On the apostolical succession: Parochial lectures, second series — John Shaqi
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
perpetually, GOD cuts off from time to time its irrecoverably corrupt
branches. But it is for GOD, not us, to do it. And with this, let us
dismiss the Objection concerning Idolatry.
One further Objection which we shall notice, as connected with the Fact
of the Succession, is that which is urged, though in very different
senses, against our own Church in particular, by Romanists on the one
hand, and Sectarians on the other; both anxious to deny us the possession
of that grace of Apostolical Ministry, which the former desire to
monopolize, and the latter to set at nought altogether. ‘If (say they
with somewhat of _ambiguity_ of expression) the Succession is in the
Church CATHOLIC, they who are in a state of Schism, cannot be considered
to possess it.’ Now if we were to admit this position exactly as they
state it, they would then have to prove us Schismatics, with respect to
the CHURCH CATHOLIC, before they could, on this ground, invalidate our
Succession. But, in truth, the objection ought to be a little more
carefully looked into. The sin of Schism admits of various degrees. Of
course, if it be clearly made out that any part of the Church is (not
partly torn only, but) totally severed from the Body Catholic, it
follows, that that part has not that Sacramental grace which the Church
alone possesses. But it is certain that in its fullest sense, even
Romanists, acknowledging, as they do, Lay-baptism, could not thus cut off
as _totally_ Schismatic, all who are not of their communion;—all the
Churches of the East, and of the farthest West—The American, the Scotch,
and our own. And the Sectarians cannot, for very shame, deny us a place
in the Universal Church. That very liberality which they need for their
own sakes will afford us some shelter too. And as to the special charge
of heinous Schism urged against us in the particular matter of our
Reformation; if we admit it, as fully, as any party can afford to urge
it, it could not go the length of invalidating our Orders Apostolical.
The Church Catholic anathematized us not; but only the Bishop of Rome,
who had not any right or power so to do, {81a} but was himself
Schismatical and Anti-christian in attempting it; as St. Irenæus might
have taught him. The Church Catholic we would have been content to be
judged by. {81b} We appealed to a General Council, and after wearisome
denial and delay, and artifice, they offered us the mockery of Trent.
About a hundred and fifty years after our Reformation, we were recognized
as a Church by the Greek Church: {82a} though the attempt to unite us
with them in one Communion unhappily failed. At the time of our
Reformation, notwithstanding much temptation, much carelessness, and much
sin, our Apostolical Succession seemed marvellously guarded, as by a
heavenly hand. The documents are as plain, the facts as sure, as
history, invidiously sifted, can make them; so that the candid Romanist
and the learned Jesuit cannot deny them. Let any one examine it 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