Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

every word of the New Testament, and the idea of bishops as successors to the apostles never have occurred to him; and if he had derived all his ideas from the Scriptures, this one, that is said to contain the essence of the Christian church, could never have entered his head. But now I must verify the four assertions I have made,

1. That the apostles' office was absolutely unique, peculiar to the twelve, who neither had, nor could have successors; for their office lived and died with them. If you ask for proofs, here they are.

The essential qualifications and prerogatives of an apostle, preclude the idea of successors :-They were to be men who had seen the Lord himself, and that after his resurrection; they must have received their call and commission inmediately from himself; they must be endued with the extraordinary miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit; they must have the exclusive prerogative of conferring those gifts on others; they had an infallible knowledge of the divine will, so that their writings rank along with those of prophets as canonical scriptures; they had power to punish d sobedience by divine judgments; and they had the whole world given to them as their sphere, or, if you please, as their diocese.

I have thrown these apostolical prerogatives into a mass, that you may be struck with them, and that you may anticipate me in the proof of them. I have no doubt that your knowledge of Scripture would save me half my labour. For you know,

First, That an apostle must have seen the Lord, and especially after his resurrection. You know, that all the twelve, whom the Lord first appointed, had that privilege; and, if Judas was cut off from the number, Peter shows, in the first chapter of the Acts, that it was necessary to appoint another who was an eye-witness of the risen Saviour. Paul, therefore, who was called after Christ's ascension, was "chosen to see that Just One," and asks, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Christ Jesus our Lord?" After this, need we go any further? But

Second, The apostles must receive their commission immediately from Christ himself. The first twelve were thus appointed; Paul lays great stress upon this:-"Paul, called to be an

apostle, not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus Christ."

Third, An apostle must be endued with the extraordinary miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. Christ gave these to the twelve. Paul claims these as the seal of his apostleship, 2 Cor. xii. 12 Rom. xv. 15.

Fourth, The apostles alone had the power of imparting these gifts unto others."Simon Magus saw that by the laying on of the apostles' hands, the Holy Ghost was given," and offered them money to confer the same power on him.

Fifth, The apostles' writings rank with those of prophets, as inspired canonical Scriptures; so that Christians were commanded to 66 own that the things an apostle wrote to them were the commandments of the Lord."

Sixth, They had power to punish disobedience by Divine judgment. This you see in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, Elymas, and, perhaps, others: but apostles used this power sparingly.

Seventh, The world was an apostle's sphere. "Go ye into all the world."

Is

Now the man that does not succeed to the things that constitute the peculiarities of an office, does not succeed to the office, or to the officer, as such. Will, then, any one venture to say, that there were any successors to the office of apostles, as thus characterised in the Scriptures? Are there now any such? Is there any one that has seen Jesus the Lord, and is an eye-witness of his resurrection? there any one that has received his commission immediately from Christ? Is there any one that possesses the extraordinary miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit? Is there any one that can impart these gifts to others? Is there any one whose writings form canonical Scriptures? Is there any one that can miraculously punish our disobedience? Is there any one that claims the world as his sphere or diocese? The pope does, and we shall examine his claim by-andby.

Now how ridiculous is it for men to pretend to be successors to the apostles, when it cannot even be pretended that they succeed to the prerogatives that constituted the very essence of the apostolic office! A successor to our kings must succeed to their prerogatives-a right to the use of the royal palaces and domains, the royal titles and style; right to convoke or dissolve parliament; to make

war or peace; and to give life to those whom the law doomed to death. But he that, without any of these prerogatives, or even pretence to them, should call himself a successor to our kings, would be scarcely even a mock king. I leave you to make the application.

Before I pass on, I must, in candour, observe, that there are some difficulties in the enumeration of requisites to the apostolic office, arising out of the case of Matthias and Barnabas, which would require a long dissertation, though they do not affect the general argument.

2. The number of the apostles seems to have been limited to twelve, so as to preclude the idea of an indefinite succession, or succession at all. If I speak less positively here, I have the advantage of the general voice, even that of my opponents agreeing with me. Christ chose twelve, whom he named apostles, and to whom he said, "Have I not chosen you twelve? Ye shall sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes." As Judas fell before he could accomplish the great object of an apostle, to be an eye-witness to Christ's resurrection, Peter considered it necessary to fill up the number of twelve; for which Mathias was chosen; though some think Christ designed this honour for Paul. But whether the number was intended to be kept strictly to twelve or not, all seem to admit, that it never was to go so far beyond as to make it improper to speak in a general way of the twelve; as the Scriptures do, when, by the fall of Judas, they were reduced to eleven. The common parlance among Christians is, the twelve apostles, as if no one ever thought of there being more. The Scriptures have here led the way; for the church is exhibited as having on her head a crown of twelve stars; the New Jerusalem as having twelve gates, and twelve foundations, on which are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb! Who ever heard of the five hundred or the four thousand apostles? But why not, if the apostles had successors ? We may speak of the scores of kings of England, because our kings have real successors, and not mock ones.

