allow a layman to preach, if he be skilful and reverent, and the language of St Ignatius (Ad Smyrn. 8), “Let that be esteemed a valid Eucharist which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop or of some one commissioned by him," is really inconsistent with any firmly established principle that celebration by a layman was in itself absolutely null (see also EUCHARIST). When we go on to inquire what special offices the church from the beginning, or almost from the beginning, adopted and recognized, two points claim preliminary attention. In the first place, much would be done in practical administration by persons who held no definite position formally assigned to them, although they wielded great influence on account of their age, talents and character. Next, it must be carefully remembered that the early church was, in a sense hard for us even to understand, ruled and edified by the direct action of the Holy Spirit. St Paul (1 Cor. xii. 28) furnishes us with a list of church offices very different from those which obtain in any church at the present day. "God," he says, "hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, (divers) kinds of tongues." Ministry of this sort is not to be confounded with 'order," of which this article treats. It died out very gradually, and the Didache or Teaching of the Apostles, compiled probably between A.D. 130 and 160, gives clear information on the nature of this prophetic or charismatic ministry. The title of "apostle was not limited to the immediate disciples of our Lord, but was given to missionaries or evangelists who went about founding new churches; the prophets spoke by revelation; the teachers were enabled by supernatural illumination to instruct others. All of these men were called to their work by the internal voice of the Holy Spirit: none of them was appointed or elected by their fellows: none of them, and this is an important feature, was necessarily confined to a local church. Nevertheless, side by side with this prophetic ministry there was another, mediately at least of human appointment, and local in its character. Here we have the germ of orders in the technical sense. At first this local ministry was twofold, consisting of presbyters or bishops and deacons. Christian presbyters first appear (Acts xi. 30) in the church of Jerusalem, and most likely the name and office were adopted from the Jewish municipalities, perhaps from the Jewish synagogues (see PRIEST). Afterwards St Paul and St Barnabas in their first missionary journey 'appointed (Acts xiv. 23) presbyters in every church." Further, we find St Paul about A.D. 62 addressing the "saints at Philippi "with the bishops and deacons." The word επίσκοπος οι overseer may be of Gentile origin, just as presbyter may have been borrowed from the Jews. There is strong proof that presbyter and episcopus are two names for the same office. It has indeed been maintained by eminent scholars, chiefly by Hatch and Harnack, that the word episcopus was given originally to the chief officer of a club or a confraternity, so that the episcopus was a financial officer, whereas the presbyters regulated the discipline. To this it may be objected that presbyters and bishops are never mentioned together, and that the names were interchangeable (Acts xx. 17 and 28; 1 Pet. v. 1, 2; 1 Tim. iii. 1-7 and v. 17-19; Tit. i. 5-7). The work of the presbyter or bishop was concerned at first with discipline rather than with teaching, which was largely in the hands of the charismatic ministry; nevertheless, the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. iii. 2) insist that an episcopus must be "apt to teach," and some presbyters (1 Tim. v. 17) not only ruled but also " laboured in the word and in teaching ' They also "offered the gifts" (1 Clem. 44), i.e. to adopt Bishop Lightfoot's interpretation, "they led the prayers and thanksgivings of the congregation, presented the alms and contributions to God and asked His blessing on them in the name of the whole body." Under the bishops or presbyters stood the deacons or "helpers " (Philipp. i. 1, 1 Tim. iii. 8-13). Whether they were the successors, as most of the Fathers believed, of the seven chosen by the church of Jerusalem A partial exception may be made in favour of the Catholic Apostolic Church founded by Edward Irving. Josephus, e.g. Antiq, vi. 4. 2, abundantly justifies this translation.

to relieve the apostles in the administration of alms (Acts vi.) is a question still disputed and uncertain. Be that as it may, the deacon was long considered to be the "servant of the widows and the poor" (Jerome, Ep. 146), and the archdeacon, who first appears towards the end of the 4th century, owes the greatness of his position to the fact that he was the chief administrator of church funds (see ARCHDEACON). This ancient idea of the diaconate, ignored in the Roman Pontifical, has been restored in the English ordinal. The growth of sacerdotal theories, which were fully developed in Cyprian's time, fixed attention on the bishop as a sacrificing priest, and on the deacon' as his assistant at the altar.

