On the apostolical succession: Parochial lectures, second seriesIrons, William J. (William Josiah)
Religion
On the apostolical succession: Parochial lectures, second series
Irons, William J. (William Josiah)
Apostolic succession -- Sermons; Church of England -- Sermons; Sermons, English
Perhaps, indeed, there is a brief answer to them all, which may at once
satisfy many, better than a more tedious proof: namely, that if the
“doctrine of laying on of hands,” and the transmitted Ministry, be
received as contained in Scripture, and taught ever by the Church, so the
very same Holy Volume contains also the promise that CHRIST would be with
His Ministers to the end of time; and He would therefore of course
preserve to them all that was in the least degree essential. The
faithfulness of CHRIST Himself would thus be a mighty proof to the
humblest Christian, that all that Scripture inculcated as necessary to
the Ministry, would truly be preserved in the Christian Church, as much
as it formerly was in the Jewish. And he might also have this additional
proof of the fact, that no one (not even infidels) would attempt to
disprove it. But we will now endeavour to go a little more narrowly into
the question, because it is frequently a stumbling block to many.
Let a man begin by analysing his own thoughts, and satisfy himself—first
of all, what _kind_ and _amount_ of evidence he requires of the fact,
that every Bishop of an Apostolic line was duly ordained by the “laying
on of hands?” Does he expect to see the very documents written at the
time,—and the seal and sign manual of those who were present?—or, would
that suffice? Perhaps many may be disposed to think that such evidence
must be satisfactory to the most incredulous. But pause, and consider:
how should we know for certain that each separate document was quite
authentic? How could we be quite sure that none were forged by some
crafty monk during those mysterious times, which some people, (as if
excusing their own want of light on the matter,) speak of as “dark ages?”
Or, suppose any one, or two, or three of the documents were destroyed by
all-corroding time? or had become illegible? What then? Surely such
evidence would be thought very unsafe to rely on. Most persons would
look with great suspicion on such an array of unknown manuscripts, and
look about for something more satisfactory and possible. And perhaps,
then, it might not be amiss to inquire what kind, or amount of evidence
it would be reasonable to look for?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account