3. The Scriptures give no account of the appointment of successors to the apostles. Yet we have a distinct account of the appointment, and, if you please, the ordination of Joshua, as successor to Moses, and of Eleazar, as successor to Aaron. Can we, then, believe that some

were appointed as successors to the apostles, and that the Scriptures have said not a word about it? We read the original institution of apostles, and cannot find that Christ gave them any authority to appoint successors. We read of the death of one of the apostles, James, the brother of John; but of no appointment of a successor. All the apostles were dead, probably, before the Revelation was written, but we read of no appointment of successors. Last of all, John dies, and appoints no successor. Now if this apostolical succession were what it pretends to be, all this is inexplicable.

4. No other ministers of Christ are called apostles of Christ, except the twelve. If these mock apostolicals could find a text which calls bishops apostles, how they would triumph in it, as a proof of their theory! But, ah! not one of the four texts will help them. Have we no right to triumph? Some who were sent by the churches are called their apostles, and some are called false apostles, deceitful workers; and is there no reason why certain persons should tremble at the sound of that voice which says, “Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars," Rev. ii. 2. Yet, if they are really successors to the apostles, why do they not take the name? This would be frank, this would be honest; though it would neither be true nor wise. Some who have lately pretended to miraculous gifts and tongues, have taken the frank and honest course; though they have left the wise and the true so much the farther behind.

Now I appeal to you, whether I have not proved, as far as a negative can be proved, that the apostles had no successors could have none; and that their office, being personal, died with them; just as your Saviour himself had no successor in his office; though the pope, by pretending to be his vicar, proves himself to be the man of sin.

I am not unaware of the evasive answer that will be made. "We do not pretend to succeed to the apostles, in all their extraordinary prerogatives, but only in their ordinary ones.' But where is the scriptural authority for splitting an apostle and keeping one half alive in a constant succession, and leaving the other half to die, and rest quietly in the grave? If they reply, "You must admit that the apostles had some things in common

with others." Yes, certainly; they were men; so are we, as much their successors as you are. They were Christians; and so are we, some of us as much their successors here as you are. They were ministers, who preached Christ; and so are we, some of us, more their successors than many who pretend to this exclusive honour. But we have not touched the apostle; for we have stopped short at the man, the Christian, the preacher; and therefore, we have not arrived at the successor to the apostle. Then, say our apostolicals, "the apostles were bishops, and you cannot say, so are we." We shall see, for this brings us to,

2. The apostles were no bishops, if the Scriptures are to be the judges, so that, even if they had successors, these were not bishops. I have shown that bishops are never called apostles, and I will prove now,

1.) That the apostles are never called bishops. In fact, you have the proof of both assertions before your eyes; for no one of these four episcopal texts calls a bishop an apostle, or an apostle a bishop. To say more, would be to insult one who makes the Scripture his study and his guide. But though the scriptural question is now absolutely settled; some may say, As the term apostle was appropriated to the twelve, we cannot expect that they would be called by the inferior name of bishops. Why not, if they were bishops? If they were not ashamed of the office, surely they would not blush at the name. Why, Christ himself took the name of a bishop! 1 Peter ii. 25. My opponents may think they have gained as much as they have lost by this remark; for they will say, This proves the high dignity of the office. If it does, then it gives honour equally to the pastoral office; for Christ is called the pastor or shepherd, as well as bishop of souls.

And when the term arch is employed, which some have attached to bishop and deacon, making the title of archbishop and archdeacon, the Scriptures call Christ the arch pastor, which we render chief shepherd, 1 Peter v. 4.

2.) No scriptural evidence was ever adduced to prove that the apostles appointed, or intended, bishops to be their successors. This may be counted superfluous if the apostles had no successors. If, however, it be said, True, they had no successors, as apostles, but they had as bishops. Then we reply, in the first

place, Why speak of successors to the apostles, if, as apostles, they had no successors? and in the second place, What scriptural right have you to speak of the apostles, as bishops, when the Scriptures never call them so? In fact, the two offices were incompatible; for an apostle had the range of a world, and a bishop had the care of a single congregation, or church, and could take no wider range than was consistent with the care of that one flock. The texts before you prove this. But Timothy and Titus are made important links, to connect bishops with apostles. They are links of sand. The texts before you show that neither Timothy nor Titus are called bishops. They were evangelists. Tradition speaks of them as bishops, but we are now studying the Scriptures, and are not come to tradition yet.

3.) Bishops never ordained. This is claimed as the grand apostolical prerogative of bishops, and your four texts will at once convince you, that not a single proof can be given of the right of a bishop to ordain at all. A man who thinks bishops a distinct order from presbyters, would have good scriptural ground for denying the validity of episcopal ordination; and, if he thinks it worth while, maintaining that all whom they have ordained should be re-ordained.

4.) Though the apostles never ordained bishops, they did ordain presbyters, and though bishops never ordained, presbyters did; and though the apostles never took the title of bishops, more than one apostle has called himself a presbyter. Thus, if the apostles could be said to have successors, these, according to the Scriptures, were the presbyters or elders, and bishops are excluded. I am now arguing upon the supposition, that bishops could, as they pretend, prove themselves to be a distinct order, and not identical with presbyters. In that case, your four texts show that bishops were not ordained by the apostles; but we have abundant evidence that the apostles ordained elders in every church :

"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed," Acts xiv. 23.

