Stout hearted rebel becomes a peaceful subject of king Jesus, and Seeks to honor him by ascribing all the praise of his salvation to him, with hearty desires that the sweet peace arising from the gospel and its preparation, may ever rule in his heart, to bear him up under every renewed discovery of the evil of his heart,the unbelief of his nature,-the temptations of the devil,-the sorrows of the wilderness, -the frowns of men, and the fear of death.

God bless thee and me, reader, with clearer discoveries of the preparation of the Gospel of Peace, and his name shall have all the praise.

London, May, 28, 1839.

THOMAS REED.

000

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

(Continued from p. 257.)

HAVING delivered a brief account of what the New Testament contains on the subject of ordination, nothing is to be found in it of an opposite character, that substantiates the notions of the successionists. There is something so absurd in their notions, that were they labouring under derangement of mind, they could not be more incorrect in their opinions upon what they call "The Apostolic Succession." Do they know, or rather have they considered, the literal meaning of the word apostle? If they have, do they mean to contend, that the Church of England missionaries are apostles? If so, who constituted or appointed them? For according to the plain meaning of the word, a missionary is an apostle; and therefore the Missionary Society are constituting and ordaining apostles?

Dr. Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, observes, An apostle is a title of office or dignity. It denotes, if we regard the origin of the term, any man whatever sent with a commission; for it is derived from the Greek apostellein: but if we attend to the common application of it, it denotes certain select ambassadors of Christ. But as Thomas Aquinas says, in terms we must regard not so much from what they are derived, as to what purpose in tended. The name, then, of apostle, according to the use of sacred scripture, belongs to those only, who had received an immediate call from God to preach the gospel: As my Father hath sent me, so send I you. (Jolin xx. 21.) They were not restricted to one place, but were to teach all nations. They were to tarry at Jerusalem until they were endured with power from on High. There was no apostle that ordained Paul, that is to say, such an apostle as the successionists contend for! They themselves were to tarry, and not to preach, until they were endured with power from on High. But, because our Lord hath said to his disciples, "As my Father hath sent me, so send I you." (John xx. 21.)

The successionists add," and so you are to send others." All their arguments are constructed on this basis, as if this addition was a part of the word of God. The calling and sending of ministers, the Saviour has reserved for himself, and has never as yet delegated this power. The way and manner in which they are to be introduced into their work in the church may be various, and differ under varying circumstances;—and such was the case in the earliest age of the church, according to the instances already adduced. It is true, the practice of Episcopal ordination finally prevailed; how soon after the apostolic age cannot easily be ascertained.

That persons unordained, preached and baptized in the first age of the church, can admit of no reasonable doubt; and they continued to do so partially, (at least to preach,) till the beginning of the third century as the case of Origen clearly proves. As to the administration of the Lord's Supper, there is much to lead us to conclude, that it was at first celebrated by the brethren, sometimes unassisted by a minister. It is said in Acts xx. 7. " that "the disciples came together to break bread." And in the reproofs and directions given by Paul in 1 Cor. xi. 17-34, there is nothing to be found, which may lead us to suppose that it was administered by one that was ordained, but by the brethren, when they came together. If there was a regularly ordained minister at Corinth at that time, how caine the apostle not to mention him, and not to give him some directions on the subject? But this is not done. And there is nothing said any where in the New Testament which shows that a minister is necessary for the celebration of the Lord's Supper. What introduced the practice of having these things done generally by persons constituted and recognized as ministers, was the necessity and expediency of order and preventing abuses. This practice, which was not exclusive at first, that is, in the apostolic age, not for a considerable time after, became gradually almost universal and exclusive; and it became so, for the most part, through superstitious and extravagant notions respecting the ministry; and not merely for order's sake. Powers and privileges were ascribed to the office, similar to those claimed by HEATHEN PRIESTS: and this is the light in which it is now regarded by the Successionists. The characteristics of their priest are very much those of a heathen priest, and not of a humble, faithful, and spiritual minister of Christ.

A very extraordinary importance is attached by these men, to what, they call, the two sacraments; and apostolical succession is especially necessary, as they say, on account of these ordinances. One thing is made what scripture does not make it; and then another thing must necessarily be extended beyond the limits of revelation. Thus one error introduces another. Baptism regenerates, and the Eucharist gives life: and then to administer them, that must be a commission of a singular nature from the successors of the apostles! Baptism was at first administered without this com

mission, and has been allowed partially to be administered in the church in every age, in case of necessity, by laymen. And as to the Lord's Supper, there is no explicit evidence on the subject; and the most probable supposition is, that it was at times celebrated without a minister. But it is necessary to make much of these ordinances, in order to find some plausible reason for the succession. Now if these ordinances (and in the case of baptism there can be no doubt) were formerly administered by those not ordained, how came ordination necessary in order to make them efficacious, or to answer the ends designed by them? Where is the evidence for this? Where is the proof to be found? It is a most extraordinary thing, that amidst the most abundant materials contained in the New Testament on every subject connected with the salvation of men, no mention should be made on a point which is now represented to be so vitally important. It is strange, and passing strange, that men should deem that essentially necessary which God has not made so in his word.

