The Puritans and Anglican Orders

[Sam Jer]

The Ordinal of the Church of England has several parts, to whch I can imagine many Puritans would object. Yet they were ordained in it, weren't they? Are these parts innovations added in 1662 or did they exist in the older prayerbooks too? I would assume that at minimum the part about submition to the bishop and the title "priest" were not invented at the restoration.

The Bishop.WILL you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

Answer.I will so do, by the help of the Lord.

The Bishop. WILL you reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief Ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and government over you; following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgements?
Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.

When this prayer is done, the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the Order of Priesthood; the receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees, and the Bishop saying,
RECEIVE the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them kneeling the Bible into his hand, saying,
TAKE thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.

 

[Phil D.]

You can read the original Anglican ordinal here.

 

[Sam Jer]

You can read the original Anglican ordinal here.

I will read it. What do you mean by "original"? Was it the one in use in the 16th and 17th centuries?

 

[Sam Jer]

You can read the original Anglican ordinal here.

It seems everything I cited is included here, just with more antiquated spelling (which I'd assume the 1662 probably also had originally)

 

[Phil D.]

will read it. What do you mean by "original"? Was it the one in use in the 16th and 17th centuries?

As far as I know this was the ordinal used until the 1662 revision. I don't think the slight 1604 revision changed anything in this area.

 

[Phil D.]

It seems everything I cited is included here, just with more antiquated spelling (which I'd assume the 1662 probably also had originally)

There is a side-by-side comparison of all the versions including spellings here, starting on page 958

 

[Theoretical]

The Ordinal of the Church of England has several parts, to whch I can imagine many Puritans would object. Yet they were ordained in it, weren't they? Are these parts innovations added in 1662 or did they exist in the older prayerbooks too? I would assume that at minimum the part about submition to the bishop and the title "priest" were not invented at the restoration.

At least on the priest side, the meaning intended was as a form of Presbyter and not the meaning by the Catholics.

 

[Sam Jer]

Still, the above two vows, the ceremony with a bible, and potentially also the words used in the third quote would likely be objected. So how did so many puritans become ordained officers in the Church? Did any of them address these potential issues with the ordinal in their'e writings?

 

[Phil D.]

Still, the above two vows, the ceremony with a bible, and potentially also the words used in the third quote would likely be objected. So how did so many puritans become ordained officers in the Church? Did any of them address these potential issues with the ordinal in their'e writings?

I don't have any particular knowledge concerning the Puritan's potential explanation in this specific matter. But I would imagine, similar to their views of RC baptism and the like, they wouldn't necessarily have deemed something like ordinal procedures to be outright invalid on grounds it was carried out by irregular or even "objectionable" means.

 

[Sam Jer]

I don't have any particular knowledge concerning the Puritan's potential explanation in this specific matter. But I would imagine, similar to their views of RC baptism and the like, they wouldn't necessarily have deemed something like ordinal procedures to be outright invalid on grounds it was carried out by irregular or even "objectionable" means.

I would doubt tgat they took vows they saw as unlawful.

Anyone else with specific information / quotations?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't know or remember what was done in England. In Scotland some bishops looked the other way and ordained as part of a presbytery in accommodation. This I think is how Rutherford and others who scrupled about being ordained by a bishop were ordained. Others, perhaps like Alexander Henderson, came to sounder views after their ordination by hands of a bishop. By George Gillespie's time (Laud became archbishop in 1633), the bishop over Kirkaldy was not accommodating and coupled with the fact he finished MA and his theological studies incredibly young (MA at age 17), under majority, he became a tutor until the second reformation and the removing of the bishops and was the second person ordained solely by a presbytery at that time (not the first as often recorded). In England, it could be there were also bishops willing to be accommodating or they were not as scrupulous about it. You might look in Neal or similar histories. I know that puritans such as the English presbyterians in the Westminster assembly defended their ordination against the separatists. Those types of polemical works may also give clues to what was done.

 

[Phil D.]

I would doubt tgat they took vows they saw as unlawful.

My point was with regard to someone who may having been ordained in the Anglican prior to coming to more Puritan convictions on that matter.

It would be interesting to know, however, if various English Puritans early to mid 17th Century did in fact undergo Anglican ordination, or if there may have been any alternatives in place and so used.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Also, the English puritans faced a different situation at the restoration; at that time several thousand could not in conscience "conform". There was nothing comparable prior to then when under the bishops before the English Civil War.

 

[Sam Jer]

Also, the English puritans faced a different situation at the restoration; at that time several thousand could not in conscience "conform". There was nothing comparable prior to then when under the bishops before the English Civil War.

The Jus Divinum Presbyterians among them would not in good concience vow to obay the officers set above them though, could they?

What you are saying about the hand which ordains (presbytery vs prelate) is interesting. It is another problem I didn't even consider.
It would make sense if the Scottish were more scrupelous in this regard. After all, the English saw just as much if not greater abuse at the restoration, and yet somehow the Scots were the ones to be covenanters and martyrs.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The Jus Divinum Presbyterians among them would not in good concience vow to obay the officers set above them though, could they?

What you are saying about the hand which ordains (presbytery vs prelate) is interesting. It is another problem I didn't even consider.
It would make sense if the Scottish were more scrupelous in this regard. After all, the English saw just as much if not greater abuse at the restoration, and yet somehow the Scots were the ones to be covenanters and martyrs.

I would think all the presbyterians of the jus divinum stripe had ordination under the bishops. Whether they had an accommodation, understood the vows a certain way, is beyond what I've looked into. They didn't believe it invalidated a ministry; that was the argument they had with the separatists and sects who denied the validity of ordination under the CofE.