Page images
PDF
EPUB

XXX.

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, CORRUPT AS A DOCTRINE, FALSE IN FACT.

THE basis of the Episcopal doctrine of Apostolical succession is the idea, that the Christian ministry is a Priesthood, whose office is less to preach the Gospel, than to PROPITIATE GOD by the exercise of priestly functions; and to be the indispensable and efficient instruments of CONVEYING TO MEN THE GRACE OF GOD

BY THE MINISTRATION OF SACRAMENTS.

This mystic "virtue," it is pretended, is received in ordination; being conveyed down from the Apostles, exclusively through the order of Bishops, to the priesthood of the present day. A mere Presbyter is a non-conductor. Should he pretend to ordain, the "virtue" is not imparted; the chain is broken.

Valid ordination, and valid sacraments, consist in this; that when other men consecrate the elements in the Lord's Supper, these elements fail to become sacramentally the Lord's body and blood, and can furnish no spiritual benefit and comfort. Other men may preach the Gospel, but there is no covenanted mercy to those who believe the Gospel so preached; and who repent of their sins, and serve God in the communion of these men unordained by virtue of the Apostolical succession. But the ordained priesthood, when they preach, actually pledge God to fulfil the promises of the Gospel to those who embrace them; their preaching is valid; when they consecrate the elements in the Lord's Supper, they make them effectual means, as well as authoritative signs, of grace. When they pronounce the benediction, the people are authoritatively blessed; and when they pronounce the absolution, it becomes valid on earth and in heaven; the sinner is truly, authoritatively, and effectually absolved from his sins.*

*To the proofs of these Episcopal dogmas, given in the last lecture, the following may be added from that choice Churchman, Bishop Whittingham of Maryland: "The ministry of the Christian Priesthood in the word and sacraments, is equivalent in its nature and efficacy to that of the Jewish priesthood, in offering of anima and other sacrifices. Christ's own availing blood is avouched and pledged by the outward act of his REPRESENTATIVE, THE PRIEST." The Lord Jesus Christ asserted his claim to power, as a man sent from the Father, to forgive sins. Now

These are the claims of Episcopacy in behalf of the prerogatives of Apostolical succession. These are the avowed grounds of the necessity of that succession.

Bishop Brownell, in his charge, says of this doctrine of Apostolical succession, that "no doctrine is more universally received by the whole body of our Church;" and that he "knows not a single clergyman who rejects it." On this ground he boldly rests an issue concerning the whole claims of Episcopacy.

[ocr errors]

If," says Bishop Brownell, "a regular ministerial succession in the order of Bishops be not conformable to Scripture and Apostolic usage, Episcopacy is an unjustifiable usurpation."

I accept this issue; and affirm that this doctrine of Apostolical succession is, as to its very basis, fundamentally contradictory both to Scripture and to reason; that the dogma upon which it is built, is subversive of the true Gospel, and is the fundamental dogma of Popery; and that, as a matter of fact, this pretended succession in the order of Diocesan Bishops, is both false and absurd.

If these positions can be sustained, then by the terms of Bishop what he so claimed, we find that he afterwards conveyed in the most explicit terms to those whom he left to represent him in the Church." 66 Eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Supper of the Lord is the pre-requisite to the forgiveness of sins which the Saviour gave his Apostles and their successors power to minister."

With regard to Baptism, our Episcopal neighbors are at some loss, and in no small perplexity. They claim that baptism confers regeneration. "The true economy of the Christian religion," says Bishop Brownell, "regards men by nature as the CHILDREN OF WRATH. It takes them from this state, which is called in Scripture, 'The kingdom of Satan,' and TRANSFERS THEM BY BAPTISM unto the family, household, and kingdom of the Saviour." The baptism, he says, makes them "in deed and in truth, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven." And yet they admit the baptism of other ministers, as lay baptism, and do not ordinarily rebaptize. It is, therefore, in their view, valid, and if there is no other way to get out of the "kingdom of Satan," than by baptism, and if lay baptism is not valid, then several of the most considerable Bishops of the Episcopal Church are yet "children of wrath," and subjects of the kingdom of Satan; having received none other than (in their view) lay baptism.