Out of the twofold grew the threefold ministry, so that each local church was governed by one episcopus surrounded by a council of presbyters, James, the Lord's brother, who, partly because of his relationship to Christ, stood supreme in the church at Jerusalem, as also Timothy and Titus, who acted as temporary delegates of St Paul at Ephesus and in Crete, are justly considered to have been forerunners of the monarchical episcopate. The episcopal rule in this new sense probably arose in the lifetime of St John, and may have had his sanction. At all events the rights of the monarchical bishop are strongly asserted in the Ignatian epistles (about A.D. 110), and were already recognized in the contemporary churches of Asia Minor. We may attribute the origin of the episcopate to the need felt of a single official to preside at the Eucharist, to represent the church before the heathen state and in the face of rising heresy, and to carry on correspondence with sister churches. The change of constitution occurred at different times in different places. Thus St Ignatius in writing to the Romans never refers to any presiding bishop, and somewhat earlier Clement of Rome in his epistles to the Corinthians uses the terms presbyter and episcopus interchangeably. Hermas (about A.D. 140) confirms the impression that the Roman Church of his day was under presbyteral rule.. Even when introduced, the monarchical episcopate was not thought necessary for the ordination of other bishops or presbyters. St Jerome (Ep. 146) tells us that as late as the middle of the 3rd century the presbyters of Alexandria, when the see was vacant, used to elect one of their own number and without any further ordination set him in the episcopal office. So the canons of Hippolytus (about A.D. 250) decree that a confessor who has suffered torment for his adherence to the Christian faith should merit and obtain the rank of presbyter forthwith-" Immo confessio est ordinatio ejus." Likewise in A.D. 314 the thirteenth canon of Ancyra (for the true reading see Bishop Wordsworth's Ministry of Grace, p. 140) assumes that city presbyters may with the bishop's leave ordain other presbyters. Even among the medieval schoolmen, some (Gore, Church and Ministry, p. 377) maintained that a priest might be empowered by the pope to ordain other priests.

The threefold ministry was developed in the 2nd, a sevenfold ministry in the middle of the 3rd century. There mus*, says Cornelius (apud Euseb., H.E. vi. 43), be one bishop in the Catholic Church; and he then enumerates the church officers subject to himself as bishop of Rome. These are 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists and readers, together with doorkeepers. The subdeacons, no doubt, became a necessity when the deacons, whose number was limited to seven in memory of their original institution, were no longer equal to their duties in the "regions of the imperial city, and left their lower work, such as preparation of the sacred vessels, to their subordinates. The office of acolyte may have been suggested by the attendant assigned to heathen priests. The office of doorkeeper explains itself, though it must be remembered that it was the special duty of the Christian ostiarius to exclude the unbaptized and persons undergoing penance from the more solema part of the Eucharistic service. But readers and exorcists claim

"

