: all that is sought for him is the “spirit of knowledge and discernment,” so that he may serve in his leitourgia “in the midst of the holy people.”⁵³

Although the Euchologion of Sarapion does mention the existence of subdeacons, readers, and interpreters, it does not include any prayers for use at their appointment, which suggests that such had not yet developed in that tradition. The ministry of women is not mentioned.

The limited evidence for this period leaves us with unanswered questions, among them: Was the silent prayer and corporate laying on of hands, apparently underlying the rite for a bishop in the Apostolic Tradition, something that was once widely practiced and eventually superseded, or just the custom of one local tradition? Why was the ordination prayer that eventually accompanied it so sacerdotal in character when the earliest forms of the other, presumably later, prayers of the East and West were not, except for that in the Roman rite, which did not enumerate episcopal functions in detail as that in the Apostolic Tradition did? What else besides prayer by the bishop constituted the rites for the ordination of presbyters and deacons? In the end, these contemporary sources will not suffice to gain a clearer picture of the earliest ordination practices; we need to turn to the later texts of East and West in order to penetrate beneath them and unearth the older traditions out of which they have evolved.

¹ Text, translation, and commentary in Maxwell E. Johnson, The Prayers of Sarapion of Thmuis: A Literary, Liturgical, and Theological Analysis, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 249 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995).

² On these, see Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 6–11.

³ Apostolic Tradition 2. See Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, 24–25.

⁴ Gregory Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus (London: SPCK, 1937), lxxviii–lxxix.

⁵ E. C. Ratcliff, “Apostolic Tradition: Questions concerning the Appointment of the Bishop,” SP 8 (1966): 266–70, here at 269 = idem, Liturgical Studies, ed. A. H. Couratin and D. H. Tripp (London: SPCK, 1976), 156–60.

⁶ Alistair Stewart-Sykes, The Life of Polycarp, Early Christian Studies 4 (Sydney: St Pauls Publications, 2002), 61–64. Although usually regarded as a fourth-century work, Stewart-Sykes argues that it should be assigned to the third century.

⁷ See further Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips, Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, 24–29.

⁸ See ORACEW, 30–32, 44–46.

⁹ Eric Segelberg, “The Ordination Prayers in Hippolytus,” SP 13 (1975): 397–408.

¹⁰ On this expression, see above, p. 40.

¹¹ Apostolic Tradition 3. This translation follows the Greek text preserved in the Epitome of Apostolic Constitutions 8, amending it only where the scholarly consensus believes one of the other versions has retained a more authentic reading. For these textual matters and for the source of the scriptural allusions in the text, see Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips, Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, 30–33.

¹² See below, pp. 94–96.

¹³ Apostolic Tradition 7.1. See further Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips, Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, 56–57.

¹⁴ Latin version. See further Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips, Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, 60–61.

¹⁵ See further ibid., 55.

¹⁶ Gregory Dix, “The Ministry in the Early Church,” in The Apostolic Ministry, ed. Kenneth E. Kirk (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946), 183–303, here at 218.

¹⁷ Albano Vilela, La condition collégiale des prětres au IIIe siècle (Paris: Beauchesne, 1971), 354.

¹⁸ Pierre-Marie Gy, “Ancient Ordination Prayers,” SL 13 (1979): 70–93, here at 82. See also Georg Kretschmar, “Die Ordination im frühen Christentum,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 22 (1975): 46–55.

¹⁹ See above, p.7.

²⁰ Apostolic Tradition 7.2–5. This translation follows the Latin version. For textual variants, see Bradshaw, Johnson, and Phillips, Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, 55–58.

²¹ Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 305; see also 465–91.

²² Alistair Stewart-Sykes, “The Integrity of the Hippolytean Ordination Rites,” Augustinianum 39 (1999): 106–16.

²³ Allen Brent, “Cyprian and the Question of Ordinatio per Confessionem,” SP 36 (2001): 323–37.

²⁴ See below, pp. 84–86, 109, 119–20.

²⁵ See ORACEW, 110.

²⁶ Ibid., 111.

²⁷ See above, p. 49.

²⁸ Vita Polycarpi 23; Apostolic Constitutions 8:5; Synesius, Epistula 67. See further E. Stommel, “Die bischöfliche Kathedra im christlichen Altertum,” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 3 (1952): 17–32. Stewart-Sykes, The Life of Polycarp, 50–55, suggests the installation of Jewish rabbis as the source of the custom.

²⁹ See above, p. 55.

³⁰ See ORACEW, 111.

³¹ PG 125:533. See Joseph Lécuyer, “Note sur la liturgie du sacre des évěques,” Ephemerides Liturgicae 62 (1952): 369–72.

³² De legislatore (PG 56:404).

³³ Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 5.3.7.

³⁴ Ratcliff, “Apostolic Tradition,” 268 = Liturgical Studies, 158. See the criticism by Octavian Bârlea, Die Weihe der Bischöfe, Presbyter und Diakone in vornicänischer Zeit (Munich: Societas Academica Dacoromana, 1969), 179, n. 89.

³⁵ See below, p. 118.

³⁶ See ORACEW, 113–14.

³⁷ Ibid., 114–15.

³⁸ Ibid., 115.

³⁹ Ibid., 116.

⁴⁰ Roger Gryson, The Ministry of Women in the Early Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), 62–63, 115–20; Aimé Georges Martimort, Deaconesses: An Historical Study (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 75, n. 66.

⁴¹ Although it is suggested in the case of the deaconess by Martimort, Deaconesses, 75.

⁴² Apostolic Constitutions 2.57.10; 2.58.4–6; 8.28.6. See also Ps.-Ignatius, Ad Antiochenses 12.2.

⁴³ See Michael Kohlbacher, “Wessen Kirche ordnete das Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi?,” in Zu Geschichte, Theologie, Liturgie und Gegenwartslage der syirchen Kirchen, ed. Martin Tamcke and Andreas Heinz (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2000), 55–137.

⁴⁴ See ORACEW, 117–18.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 119.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 120.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 120–21.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 121.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 122–23.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 122.

⁵¹ Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 5.22; see also Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 7.19.

⁵² It also occurs in the fourth ordination prayer of the Melkite rite; see below, p. 98.

⁵³ See ORACEW, 122.

Chapter 4

Early Ordination Rites