The four texts show that there is no Scripture to authorise a bishop to or

dain; but we can show that presbyters did. In 1 Tim. iv. 14, there is "the laying on of the hands of the presbyters, or elders," upon Timothy, whom bishops claim for one of themselves. Oh, if it had only been said the laying on of the hands of the Episcopacy, instead of Presbytery, what a proof would it have been deemed of the apostolic power of bishops to ordain! By what device, then, can it be shown, that this is no proof of the right of presbyters to ordain ? We are told that

the apostle speaks also to Timothy of "the laying on of my hands." This is true; but it does not make the other untrue. The one is written by the same pen as the other; while there is nothing at all said of bishops laying their hands

on any one.

But, though the apostles are never called bishops; Peter, yes, Peter, whom we hear called the prince of the apostles, says, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed." I Peter v. 1.

John, the beloved disciple, opens both his second and third epistles with calling himself an elder.

Now there is no way at all of getting over the fact that the apostles never once are called bishops, but are more than once called elders; so that presbyters have more right to be called successors of the apostles than bishops have; if we may talk of more or less, where it is all nothing at all.

Nor is there any more than one way of getting over the fact that bishops are never said to ordain, and that presbyters, or elders, are; that is, by making bishops identical with elders, or presbyters; and this bishops spurn. Every one of the four texts before you prove it, though not all with equal evidence. We have done all that is necessary by proving that this whole scheme of apostolic succession is, when tried by Scripture, a castle in the air, unsupported by one text, and contradicted by many.

I proceed to show of apostolic succession by bishops

II. That, confronted with traditions of highest antiquity, it is false, a building on the sand; seemingly firm, but really deceitful.

I now quit the ground of Scripture for that of antiquity, or tradition, solely be

[blocks in formation]

1. Because Scripture claims the sole authority, and warns against tradition. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be Idead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men ?" Col. ii. 8-22.

The word of God declares that the corruptions of the church commenced so early that we can depend upon nothing but what we find sanctioned in Scripture.

Here we read, Acts xv. 24, the apos

[ocr errors]

tles saying, Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment,' Acts xv. 24. There was a party in Corinth who opposed Paul himself, who also said to the elders of Ephesus, "For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them," Acts xx.29,30. Paul said, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work;" and John, "There are many antichrists already gone forth." Some professed Christians would not receive his epistles, and even cast out of the church those whom John approved. Christ, in the Revelation, threatened some with the loss of their church state. If, immediately after Paul's departure, such men arose, how rapidly would corruption advance, after all the apostles departed by death? Tradition, then, is a broken reed.

4. Our traditionary or historical knowledge of the church, immediately after the death of the apostles, is exceedingly scanty and deficient. God seems to have designed that it should be so, to cut off all appeals to tradition. We have but few Christian writings for the first hundred years, and these, it is to be hoped, not by the wisest and best of the Christians; and such are the follies of the fathers, that we might write a volume of them, and by them prove almost any nonsense or any error. But, in support of apostolic tradition, nothing is of any avail but that which goes up to the apostolic age; for the farther you descend, the more the value of the tradition tapers off, till it comes to nothing; though Rome brings down its appeal till it comes to modern antiquity, which is indeed identical with popery, that defends the practice of the church, by the practice of the church. Still I boldly affirm, that the highest antiquity is on our side, and decidedly against the boasted apostolical succession.

1.) The earliest churches were independent congregations. Their bishops were presbyters, and had no power over other churches or ministers. This is shown by Lord Chancellor King, in a perpetual appeal to the fathers; and as the Scriptures, so antiquity or traditions,

VOL. XVII.

prove that no power was given by the apostles to any ordinary minister of the church beyond the limits of his own congregation. But this cuts up diocesan episcopacy by the roots, and proves, that bishops being limited to one congregational church, were no successors to the apostles, whose field was the world, and whose authority extended over all the churches.

[ocr errors]

2.) Antiquity gives the most decisive testimony to the scriptural identity of presbyters and bishops, and the human origin of modern or diocesan episcopacy. Jerome declares, that the modern thing did not come from the apostles, but was of post-apostolic date. A presbyter," says he, "is the same as a bishop; and before there were, by the instigation of the devil, parties in religion, and it was said among different people, 'I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' the churches were governed by the joint counsel of the presbyters. But afterwards, when every one accounted those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, it was decreed throughout the whole world, that one, chosen from among the presbyters, should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of the church should be committed to him, and the seeds of schisms taken away.

"Should any one think that this is my private opinion, and not the doctrine of the Scriptures, let him read the words of the apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians: Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons,' &c. Philippi is a single city of Macedonia: and certainly in one city there could not be several bishops, as they are now styled; but as they at that time called the very same persons bishops whom they called presbyters, the apostle has spoken without distinction of bishops as presbyters.

"Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any one, unless it be proved by an additional testimony, it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when Paul had come to Miletum, he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of that church, and among other things said to them,

Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops.' Take particular notice, that calling the presbyters of the single city of Ephesus, he afterwards names the same persons bishops. After

с

« ZurückWeiter »