Such in brief were the doctrine and use of the early churches, gradually systematized, developed and transformed in the churches of the Roman obedience. The Reformation brought in radical changes, which were on the whole a return to the primitive type. Calvin states his views clearly in the fourth book of his Institutes, cap. iii. Christ, as he holds, has established in His church certain offices which are always to be retained. First comes the order of presbyters or elders. These are subdivided into pastors, who administer the word and sacraments, doctors, who teach and expound the Bible, elders pure and simple, who exercise rule and discipline. The special care of the poor is committed to deacons. Ordination is to be effected by imposition of hands. The monarchical episcopate is rejected. This view of order was accepted in the Calvinistic churches, but with various modifications. Knox, for example, did- away with the imposition of hands (M'Crie's Knox, period vii.), though the rite was restored by the Scottish Presbyterian Church in the Second Book of Discipline. Knox also provided the Church of Scotland with superintendents or visitors, as well as readers and exhorters, offices which soon fell into disuse. Nor do Scottish presbyterians now recognize any special class of doctors, unless we suppose that these are represented by professors of theology. Independents acknowledge the two orders of presbyters and deacons, and differ from the Calvinistic presbyterians chiefly in this, that with them the church is complete in each single congregation, which is subject to no control of presbytery or synod. Luther was not, like Calvin, a man of rigid system. He refused to look upon any ecclesiastical constitution as binding for all time. The keys, as he believed, were entrusted to the church as a whole, and from the church as a whole the " ministers of the word and sacraments are to derive their institution and authority. The form of government was not essential. Provided that the preaching of the gospel was free and full, Luther was willing to tolerate episcopacy and even papacy. Hence the Lutheran churches exhibit great variety of constitution. In Scandinavia they are under episcopal rule. The Lutheran Bugenhagen, who was in priest's orders, ordained seven superintendents, afterwards called bishops, for Denmark in 1527, and Norway, then under the same crown, derives its present episcopate from the same source. Sweden stands in a different position. There three bishops were consecrated in 1528 by Peter Magnusson, who had himself been consecrated by a cardinal with the pope's approval at Rome in 1524, for the see of Westirås, to which he had been elected by the chapter. J. A. Nicholson (Apostolical Succession in the Church of Sweden, 1880) seems to have proved so much from contemporary evidence. A reply to Mr Nicholson was made in Swedish by a Roman priest, Bernhard, to whom Mr Nicholson replied in 1887. Unfortunately Mr Nicholson gives no detailed account of the form used in consecration, and on this and other points fuller information is needed. We may say, however, that Mr Nicholson has presented a strong case for the preservation of episcopal succession in the Swedish Church.

If the Swedish Church has preserved the episcopal succession, it does not make much of that advantage, for it is in communion with the Danish and Norwegian bodies, which can advance no such claim. On the other hand, the Church of England adheres closely to the episcopal constitution. It is true that in articles xix. and xxxvi. she defines the church, without any express

in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance," and simply adds that the ordinal of Edward VI. for the consecration of bishops, priests and deacons, contains all that is necessary for such ordination and nothing which is of itself superstitious. The preface to the ordinal (1550) goes farther. Therein we are told that the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons may be traced back to apostolic times, and in the final revision of 1662 a clause was added to the effect that no one is to be accounted "a lawful bishop, priest or deacon in the Church of England," unless he has had episcopal consecration or ordination. The words "in the Church of England "deserve careful notice. Nothing is said to condemn the opinion of Hooker (Eccl. Pol. vii. 14. 11) that "there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop," or of the High Church Thorndike (apud Gibson on the Articles, ü. 74), who "neither justifies nor condemns the orders of foreign Protestants." The church lays down a rule of domestic policy, and neither gives nor pretends to give any absolute criterion for the validity of ordination.

But while the Church of England has declined communion with non-episcopal churches, she has been involved in a long controversy with the Church of Rome on the validity of her own orders. It will be best to give first the leading facts, and then the inferences which may be drawn from them.

Anglican orders.

The English Church derives its orders through Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, who was consecrated in 1559 by William Barlow, bishop-elect of Chichester. We may assume that the rite employed was serious and reverent, and there is no longer any need to refute the fable of a ludicrous consecration at the "Nag's Head" tavern. We may further take for granted that Barlow was a bishop in the Catholic sense of the word. He had been nominated bishop of St Asaph in 1536, translated to St David's in the same year, and to Bath and Wells in 1547. He also sat in the upper house of Convocation and in the House of Peers. Now if Barlow all this time was not consecrated-and so far the only form of consecration known in England was according to the Roman ritehe would have incurred the penalties of praemunire, let alone the fact that Henry VIII. would not have tolerated such a defiance of Catholic order for a moment. The registers at St David's make no mention of his consecration, but this counts for nothing. No reference in the registers can be produced for many ordinations of undoubted validity. Parker thus was consecrated by a true bishop according to the Edwardine ordinal, i.e. he received imposition of hands with the words," Take the Holy Ghost and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands." The corresponding form for the ordination of a priest was" Receive thou the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost forgive," &c. These were the sole forms in use from 1552 to г562.

