Dialogue, No. 4

Between L. and W. on the Apostolical Office and Succession.

W. Well, friend L., I have frequently called upon you, and by some means our conversation hitherto has been of a literary cast, and interesting to me; but since I last saw you, I have thought it might not be unprofitable to ascertain what are the chief points of difference in our faith and practice.

L. This would be very pleasing to me, and doubtless profitable, if the inquiry be conducted in the meekness of that religion of which we profess to be its ministers.

W. I have no doubt this well be the case.-I would therefore suggest that the most of the difficulty may be traced to the difference of our views of the apostolic office.

L. Probably; and to come at once to the subject, please state your views on that point.

W. Episcopalians believe that Christ designed to continue the apostolic office till he should come again. Not surely in the line of Peter alone, as the Romanists hold, but of all the Apostles, who were equally authorized to ordain others as their successors. We consider that the commission given by Jesus, at the close of Matthew's gospel, and the promise of being with them to the end of the world, applied to the twelve and their successors in that office, and to them only.

L. I have so understood your belief, though I have never before thought much upon it, less perhaps than its importance demands. I perceive, however, at once a difficulty in your succession.

L. The want of qualifications for such an office.

W. What qualifications do you deem requisite?

L. For an apostle it was indispensably necessary that he should be able to testify as an eye witness to all the important facts in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Savior. So that when the vacancy of the apostleship, occasioned by the defection of Judas, was to be filled, none could be allowed as candidates for that office but such as had "companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from them, must one be ordained to a witness with them of his resurrection."-Acts 1:21, 22. This is the first qualification, and for this they were evidently chosen, "And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." John 15:27.

W. But you would exclude St. Paul from the number of the apostles, though he claims to be one. He asks, "Am I not an apostle?" 1 Cor. 9:1.

L. In the same verse he says, "Have I not seen the Lord?" and of such importance does he view this personal knowledge of Jesus, that he pleads a miracle to support his claims, which if he had not made good, he would have renounced his pretensions to the apostolic office. 2 Cor. 12:4.

W. You will not pretend that St. Paul was a witness of the above facts?

L. Certainly I will, for I have his word for it. Acts 22:15, "For thou shalt be a witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard."

W. This qualification I grant their successor have not.

L. A very serious admission! But have you bishops the power of working miracles?

W. They do not pretend to that at the presant [present] day.

L. But this was essential to the apostleship. Jesus often foretold what they should do in miracles; he commissioned them to work miracles. They often wrought miracles in confirmation of their apostleship. Mark 16:20. It was by them deemed a sign of apostleship.-2 Cor. 12:12.

W. I never supposed that miracles were to be continued, as there is no demand for them.

L. Consequently, I infer there is no demand for that office, for which they were a sign. But there is yet another peculiar apostolic qualification, which I think your bishops have not-the power of conferring the "Holy Spirit on whomsover they laid their hands."

W. In the office of confirmation in our church we observe that rite.

L. I know you do-but is the Holy Spirit conferred in that ceremony?

W. It is prayed for, and some are of the opinion that it is actually done; but I cannot say that more should be intended than setting apart by prayer.

L. There is where your apostles and the old apostles differ again. There was no doubt on this point among them. Acts 8:18. But I will add no more till those are cleared out of the way.

W. Well, I admit that it is not expected that our bishops should possess all these primitive miraculous qualifications for which the twelve were distinguished, and yet be their successors in predating the word and ruling the church.

L. Then say at once that they shall have successors in the church in the office of teaching what Christ had prescribed for them, and that the church, as in Acts 1st chap., shall have the power to designate them, and we will agree. But to have a long line of apostles, or bishops, with all their authority and a very different salary, without one qualification to raise them above the simple teacher, is dangerous to the church, and has abundantly proved so. Indeed it is too bad.

Gaius.

