Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
I have been reading Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, a 1646 defense of Presbyterianism authored by a collection of London ministers 1646. Among other things, the book responds to a critique by the Independent party that a Presbyterian view required historic ministerial succession going to back the Apostles, which the Presbyterians did not have. (Presbyterianism implies historic succession because actual authority for ministry can only be transferred from previously ordained ministers and if you work back long enough, you will see that this must end in the calls of Christ to the apostles).
The most interesting thing was the Presbyterian response. They essentially agreed that historic succession was necessary for legitimate ministerial authority and simply argued that ordinations through the English Church can be traced back to the apostles. Roman corruption did not void Rome's ordinations until after Trent. This historic ministerial succession gave Presbyterians valid ordinations and Presbyterian ministers coming out that church did not need reordination.
It seems many Presbyterians today deny the need for this kind of succession. If so, then their view really seems to be a mutated form of independency. This is because if there is no succession of transfer of authority by laying on of hands, then the power to ordain must rest somewhere else, which would be presumably the people (even if it is coopted at some point by the presbytery and only elders come to ordain, the original jurisdiction lies somewhere outside of the historic succession).
Any thoughts?
Scott
[Edited on 3-3-2005 by Scott]
The most interesting thing was the Presbyterian response. They essentially agreed that historic succession was necessary for legitimate ministerial authority and simply argued that ordinations through the English Church can be traced back to the apostles. Roman corruption did not void Rome's ordinations until after Trent. This historic ministerial succession gave Presbyterians valid ordinations and Presbyterian ministers coming out that church did not need reordination.
It seems many Presbyterians today deny the need for this kind of succession. If so, then their view really seems to be a mutated form of independency. This is because if there is no succession of transfer of authority by laying on of hands, then the power to ordain must rest somewhere else, which would be presumably the people (even if it is coopted at some point by the presbytery and only elders come to ordain, the original jurisdiction lies somewhere outside of the historic succession).
Any thoughts?
Scott
[Edited on 3-3-2005 by Scott]