Roman authorities have from the beginning and throughout consistently repudiated orders given according to the Edwardine ordinal. The case first came under consideration when Cardinal Pole returned to England early in Mary's reign with legatine authority for reconciling the realm to the Holy See. In his instructions to the bishops (Burnet Collect., pt. iii., bk. v., 33: see also Dixon, Hist. Ch. of England, v. 238 seq.) he clearly recognizes orders schismatical but valid, i.e. those conferred in Henry's reign, and so distinguishes them by implication from invalid orders, i.e. those given according to the Edwardine book. In the former alone were "the form and intention of the church preserved." He could not doubt for a moment the utter invalidity of Edwardine ordinations to the priesthood. He knew very well that the theologians of his church almost without exception held that the handing over of the paten and chalice with the words, "Receive power of offering sacrifice," &c., were the essential matter and form of ordination to the priesthood; indeed he published the decree of Eugenius IV. to that effect 1 Compare also the article on Anglican orders in the Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. i., especially at p. 492.

(Wilkins, Concil. iv. 121). The Anglican priesthood being gone, the episcopate also lapses. For according to the Pontifical, the episcopate is the " summum sacerdotium "; the bishop in consecration receives "the sacerdotal grace "; it is "his office to consecrate, ordain, offer, baptize, confirm." Thus in the Pontifical the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" are determined and defined by the context. There is nothing in the Anglican ordinal to show that the Holy Ghost is given for the consecration of a bishop in the Roman sense. In 1704 John Gordon, formerly Anglican bishop of Galloway, gave to the Holy Office an account of the manner in which he had been consecrated. The Sacred Congregation, with the pope's approval, declared his orders to be null. The constant practice has been to reordain unconditionally, Anglican priests and deacons. In 1896 Leo XIII. summoned eight divines of his own communion to examine the question anew. Four of those divines were, it is said, decidedly opposed to the admission of Anglican orders as valid; four were more or less favourably disposed to them. The report of this commission was then handed over to a committee of cardinals, who pronounced unanimously for the nullity of the orders in question. Thereupon the pope published his bull Apostolicae curae. In it he lays the chief stress on the indeterminate nature of the Anglican form "Receive the Holy Ghost " at least. from 1552 till the addition of the specific words, "for the office and work of a bishop (or priest) in the church of God," as also on the changes made in the Edwardine order "with the manifest intention. . . of rejecting what the church does." His conclusion is that Anglican orders are "absolutely null and utterly void." Moreover, in a letter to Cardinal Richard, archbishop of Paris, the pope affirms that this his solemn decision is "firm, authoritative and irrevocable."

For Roman Catholics the decision necessarily carries great weight, and it may perhaps have its influence on Anglicans of the school which approximates most closely to Roman belief. | It need not affect the opinion of dispassionate students. It is not the judgment of experts. The rejection of Anglican orders in the 16th and 17th centuries was based on a theory about the "tradition of instruments," which has long ceased to be tenable in the face of history, and is abandoned by Romanists themselves. The opinion of a liturgical scholar like Mgr. Louis Duchesne, who was a member of the papal commission, on the general question would be interesting in the highest degree. Unfortunately we know nothing of his vote or of the reasons he gave for it, and outside of the Roman pale the unanimous decision of a committee of cardinals counts for very little. We may grant the pope's contention that the Edwardine church had no belief in priests who offered in sacrifice the body and blood of Christ or in bishops capable of ordaining such priests. We may grant further that the medieval offices have been deliberately altered to exclude this view. But then the liturgy of Serapion, the friend of Athanasius, recently discovered, contains forms for the ordination of priests and bishops which do not say a word about power to sacrifice, much less about power to sacrifice Christ's literal body and blood. The canons of Hippolytus, which are about 150 years older, and indeed all the oldest forms for celebration, absolutely ignore any such power of sacrifice. If they speak of sacrifice at all, it is a sacrifice of the gifts brought by the faithful and distributed in the congregation and among the poor, or again they refer to those spiritual sacrifices which a bishop is to offer "day and night." The Didache and Justin Martyr are no less unsatisfactory from the Roman point of view. In short, the English reformers knew very well that the ordinal and communion office which they drew up could not satisfy the requirements of medieval theology. They appealed not to the school divines, but to Scripture and primitive antiquity. That is the standard by which we are to test their work.

