“My kingdom,” says our Lord, “is not of this world.” But although Church authority is purely spiritual, and not of this world—not derived from this world,—yet it was ordained to be exercised in it, for the purpose of bringing lost sinners to the favour of Almighty God, through our Redeemer Jesus Christ.
Every bishop receives his commission, and with it his spiritual authority, immediately from those bishops who consecrated him, as they derived their powers and privileges from their predecessors in a direct line from the Apostles and our Lord. The Lord bequeathed His authority to His Apostles and their successors, to the end of the world: “As My Father hath sent Me, so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” He left with them His commission and His Spirit for their natural life, entailing them upon that succession of men upon whom they should lay their hands according to His directions.
This title, however, to Christ’s authority is often disputed, and will be disputed, doubtless, to the end of time, for reasons too obvious to mention. But we have not always the worse opinion of a title merely because it has been called in question. On the contrary, examination and controversy often produce such facts and arguments as greatly strengthen that which was strong before; and, in truth, this in some degree has been the case with the episcopal title, the evidence for which is so clear, that we may safely affirm that there never was, nor ever can be, a title more clear and valid; and it has providentially happened that, in the several Churches of the Christian world, authentic documents have been preserved to prove the regular descent of the episcopate from the very Apostles down to those persons at present occupying the episcopal chair.
What potentate of this world can shew for his kingly authority such a title as this? what nobleman for his dignity? who can pretend to such a title for the best estate in the world? When our blessed Lord invested the Apostles with full powers for the ministry, He sent them, as His Father had sent Him. Now the Father had sent the Son with power to send others: so, therefore, did our Lord send His Apostles, and promised to be with them to the end of the world, that is with His Church, which they should erect and continue by a regular succession: this promise itself necessarily including the notion of a Church. Vain, then, is the objection of those who pretend that the Apostles’ authority ended with their natural lives, and that Christians since their days are left to model the form of Church government as they please.
But the succession, it is said, has been interrupted, what then becomes of the validity of the bishop’s authority, and consequently of the authority of all his acts and ordinations?
To this it may be replied, that the instances which have been adduced for this purpose are no evidence of an interrupted succession, but, at most, are either interruptions in the evidence of the succession (which is quite a different thing), or mere cases of competition between persons contending for and alternately possessing the same dignity, equally qualified, as far as their spiritual descent is concerned, to transmit the legitimate episcopal character.
Now to allege a mere interruption of this sort, is only to allege that you know nothing of the succession during a certain period of time, which you call an interruption; and such an interruption of historical evidence cannot invalidate the succession. But since the succession is found to recur at certain dates, and to be carried on without any proof, nay, without any surmise, of a spurious descent during that time when we are not able to name the persons, it may be legitimately assumed that all was regular and right; for if there had been any important defect, enemies enough would have been found to triumph in the discovery, and those public records (the ornament and security of the Church) would, long ere this, have been made the sport of infidels and schismatics.
Separatists may possibly urge an argument from their numbers with success in an age unaccountably regardless of the advice of Job, “Enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers: for we are but of yesterday, and know nothing.”
But turn to the Sacred Scriptures, to the fathers, to the early historians, even to those of modern date, and you find that the anti-episcopalian cause comes not recommended either by numbers or antiquity. The first appointed Church with regular episcopacy was that at Jerusalem, of which place St. James was constituted bishop. This is plainly and unanimously testified by the ancient fathers and historians of the Church; the sacred history in a great measure, though not directly, proves the same.
St. Paul, three years after his conversion, went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, “but other Apostles saw he none,” says he, “but James the brother of our Lord.” St. Jerome says this was James the first Bishop of Jerusalem. This is mentioned for the notice of those who may have taken up an opinion that bishops were appointed only when schisms began to shew the necessity of the order, and degrade it almost to a human invention; and if any further demonstration be required, we must have recourse to the testimony of the primitive fathers, those eminent men who immediately succeeded the Apostles; but in the writings of these holy men we find such abundant proof for the Divine authority of bishops, that it is difficult to know how to select, or where to end. From the Apostles thus descending to their successors, some of whom conversed with them and were their disciples, we find that the succession of bishops and the government of the Church by them still prevailed wherever the Gospel was planted.