"

Of all things mentioned in the New Testament, with regard to ministers preaching the gospel occupies, pre-eminently, the first place. What is the sum and substance of those extraordinary addresses of our Saviour, contained in the fourteenth and three following chapters of St. John's Gospel? They include the main doctrines of Divine truth, which were to be made known by the apostles, preaching the word of truth by the power of God; (2 Cor. vi. 7.) and not a word is mentioned about either of the two sacraments. What are the things dwelt on in the two epistles to Timothy-epis. tles, though short, yet wonderfully comprehensive? The qualifica tions for rightly dividing the word of truth; and the conduct becoming the gospel, are by far the chief and most prominent points; and there is not even a mention made either of Baptism or of the Lord's Supper, We read nothing there of the awful office of the ministry, because ministers have to celebrate the Eucharist ordinance. But other things are there represented, as rendering the office as awfully responsible and important. If the most awful part of the ministerial office, was the celebration of the Lord's Supper; it is very singular that Paul never mentions this, nor any of the apostles, while they state other things which do render the winistry awfully important. To view that as the MOST momentous, which the Divine word does not represent as such, nor introduce at all among the things that are momentous in the ministerial office, is a sure proof of error and delusion. Following this rule of judg ing, we shall be necessitated to cast aside as extravagant and erroneous the greatest portion of what is said by the Successionists. It is NOT the administration of the Eucharist that the New Testament sets forth as a matter that is momentous and awful, but its reception. As to the mode of celebrating it, that is, with respect to the officiator, he says nothing; but the manner of receiving it is all that is awfully spoken of. On the contrary, our modern successionists

dwell almost exclusively on the officiator, making that, and not the manner of receiving it, the great matter, without which the sacrament, as they call it, can be no sacrament. But where learn they this? Not from scripture, but from Romish legends and traditions.

A great deal is made of the words, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee;" which is said to have been given Timothy " by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." (1 Tim. iv. 4.) This "gift" was no other than the trust that had been committed to him, that is, to preach the word;" (1 Tim. iv. 14-16. 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2.); and not any office as that of a bishop. St. Paul speaks of this same thing as a grace or a gift. It was as he says, a grace given to him; and that grace or favour was, that he should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ. (Eph. iii. 8.) Timothy was "separated" by the laying on of the hands of certain prophets and teachers; and the same thing is probably meant by the Presbytery" in this place: but if it be maintained to be dif ferent, then we have another instance of the various modes of appointment that prevailed in the early church. There is another text on which our successionists build, "hay and stubble." It occurs in 2 Tim. i. 6, where Paul exhorts Timothy to stir up the gift of God, which he says is in thee by the putting on of my hands. This gift is evidently different from the other. The expression, "Stir up," cannot refer to any trust or work in which he was engaged, it cannot be applied to any office, privilege, honour, or official power. To stir up any thing of this kind is not what can be said to be done with any propriety. It must therefore refer to some inward grace or qualification with which he was endued: and what could this be but some miraculous gift which was thus conferred on him? We read of nothing else of this kind, which was bestowed by laying on of the hands of the apostles; and it is supposed by most that this was bestowed by their hands, there being no instance of its being conferred by any one else. How improper therefore it is to refer to this case, in order to prove what is done now by those who ordain! Until they bestow some miraculous gift, this case can be of no avail.

The dexterous mode in which our modern successionists mingle portions of scripture with their own notions is quite extraordinary: and in this way they make up a great deal of what appears on first reading to be quite scriptural: but a little examination will soon discover that it is all a deception. Their writings are a set of running arguments, not on Scripture, but on his favorite system; and the scripture is taken in by bits, and interwoven with their own fancies. This is notoriously the case in the lecture, which is professedly founded on the text, "How shall they preach except they be sent ?" Without any "explanation" or "criticism," things which they expressly dislike, the Lecturer takes, as granted, that this sending is by human authority. Having taken this vantage

66

ground he goes on very smoothly, and nothing impedes his course. He applies the "sending" in such a way as to countenance all his extravagancies on the subject. There is no wonder that explanations and criticisms are not to his taste; for they would at once undermine his whole system. For the sending to preach is the act of God, and is ascribed in Scripture to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; but never, as far as I can recollect to men in any situations or under any circumstances. Christ told his disciples to pray THE LORD OF THE HARVEST TO SEND forth laborers into his harvest." (Matt. ix. 38.) Christ himself sent his apostles. The Holy Spirit sent Paul and Barnabas. What Christ did in this respect while on earth, the Holy Spirit is doing still. The sending of ministers is now especially his work. Now this "explanation," though wholly scriptural will not suit the successionist, because it takes away from his fine superstructure the only foundation on which it stands. When "explanations and criticisms" are denounced, it is time for people to look about them, for the object can be no other than to defraud them of some truth.

It is not with any degree of complacency that the successionist regards the plea for "the inward call." That it has often been pleaded falsely, is what none can deny but a false pretence is no evidence against the thing itself. This inward call is distinctly recognized in our own church, and it is on the ground of there being an inward call, that the bishop ordains. The Spirit's work in sending ministers is what our church most expressly acknowledges. Every candidate for orders is distinctly asked, "Do you trust that you are inwardly moved of the Holy Ghost to take upon you this office and administration ?" What can be a plainer, and a fuller recognition of the inward call? And is not this the main and principal thing in the business? To send ministers to the vineyard is alone the province of the Holy Spirit; and the true work of the Church of England bishop is mainly to distinguish between false pretences and true professions; not properly to send or call ministers, but to authorize such as he finds, after examination, scripturally conducted, to be called and sent by the Spirit to do publicly in the church the work to which the Holy Ghost has called them. This is doubtless the main design of the office with respect to ordination; and whether this office be performed by one individual or by several, is, as I think, of no material con sequence. At the same time I even dare to assert, that there is nothing in scripture to justify any one in saying, that without Episcopal or Presbyterian ordination, there can be no church or no valid ordinances. Such assertions can only be made by such as are blinded by ignorance, or foolish enough to believe Popish tales and heathenish superstitions. A true church is an assembly or "congregation of faithful men," however formed, for the manner of its formation is the Lord's act, that of gathering them together in his name. (Matt. xviii. 20) To attach great im