AUTHORITIES. For holy order in the apostolic and sub-apostolic age the reader may consult R. Rothe, Anfange der christlichen Kirche (1837): A. Ritschl's Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (2nd ed., 1857): J. B. Lightfoot's dissertation on the "Christian Ministry' in his commentary on the Philippians (1868). A new era was opened by E. Hatch's Organization of the Early Christian Church

(1880); to this Bishop C. Gore's Church and Ministry (1888) is a reply. The facts are judicially stated and weighed in Bishop J. Wordsworth's Ministry of Grace (1902). Dr T. M. Lindsay's Church and Ministry in Early Centuries (1902) on the whole agrees with Hatch, but is too eager to find modern Presbyterianism in the early church. A. Harnack's edition of the Didache (1884), his Sources of the Apostolic Canons (Eng. trans., 1895), the edition of the Canons (1891), the translation of Serapion's Prayer-book (translated by of Hippolytus by H. Achelis, in Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. vi. Bishop J. Wordsworth, 1899), are indispensable for serious study of the subject.

Joann Morinus, De sacris ordinationibus (1655) and A. C. Chardon, relating to the patristic and medieval periods. Histoire des sacraments, vol. v. (1745), are rich in material chiefly

For the controversy on Anglican orders see P. F. Courayer, Validité des ordinations anglaises (1732), and two works in reply by M. Le Quien, Nullité des ordinations anglicanes (1725), Nullité dés ordinations anglicanes démonstrée de nouveau (1730). In recent times Anglican orders have been defended by A. W. Haddan, Apostolical Succession in the Church of England; F. W. Puller, The Bull Apostolicae Curae and the Edwardine Ordinal. They have been attacked by E. E. Estcourt, Question of Anglican Ordinations (1873), and by A. W. Hutton, The Anglican Ministry, with a preface by Cardinal, H. Newman (1879). (W. E. A.')

ORDER IN COUNCIL, in Great Britain, an order issued by the sovereign on the advice of the privy council, or more usually on the advice of a few selected members thereof. It is the modern equivalent of the medieval ordinance and of the proclamation so frequently used by the Tudor and Stewart sovereigns. It is opposed to the statute because it does not require the sanction of parliament; it is issued by the sovereign by virtue of the royal prerogative. But although theoretically orders in council are thus independent of parliamentary authority, in practice they are only issued on the advice of ministers of the crown, who are, of course, responsible to parliament for their action in the matter. Orders in council were first issued during the 18th century, and their legality has sometimes been called in question, the fear being evidently prevalent that they would be used, like the earlier ordinances and proclamations, to alter the law. Consequently in several cases parliament has subsequently passed acts of indemnity to protect the persons responsible for issuing them, and incidentally to assert its own authority. At the present time the principle seems generally accepted that orders in council may be issued on the strength of the royal prerogative, but they must not seriously alter the law of the land.

The most celebrated instance of the use of orders in council was in 1807 when Great Britain was at war with France. In answer to Napoleon's Berlin decree, the object of which was to destroy the British shipping industry, George III. and his ministers issued orders in council forbidding all vessels under penalty of seizure to trade with ports under the influence of France. Supplementary orders were issued later in the same year, and also in 1808. Orders in council are used to regulate the matters which need immediate attention on the death of one sovereign and the accession of another.

In addition to these and other orders issued by the sovereign by virtue of his prerogative, there is another class of orders in council, viz. those issued by the authority of an act of parliament, many of which provide thus for carrying out their provisions. At the present day orders in council are extensively used by the various administrative departments of the government, who act on the strength of powers conferred upon them by some act of parliament. They are largely used for regulating the details of local government and matters concerning the navy and the army, while a new bishopric is sometimes founded by an order in council. They are also employed to regulate the affairs of the crown colonies, and the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the viceroy of India, the governor-general of Canada, and other representatives of the sovereign may issue orders in council under certain conditions.