Br. Taylor:

Sir,-On reading the above dialogue between the Episcopalian, and the Baptist, I had the following reflections, which, if you think proper to publish they are at your disposal. These two brethren, of different denominations, in setting forth their respective views, seem both of them to be laboring under a misconception of the doctrine they respectively wish to support; or rather of the doctrine of scripture. The Episcopalian thinks that it is absolutely necessary that they should have apostles in their church; and that although their apostles are not like the ancient apostles, either in calling, power, faith, or practice, yet that they are the legitimate successors of the old; and that their's is the true apostolic church. While the Baptist on the other hand, thinks that because they see not the power of the ancient apostles; and because God does not call them now as anciently; that therefore God did not design that these offices, and gifts, should continue in the church. Never once supposing that the church may have fallen, and forfeited these blessings.

The Episcopalian thinks very correctly that the promise in Matthew extended to the end of time; he might have made his position a little stronger by quoting from the Ephesians, iv. c. "And Christ ascended into heaven, and gave gifts to men; and he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some pastors, and teachers, and evangelists; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; until we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the son of God, unto a perfect man; unto the fulness [fullness] of the measure of the stature of Christ."-And as it appears from the dispute between the Episcopalian and the Baptist, that we have not yet arrived at that unity, it is necessary that opostles [apostles] be in the church to bring them to that unity. But on the other hand, as the Baptist justly remarks, we expect to see the same power connected with apostles now as formerly; and as "the Lord confirmed their" (the ancient apostles,) "words, with signs following," so we should expect that he would confirm the modern apostle's, (not bishop's,) words of the Episcopal church with signs following; and if he did not we should not think that they were Christ's apostles. And when we saw their conduct in sprinkling little children, an ordinance that God never instituted, we should apply the rule that John gives us, "He that transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God." Consequently, as they have derived their priesthood, by their own acknowledgement [acknowledgment], from a corrupt fountain, viz. the church of Rome, and sprinkle infants, and attend to other ordinances that God never instituted; that they "have not God," are not the church of God, nor their members the followers of Jesus Christ.

But on the other hand, for the Baptist to say that we have no need of apostles is superlatively ridiculous. One reason assigned is, that an apostle should be one who had been with the Lord from the beginning, which Paul, according

to his own acknowledgement [acknowledgment] evidently had not; but then we are told that he (Paul) had seen the Lord, and was thus qualified for the office of an apostle; which the Baptist seems to think is an insuperable objection to their being apostles in these days. We have no objections to apostles seeing the Lord at all, and think that if, after Christ's resurrection and ascension, he could shew [show] himself to Paul, he could as easily shew [show] himself to a person the sixteenth, seventeenth, or eighteenth century. We have some testimony of that kind upon record, which is as follows: "And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony last of all, which we give of him, that he lives; for we saw him even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the only begotten of the Father." Sec. xci, D. C.

The Episcopalian "never supposed that miracles were to be continued, as there is no demand for them." And the Baptist infers from that that there is therefore no need of apostles; and thus in twisting round to suit both their creeds, they push the christian church out of existence.

Who said that there was no need of miracles? or who said there was no need of apostles? surely not the word of God: The same promise which says, "Lo I am with you always even unto the end of the word," says, "These signs shall follow those that believe." Now I ask, where was the gospel to be preached? The answer is, Go ye into all the world; and preach the gospel unto every creature, and these signs shall follow those that believe. Q. Where was the gospel to be preached? A. To all the world. Q. Where shall these signs follow? A. The preaching, and believing the gospel. Hence it is said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel unto every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned; and these signs shall follow them that believe," &c.-Consequently I should be led to believe, from the above, that both the apostles and the members, or believers should have these gifts, and that if they have not they are not the church of Christ. I should expect the Episcopal apostles to be clothed with power, and have these signs follow a believer in their words, or I should say they are not the apostles of Jesus Christ. And if I went into a Baptist church, I should expect to see those signs follow the believers, or I should believe that they had not the gospel of Christ. And if I could not see those signs any where, I should believe that there was neither apostles, nor gospel, in the world: for our Savior said, wherever, in all the world, the gospel was preached and believed, these signs should follow them that believed. An Observer.