| 102 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
(page 102) |