In times of emergency the use of orders in council is indispensable to the executive. In September 1766, a famine being feared, the export of wheat was forbidden by an order in council, and the Regulation of the Forces Act 1871 empowers the government in a time of emergency to take possession of the railway system of the country by the issue of such an order.

ORDERIC VITALIS (1075-c. 1142), the chronicler, was the son of a French priest, Odeler of Orleans, who had entered the service of Roger Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury, and had received from his patron a chapel in that city. Orderic was the eldest son of his parents. They sent him at the age of five to learn his letters from an English priest, Siward by name, who kept a school in the church of SS Peter and Paul at Shrewsbury. When eleven years old he was entered as a novice in the Norman monastery of St Evroul en Ouche, which Earl Roger had formerly persecuted but, in his later years, was loading with gifts. The parents paid thirty marks for their son's admission; and he expresses the conviction that they imposed this exile upon him from an earnest desire for his welfare. Odeler's respect for the monastic profession is attested by his own retirement, a few years later, into a religious house which Earl Roger had founded at his persuasion. But the young Orderic felt for some time, as he tells us, like Joseph in a strange land. He did not know a word of French when he reached Normandy; his book, though written many years later, shows that he never lost his English cast of mind or his attachment to the country of his birth. His superiors rechristened him Vitalis (after a member of the legendary Theban legion) because they found a difficulty in pronouncing his baptismal name. But, in the title of his Ecclesiastical History he prefixes the old to the new name and proudly adds the epithet Angligena. His cloistered life was uneventful. He became a deacon in 1993, a priest in 1107. He left his cloister on several occasions, and speaks of having visited Croyland, Worcester, Cambrai (1105) and Cluny (1132). But he turned his attention at an early date to literature, and for many years he appears to have spent his summers in the scriptorium. His superiors (at some time between 1099 and 1122) ordered him to write the history of St Evroul. The work grew under his hands until it became a general history of his own age. St Evroul was a house of wealth and distinction. War-worn knights chose it as a resting-place of their last years. It was constantly entertaining visitors from southern Italy, where it had planted colonies of monks, and from England, where it had extensive possessions. Thus Orderic, though he witnessed no great events, was often well informed about them. In spite of a cumbrous and affected style, he is a vivid narrator; and his character sketches are admirable as summaries of current estimates. His narrative is badly arranged and full of unexpected digressions. But he gives us much invaluable information for which we should search the more methodical chroniclers in vain. He throws a flood of light upon the manners and ideas of his own age; he sometimes comments with surprising shrewdness upon the broader aspects and tendencies of history. His narrative breaks off in the middle of 1141, though he added some finishing touches in 1142. He tells us that he was then old and infirm. Probably he did not long survive the completion of his great work.

The Historia ecclesiastica falls into three sections. (1) Bks. i., ii., which are historically valueless, give the history of Christianity from the birth of Christ. After 855 this becomes a bare catalogue of popes, ending with the name of Innocent I. These books were added, as an afterthought, to the original scheme; they were composed in the years 1136-1141. (2) Bks. iii.-vi. form a history of St Evroul, the original nucleus of the work. Planned before 1122, they were mainly composed in the years 1123-1131. The fourth and fifth books contain long digressions on the deeds of William the Conqueror in Normandy and England. Before 1067 these are of little value, being chiefly derived from two extant sources. William of Jumièges' Historia Normannorum and William of Poitiers' Gesta Guilelmi. For the years 1067-1071 Orderic follows the last portion of the Gesta Guilelmi, and is therefore of the first importance. From 1071 he begins to be an independent authority. But his notices of political events in this part of his work are far less copious than in (3) Bks. vii.-xiii., where ecclesiastical affairs are relegated to the background. In this section, after sketching the history of France under the Carolingians and early Capets, Orderic takes up the events of his own times, starting from about 1082. He has much to say concerning the empire, the papacy, the Normans in Italy and Apulia, the First Crusade (for which he follows Fulcher of Chartres and Baudri of Bourgueil). But his chief interest is in the histories of Duke Robert of Normandy, William Rufus and Henry I. He continues his work, in the form of annals, up to the defeat and capture of Stephen at Lincoln in 1141.

