'Handed down to us in succession ... an ecclesiastical order': William White's 'Commentaries Suited to Occasions of Ordination'

Following last week's introduction to this series on William White's Commentaries Suited to Occasions of Ordination, we now turn to the substance of White's work. The Commentaries are structured around the questions addressed to candidates in the Ordering of Deacons and the Ordering of Priests. It is not without significance that (with one - rarely used - exception) the PECUSA Ordinal was the same as that of the Church of England. The questions addressed to the candidates for holy orders, therefore, were the same as in 1662.

The first question in the Ordering of Deacons concerned the nature of the call to orders:

Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Ministration, to serve God for the promoting of his glory, and the edifying of his people?

Answer: I trust so.

White emphasises the understanding of ministerial call embodied in this question: it is not an immediate, direct call to which reference is being made but, rather, a call within the external ecclesiastical order "handed down to us in succession". Such call does have an internal as well an external form. The internal form cannot claim any authority apart from the bestowal of ecclesiastical order. As such, it is a declaration of trust - not direct, authoritative assurance - by the candidate that they are "inwardly moved" to receive holy orders:

In proportion to the solemnity of this appeal to the conscience, there should be care, on the one hand, not to adopt any expedient for the lessening of the responsibility designed to be brought on the candidate; and on the other hand, not to suppose that there is exacted a species of call of which not a single instance appears on record in the New Testament. Accordingly there may be a propriety in delaying the attention for a while, on the force of the expression, "I trust." It is not uncommon to hear this question appealed to, in order to prove that the Church requires an absolute assurance of a divine call to the ministerial office. Were there indeed an inward call, alike clear with that outward call which St. Paul heard on his journey to Damascus; it would become the person receiving it, in imitation of the same apostle, who "conferred not with flesh and blood," to enter on his office without the consent of man. But the whole scheme of the Christian ministry, as framed by the apostles, and handed down to us in succession, implies the intervention of an ecclesiastical order, designated for the purpose. Accordingly, as the question of the candidate's fitness for the office, is not subjected altogether to the test of a consciousness in his own, mind; so, in reference to what passes there, as duly pointed to its object, he is expected to declare, not his assurance, but his trust. And indeed, the Church by making this the ground of her proceeding, rejects the other; which, if there were any warrant for it, ought to have been noticed and demanded.

This understanding of ministerial call, however, is not at all to be understood as a denial of the workings of the Holy Spirit. To be "inwardly moved" to receive this ministry, and to receive such office and ministration from the Church, is the gift of the Holy Ghost:

Very important, however, is the appeal made, under the expression which the service uses: and very awful is the responsibility involved in the reference to the Holy Spirit. It will be no difficult matter to ascertain what the Church means, when she warrants the ascribing of any religious disposition of the mind to so high an agency. The Scriptures assure us, Eph. v. 9, "that the fruits of the Spirit are in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth." In Gal. v. 22, the fruits of the Spirit are described more at large. And the passages are many, in which there is attributed to the Spirit of grace whatever is holy and good in man. Our Church, keeping in view this evangelical truth, recognises it continually in her service. If then, agreeably to the expressions which follow in the question of serving God for the promoting of his glory, and the edifying of his people, a man be desirous of taking on him the ministerial office, under a sufficient knowledge of the purposes for which it was instituted, accompanied by a due regard to them; and if he be desirous of devoting his time, his talents, and his labours, to so holy and benevolent a use; surely it is not less to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, than any good work which he can perform.

White here provides an excellent example of the sober theology and piety of 18th century Anglicanism, in which we see a wise modesty regarding the inward workings of the Holy Spirit, a recognition of the gift of ecclesiastical order (with its limits affirmed as White's work progresses), and the "evangelical truth" that we are to attribute to "the Spirit of grace whatever is holy and good" within us and others. Such sober theology and piety had a particular significance against the background of an early American Republic shaped by the First and Second Great Awakenings. White's words, however, also continue to be reflected in much ordinary Anglican piety, particularly in the pews; characteristics to be cherished and encouraged in a time of loud, angry partisanship in church and polity.