Now one would think that taking a child of wrath out of the kingdom of Satan, and converting him in deed and in truth into a child of God, and an heir of the kingdom of heaven, must be one of the most stupendous works to be achieved by any priesthood. What priest of the Apostolical succession can do more? And yet this it is admitted is done by lay baptism! But how is it, that the child so baptized and made a child of the covenant, is still destitute of the covenanted mercies of God? There seems to be some discrepancy between the claims and doctrines of Prelacy here.

It is said that the irregular baptism is “confirmed” and rendered valid in the confirmation administered by the Bishop. This has been gravely argued by no less a man than the learned Dr. Jarvis. But to this it has been well replied, "Was that irregularly baptized person in deed and in truth regenerated in that irregular baptism? If so, does confirmation regenerate him over again? Is the confirmation necessary in order to render that regeneration which is already so? Or if he was not regenerated in the irregular baptism, then the baptism was a nullity-a nothing; does the confirmation make that a regeneration which was nothing? And since confirmation is confessedly no regenerating ordinance, how can it make that a valid regeneration which was no regeneration at all?"

Brownell's alternative, "Episcopacy is an unjustifiable usurpa

tion."

Protestantism and Popery are two great antagonistic and irreconcileable systems; not of order and polity, merely-but in the fundamental doctrines of the respective schemes. Protestantism sends the inquirer for salvation, directly to God's Word for instruction; and directly to Christ alone for help. Her doctrine is, Justification by faith alone, requiring the soul only to embrace and obey the Gospel, without resorting at all to the intervention of a human priesthood as essential to salvation. Popery says, No: you cannot go to the Bible alone for instruction; nor to Christ directly and alone for help. You cannot be justified by faith alone, you must have the help of a human priesthood with its valid sacraments, or you cannot be saved.

Here, then, are the two schemes of salvation; justification by faith alone; and justification by priestly intervention for the forgiveness of sins. The last is the fundamental principle in the dogma of the Apostolical succession, as held both by Papists and by so called Protestant Episcopalians. Which doctrine is "conformable to Scripture and Apostolical usage?"

The Apostle Paul says, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." How strangely Paul talks, cries the Priest of the Apostolical succession: "Sent me not to baptize!" Why "the true economy of the Christian religion," says Bishop Brownell, "takes" men "from the kingdom of Satan," and from "children of wrath" it "transfers them BY BAPTISM into the family, household and kingdom of the Saviour!" Paul sent not to baptize! Why, Christ sent me to BAPTIZE, cries the High Churchman: preaching is but a subordinate affair. And thereupon, Bishop Whittingham raises his voice: "Ministerial intervention for the forgiveness of sins, is the ESSENCE of the Priesthood."

"And hath given us the ministry of reconciliation," says the Apostle Paul. What, then, is the essence of that ministry? Baptisms? Confirmations? Sacraments? Priestly absolutions? Ministerial interventions? So says the Apostolical succession. But the Apostle Paul denies it. He talks not of the sacraments of reconciliation; but when he speaks of the "ministry of reconciliation," he adds, " And hath committed unto us the WORD of reconciliation." "So then," cries the Apostle Paul, “Faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the WORD OF GOD." "Of his own will begat he us by the WORD OF TRUTH." Baptismal regeneration! Paul makes a distinction heaven-wide between baptism and regeneration: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Circumcision (or baptism, its substitute) then is no part of the

new creature, and does not, in this respect, avail "anything:"-In the account of Apostolical succession, however, baptism availeth everything: it takes the children of wrath and "transfers" them into the kingdom of God.

The scheme of Paul makes nothing of priestly intervention, and much of faith: it makes very little indeed of any priestly prerogatives or interventions, in the matter of forgiveness of sins. Accordingly he says, "Who then is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers BY WHOM YE BELIEVED ?" Who is Paul! Who? Our ministers are more than that: they are ministers by whose priestly interventions and valid sacraments ye were "transferred from the kingdom of Satan, into the household, family and kingdom of Christ." Who is Paul? who is Apollos ?-Our ministers are somebody. They have received their commission from Bishops, who have received their commission from other Bishops, who have received theirs from others, clear back, till the authority comes at last directly from the Apostles.