The Historia ecclesiastica was edited by Duchesne in his Historice

Normannorum scriptores (Paris, 1619). This is the edition cited by Freeman and in many standard works. It is, however, inferior to that of A. le Prévost in five vols. (Soc. de l'histoire de France, Paris, 1838-1855). The fifth volume contains excellent critical studies by M. Leopold Delisle, and is admirably indexed. Migne's edition (Patrologia latina, clxxxviii.) is merely a reprint of Duchesne. There is a French translation (by L. Dubois) in Guizot's Collection des mémoires relatifs à l'histoire de France (Paris, 1825-1827); and one in.English by T. Forester in Bohn's Antiquarian Library (4 vols, 1853-1856). In addition to the Historia there exists, in the library at Rouen, a manuscript edition of William of Jumièges' Historia Normannorum which Leopold Delisle assigns to Orderic (see this critic's Lettre à M Jules Lair (1873). (H. W. C. D.)

44

ORDINANCE, or ORDONNANCE, in architecture, a composition of some particular order or style. It need not be restricted to columnar composition, but applies to any kind of design which is subjected to conventional rules for its arrangement. ORDINANCE, in medieval England, a form of legislation. The ordinance differed from the statute because it did not require the sanction of parliament, but was issued by the sovereign by virtue of the royal prerogative, although, especially during the reign of Edward I., the king frequently obtained the assent of his council to his ordinances. Dr Stubbs (Const. Hist. vol. ii.) a regulation made by the king, by defines the ordinance as himself or in his council or with the advice of his council, promulgated in letters patent or in charter, and liable to be recalled by the same authority." But after remarking that" these generalizations do not cover all the instances of the use of ordinance," he adds: "The statute is primarily a legislative act, the ordinance is primarily an executive one." Legislation by ordinance was very common during the reigns of Henry III. and Edward I. when laws were issued by the king in council or enacted in parliament indifferently. Both were regarded as equally binding. Soon, however, legislation by ordinance aroused the jealousy of parliament, especially when it was found that acts of parliament Conwere altered and their purpose defeated by this means. sequently in 1389 the Commons presented a petition to King Richard II. asking that no ordinance should be made contrary to the common law, or the ancient customs of the land, or the statutes ordained by parliament. For this and other reasons this form of legislation fell gradually into disuse, becoming obsolete in the 15th century. The modern equivalent of the ordinance is the order in council.

In 1310, when Edward II. was on the throne and England was in a very disturbed condition, a committee of twenty-one bishops, carls and barons was chosen to make certain ordinances for the better government of the country. These men were called ordainers.

In the 17th century the use of the word ordinance was revived, and was applied to some of the measures passed by the Long Parliament, among them the famous self-denying ordinance of 1645- This form was used probably in conformity with the opinion of Sir Edward Coke, who says in his Fourth Institute" an ordinance in parliament wanteth the threefold consent, and is ordained by one or two of them" (i.e. king, lords and commons). The ordinances of the Long Parliament did not, of course, obtain the assent of the king. At the present time the word ordinance is used to describe a body of laws enacted by a body less than sovereign. For example, the ordinances of Southern Nigeria are issued by the governor of that colony with the assent of his council.

Before 1789 the kings of France frequently issued ordonnances. These were acts of legislation, and were similar to the ordinances of the English kings in medieval times.

ORDINARY (med. Lat. ordinarius, Fr. ordinaire), in canon law, the name commonly employed to designate a superior ecclesiastic exercising ordinary" jurisdiction (jurisdictionem ordinariam), i.e. in accordance with the normal organization of the church. It is usually applied to the bishop of a diocese and to those who exercise jurisdiction in his name or by delegation of his functions. Thus, in Germany, the term ordinarial is applied to the whole body of officials, including the bishop, through whom a diocese is administered. In English law, however, the term ordinary is now confined to the bishop and the chancellor