The Validity of the Ministerial Succession and Orders of the Reformed Church

 

I have written elsewhere on this blog before about the validity of ordination performed by presbyters, which is a key part of the case for the polity of Reformed Presbyterianism, affirmed against the strict defenders of jure divino episcopacy, as well as the cavillings of Papists against us, who contend that we can have no true ordinations and valid ministry on account of our separation from the church of Rome. 

It is remarkable how the same arguments and slanders made against us centuries ago still plague us yet again today. And although we have answered these things many times over, with various volumes and treatises, yet the devil is not afraid to protrude the same lies repeatedly, seeing if it may work upon new victims, in order that they might be deceived and led astray into Romanism. 

Lately, I came across an excellent book, entitled Jesuit-Juggling by the esteemed divine Richard Baxter, which includes a chapter called "Their Cavils against our Ministry, Ordination and Succession, confuted." (ch. 33) I was very much impressed by the erudition and precision that Baxter displayed in refuting this Romanist argument, as well as his wide-spread knowledge of their own sources.

Although we do not base the truth of our ordinations merely upon the Roman church, yet it is true that many of the first Reformers of the church throughout Europe were ordained at the hands of Roman Catholic prelates, bishops, priests, etc. Thus, if they have a valid ordination, then so do we. However, the key reply they may protrude on us is that our separation from them is an act of schism which renders our calling and ministry utterly null and void.  

Yet even if what they say is true, that we really are schismatics, then by the judgment of their own writers and doctors, this would not render our ordination null and void, just as it does not invalidate our administrations of baptism. For the teaching of many Romanists is, that the power of ordination remains valid in a schismatic, but that is simply not lawful for him to use it. Nonetheless, if it is used, the effect of consecration to ecclesiastical ministry is still accomplished, despite the alleged defect in the one administrating it. I desire to bring forth a few testimonies from various Papists which will vindicate what we plea in this matter. 

Here is Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468), an influential Roman Catholic theologian and writer on the subject of ecclesiastical law and jurisprudence:

"For this purpose it should be noted, according to St. Thomas (II–II, q. 39, art. 3; note: also see Aquinas, In Sent. IV, dist. 25, q. 1, art. 2), that there is a twofold spiritual power: namely, sacramental power and jurisdictional power. Sacramental power is that which is conferred through some consecration. Now all consecrations of the Church are permanent in those things which are consecrated. This is evident even in inanimate objects: for an altar once consecrated is not consecrated again unless it has been destroyed. And therefore such power, according to its essence, remains in a man who has acquired it through consecration as long as he lives, whether he falls into schism or into heresy. This is clear from the fact that when such a person returns to the Church, he is not consecrated again...But since an inferior power ought not to pass into act except insofar as it is moved by a superior power—as is also evident in natural things—hence it is that such persons lose the use of power, namely, that it is not lawful for them to use their power. Nevertheless, if they should act by force, their power has effect in sacramental matters, because in these the human being operates only as an instrument of God. Hence sacramental effects are not excluded on account of whatever fault of the one who confers the sacrament. Therefore, authorities which say that schismatics and heretics do not possess spiritual power—namely, sacramental power—must always be understood with respect to the legitimate use of that power, and not as referring to the very essence of the power itself." (Juan de Torquemada, Summae ecclesiasticae libri quatuor, book IV, part 1, ch. 7 [Salamanca, 1560], pg. 544)

"First conclusion: Sacramental power remains in schismatics. The reason is that this power is conferred on a person through consecration. Second conclusion: Schismatics lose the use of their power, so that it is not lawful for them to use their power. And the reason is that an inferior power ought not go into act except according as it is moved by a superior power. Third conclusion: If nevertheless schismatics have used their power, such power has effect in sacramental matters, where jurisdiction is not mixed in. The reason is that in such matters a person operates as an instrument of God." (Domingo Báñez, Scholastica commentaria in secundam secundae angelici doctoris D. Thomae [Altobellum Salicatium, 1587], pg. 1885)