Paul was an Apostle himself. His commission came through no dubious links of a dubious succession. He was not compelled to show a diploma of power received from a succession running back through monsters of iniquity all over blackened with lust and crimsoned with blood. He was an Apostle "neither by man nor through man," but by the direct calling of God. And yet Paul could say, "so then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." He cuts up the claims of High-Church Prelates by the roots, and throws them to the winds. He rejects the dogma on which they build their arrogant claims, and counts it another Gospel.

Such is the dogma of Apostolical succession AS A DOCTRINE: false, contradictory to the Scriptures, and subversive of the Gos pel: the very opposite, and fundamentally opposite, to the scheme of salvation preached by the Apostles, and recorded in the Word of God.

Let us now test it by applying it to practice.

A man wishes to examine the grounds of his hope of personal acceptance with Christ.

The Bible says, "Let a man examine himself." "Examine your own selves, WHETHER YE BE IN THE FAITH. Prove your own selves.' O no, says the Churchman-not your "own selves;"-not "whether ye be in the FAITH ;"-but examine the Diploma of your Priest: examine whether ye be IN THE CHURCH; in the words of our Right Reverend Father in God Bishop Hobart; "Let it be thy SUPREME CARE, O my soul, to receive the sacra ment of the body and blood of the Saviour, only from the hands of those who derive their authority by REGULAR TRANSMISSION

from Christ." "Where the Gospel is proclaimed, communion with the Church, by participation of its ordinances at the hands of an AUTHORIZED PRIESTHOOD, is the indispensable condition of salvation."

It will not do, therefore, for the devotee of Prelacy to "know nothing but Christ and him crucified." The Gospel, alone, cannot afford him a valid promise of salvation. It is equally impor tant for him to show something about "the Church," and the "endless genealogies" of the "succession." The diploma of his priest is of equal consequence to him with the Gospel; since, if the pedigree of his priest is defective, he can have no more assurance of salvation than a heathen. And though it would appear somewhat ridiculous, for a Christian Priest, when a poor sinner asks, "What shall I do to be saved?" to hold up his spiritual pedigree for that sinner's examination; yet, to be consistent, he ought in all reason never to omit it. He should take the table of the genealogies, as officially published by the Tract Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church, or by Chapin, and holding it up before the inquirer, he should say, "Behold here, the security for salvation, through the Gospel preached and sacraments administered by me! See here, that sacraments administered by me are genuine. See how the succession runs: VALENS, DOLCHIANUS, NARCISSUS, DIUS, GORDIAS, NARCISSUS again; ALEXANDER, MAZABANES, HYMENEUS, ZAMBDAS" "GURNel, Lendwith, GORNWIST, GORWAN, CLENDAKE, EYNYEN, ELUDgæth, Elvaoth, MAELSCHEWITH," and so on. Do you understand? These are links in the "succession." Through links like these, power has come down to Bishop Brownell, Bishop Onderdonk, Bishop McCoskry, and to Bishop Hughes. Through the hands of such a Bishop, the virtue has come down to me. If you have been baptized, and have received the Lord's Supper by my hands, or by the hands of some one like me validly ordained, and no special unbelief or wickedness hinders, you have become indeed and in truth a child of God. But if your minister was not of this succession, no matter how sincerely you may repent and believe the Gospel, the Gospel contains no covenant, or promise, or revealed provision, by which you may be saved. Examine, therefore, your Priest's spiritual pedigree; and as Bishop Hobart says, "Let it be thy supreme care."

Now, with regard to this system, I say it is the antagonist system both of Protestantism and of Christianity. It is fundamentally corrupt and anti-christian. It is essential Popery; not indeed in submission to the supremacy of the Pope, for this is but a circumstance in the scheme; it is Popery, inasmuch as it holds out the way of justification, not by faith alone, but by the efficiency of priestly prerogatives and offices. When you have

« PreviousContinue »