LETTER II.

THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

MY DEAR SIR,

The real ground of the exclusive claims which have recently been put forth on behalf of the Church of England is, her supposed "apostolical descent."

Now, assuming, in the first instance, that an uninterrupted succession in the ministry is indispensable, the state of the question betwixt her and the other Churches of the Reformation, on this head, admits of being placed before your mind in a very simple and clear point of view, by quoting the words in which the Oxford writers give an account of their own ministerial commission, considered in its relation to the Church of Rome.

66

Many centuries ago, strange and corrupt notions and practices prevailed in many of the Churches in Europe. Among others, people thought that the pope, or bishop of Rome, was gifted with authority from Heaven to control all the branches of the Church on earth, and that his word was to be of more weight than even the Holy Scriptures themselves. But about 300 years ago, the bishops of the Church of England saw these errors in their true light; they saw that the pope's authority was not founded on Scripture, and they consequently refused to acknowledge it; while they, at the same time, corrected, on scriptural principles, the other errors and evil practices which I have alluded to. These changes did not make the Church of England a new Church, nor

prevent that body which was Christ's true and original Church before, from being Christ's true and original Church still. Some bishops of that day, it is true, disapproved of these changes, and refused to accede to them; but as, when they died, they providentially appointed no successors, there has never since been any real ground for doubt which was the true Church of Christ in this favoured land. The bishops of the Church of England, and they only, are the representatives, by succession, of those who, more than 1000 years ago, planted the Gospel on our shores."* Again, the objection being raised that "though there was a continual succession of pastors and teachers in the early Church who had a divine commission, yet no Protestants can have it,—that we gave it up when our communion ceased with Rome," "for our own predecessors then revolted and separated from those spiritual pastors who, according to our principles, then had the commission of Jesus Christ,"—it is answered thus,-"Our reply to this is a flat denial of the alleged facts on which it rests. The English Church did not revolt from those who in that day had authority, by succession, from the apostles." "The Church, by its proper rulers and officers, reformed itself. There was no new Church founded among us, but the rights and the true doctrines of the antient existing Church were asserted and established." "It was the bishops and clergy themselves who maintained the just rights of the Church," "there is not a word in Scripture about our duty to obey the pope." + "I do not think that Satan could have desired any event more eagerly than such an alternative,―viz., to have forced Christians either to remain in communion with error, or to join themselves in some such spontaneous union among themselves, as is dissolved as easily as it is formed. Blessed be God! his malice has been thwarted. I do believe it to be one most conspicuous mark of God's adorable providence over us, as great as if we saw a miracle, that Christians in England escaped in the evil day from either extreme, + No. 20, p. 5.

* No. 30, p. 4.

neither corrupted doctrinally, nor secularised ecclesias

tically."

" *

Substitute the word PRELATE for the word POPE in these passages, and they exhibit one of the chief grounds of noncomformity on the part of those who differ from the Church of England, in so far as the form of Episcopal government is concerned. In both cases, the argument is founded on the same principle. Episcopalians threw off the usurped power of the pope, and reserved or resumed the inalienable rights of bishops; and the other Reformed Churches threw off the acquired power of prelates, and reserved or resumed the inalienable rights of presbyters or pastors; and in either instance, on the ground that the usurpation was not sanctioned by Scripture. The principle involved in the argument is the same in both cases, as is also the standard of appeal; the only difference consists in the opposite opinions which different Churches have severally formed as to the meaning of Scripture when it speaks of bishops and presbyters.

This simple argument is sufficient by itself to place the other Churches of the Reformation on a footing of perfect equality with the Church of England, until it can be shown, by an appeal to Scripture, that the right of ordination does not belong to the pastoral office, but belongs exclusively to the order of prelates. And this is a proof which, with or without the aid of primitive antiquity, all the learning of the English Church has hitherto been inadequate to establish. The Oxford writers, indeed, seem to be aware of the deficiency of scriptural evidence in their favour. They say," There were certainly in the Church, as far as the Testament history reaches, three different ranks or orders of ministers, one above another;" but "after St John's decease (perhaps), whether out of humility, or because (the churches being settled) the ministers need no longer be missionaries, the title of apostles or angels was laid aside, and that of bishops limited to the highest of the three orders,"" the authority and distinction peculiar to * No. 20, p. 3.

each being preserved, a difference in name only taking place. Thus,

At first they were

66

Apostles, elders, deacons."

While John was yet living-" Angels, bishops, deacons." After his deceaseBishops, priests, deacons." It is elsewhere explained that priest is a mere contraction for presbyter, and that bishops and elders are names applied in Scripture to the same persons; and in answer to the objection that there is little direct evidence in support of their views, they admit-"There is no part, perhaps, of the ecclesiastical system which is not faintly traced in Scripture, and no part which is much more than faintly traced." + And add,-“The utmost that needs to be admitted is, that it is out of place to make it the subject of a speculative dispute, and to argue about it on that abstract logical platform which virtually excludes a reference to conduct and duty." "If there be but a reasonable likelihood of our pleasing Christ more by keeping than by not keeping to the fellowship of the apostolic ministry, this of course ought to be enough." In thus declining or deprecating "argument on an abstract logical platform," the Oxonians show a prudent regard for the maxim, that in some cases "discretion is the better part of valour." Unquestionably a conscientious conviction, were it only of the likelihood of pleasing Christ more by adhering to the Episcopal communion, is enough to warrant a pious Churchman to remain within her pale: but it is not enough, either in logic or charity, to justify the divines of Oxford in their crusade against the other Reformed Churches, or their denial of the validity of Presbyterian orders and sacraments.

I have no wish to call in question the validity of Episcopal ordination; nor is it necessary that I should. But, in defence of my own, I must remind you that, in Scripture, the words bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably, and applied to the same person. Thus, it is said, that "from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the ELDERS of the Church" (ross #girßurig, the * No. 12, p. 12. + No. 8, p. 2.

PRESBYTERS); and when they had come to him, he said, "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over whom the Holy Ghost hath made you OVERSEERS" (71σoя85, BISHOPS).* Again, "The elders (geoßurigs, PRESBYTERS) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder (Burgos) and a witness of the sufferings of Christ; feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (as), not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being LORDS Over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." And so Titus, who is represented by our Episcopalian brethren as bishop of Crete, gets instructions from the apostle in these terms:-"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain elders (PRESBYTERS) in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless"- “for a BISHOP must be blameless, as the steward of God." From these passages it is evident that various names were applied to the same person, and that, too, by reason of the same office;-that there is no more reason for supposing the bishop to be other than a presbyter, than for creating the additional offices of "steward," "shepherd," "ambassador," or "servant;" and that different names are used merely to describe different aspects of the Christian ministry, in its various functions and relations towards the body of Christ. "The ordinary ministers were called pastors, in reference to shepherds who fed and led the flock. They were called presbyters, or elders, with reference to the senators among the Jews. They were called bishops, i. e., overseers or superintendents, by an allusion (probably) to the superintendents of victuals among the Greeks, who were called bishops also.' But "the distinction of a bishop and a priest, or minister, as if they had two different offices, is not only a thing that they cannot prove out of Scripture, but that even contradicts the express words of Scripture, where bishops and priests are the names of one and the same office; from whence it follows, that the priests having, by their first institu+1 Peter v. 1, 2.

6

* Acts xx. 17-28.