Letters 1745
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | letter |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-letters-1745-072 |
| Words | 391 |
1. ‘That the validity of our ministry depends on a succession supposed to be from the Apostles, and a commission derived from the Pope of Rome and his successors or dependants.’
We believe it would not be right for us to administer either baptism or the Lord's supper unless we had a commission so to do from those bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles. And yet we allow these bishops are the successors of those who were dependent on the Bishop of Rome.
But we would be glad to know on what reasons you believe this to be inconsistent with the Word of God.
2. ‘That there is an outward priesthood, and consequently an outward sacrifice, ordained and offered by the Bishop of Rome, and his successors or dependents, in the Church of England, as vicars and viceregents of Christ.’
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church (whether dependent on the Bishop of Rome or not), an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein, by men authorized to act as ambassadors of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.
On what grounds do you believe that Christ has abolished that priesthood or sacrifice
3. ‘That this Papal hierarchy and prelacy, which still continues in the Church of England, is of apostolical institution, and authorized thereby, though not by the written Word.’
We believe that the threefold order of ministers (which you seem to mean by Papal hierarchy and prelacy) is not only authorized by its apostolical institution, but also by the written Word.
Yet we are willing to hear and weigh whatever reasons induce you to believe to the contrary.
You think, secondly, ‘that we ourselves give up some things as indefensible, which are defended by the same law and authority that establishes the things above mentioned; such as are many of the laws, customs, and practices of the Ecclesiastical Courts.’
We allow (1) that those laws, customs, and practices are really indefensible; (2) that there are Acts of Parliament in defense of them, and also of the threefold order.
But will you show us how it follows, either (1) that those things and these stand or fall together or (2) that we cannot sincerely plead for the one, though we give up the other