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
We learn from Eusebius, that the Apostles selected various parts of the
world as the separate fields of their labour. And wherever there was an
Apostle, there was one who had the power (which he did not neglect to
use) of transmitting the grace of the Ministry of CHRIST; consequently
there must have been several lines of Ministerial Succession from the
first. Probably every Apostle ordained some, as “overseers,”
“presidents,” of Churches; and so became an originator, not of one, but
of several, lines of Apostolical grace. If each of the Twelve had
ordained but one, there would still have been twelve such lines
Apostolical: but since the indefatigable Apostles doubtless did much more
than this, there must have been many Ministerial lines, from the very
first. We are putting ourselves therefore in a very false position when,
in arguing with Romanists, we allow them tacitly to assume, as they seem
to do, that there was but one line of Apostolic Ministration transmitted
from the beginning. But this error will be more apparent by examining
farther.
Let us endeavour to look at the case both historically and practically,
that so we may see not only its past, but also its present bearings. In
so doing we may be led to understand its principle more clearly. When,
at any time, a Bishopric might become vacant in the Church, and a new
Bishop was to be consecrated thereto by the “laying on of hands,” by whom
was this solemn rite to be performed? Take, for example, a Bishop of
Antioch. He dies, and a new one is to be consecrated.—Who is to do
it?—Several, probably, unite in “laying hands on him” with prayer and
fasting. (Acts xiii. 3.) Suppose one of them to be the Bishop of
Alexandria; then the next question must be—Who consecrated _him_? and
those who were his coadjutors at Antioch? And it might take us to as
many different Churches to decide this point, as there were Bishops at
that consecration. By the laws and practice of the Church, {58} it is
necessary for three Bishops, if possible, to be present and unite in the
Consecration of every new Bishop. Now suppose another of the three, in
the case just given, to have been a Bishop of Rome; then to trace the
Apostolical Succession we must proceed to ask, who consecrated that
Bishop of Rome?—Not the previous Bishop of Rome; for he, probably and
almost invariably, would be dead before his Successor was appointed.
Then, of course it must needs be some foreign Bishop, assisted by _two_
others from different parts of Christendom. And then the question would
widen still farther, as each of _their_ ordinations would have to be
examined. And so the inquiry would have to proceed, widening from Bishop
to Bishop, and from Church to Church, till we might arrive, if possible,
at the first Apostolic consecration of at least _one_ of the long line,
through which the manifold grace had flowed. Except in the case of the
translation of a Bishop from one See to another (a practice unsanctioned
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