# Episcopalians and Apostolic Succession



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 6, 2009)

“_The historic Episcopate is also to be distinguished from those bodies whose administrative officers are called Bishops, but who do not have, or make, claim descent from the Apostles_.”​With other Reformed and Evangelical bodies, they confess, 
_The Sixth Article states, “Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not
read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any
man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or thought requisite or necessary
to salvation.” Thus, our reliance upon and confession of Holy Scripture as the record of
God’s will for His Church, is the great dividing line between us and the Roman
Communion, which has manifestly added to the biblical record_.​
So here’s my question: how does a Reformed person answer one who holds to apostolic succession by the laying on of hands, being that they hold to a vital article of faith, namely justification by faith alone? What do Reformed authorities have to say about Episcopalians who share common articles of the faith? This article makes claim that those who do not belong to this "fold" are outside God's Law. This resonates of Rome in my personal opinion.

To read the whole article, click here.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 6, 2009)

If I recall correctly, historically the Anglican churches considered episcopacy to be the historic and preferred government method, but did not unchurch others. I believe it was with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism (especially the Oxford movement) where they started seeing themselves as not as Protestants, but invented the fiction that the Anglican church is really the Celtic church which joined, then later left Rome. Most on this path have ended up back in Rome.

TRUE apostolic succession is from holding firm the teachings of the apostles, not some magic succession of "laying on of hands." All true churches have apostolic succession!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 6, 2009)

See the links to some Bannerman extracts in this post on an old thread.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/lawful-ordination-8252/#post109667


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 6, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> See the links to some Bannerman extracts in this post on an old thread.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/lawful-ordination-8252/#post109667



I read the quote but I don't have the book to make a valid case for contra-Episcopalian church government, let alone Apolostolic succession via laying on of hands. Did you read the article that I posted? Click the link and tell me what you think about the article.

-----Added 12/6/2009 at 07:49:33 EST-----



PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I believe it was with the rise of Anglo-Catholicism (especially the Oxford movement) where they started seeing themselves as not as Protestants, but invented the fiction that the Anglican church is really the Celtic church which joined, then later left Rome. Most on this path have ended up back in Rome.



Yes, this is the main point I made about the reference to Noah and being the one true "arch" of the faith, i.e., all Anglicans who share the authors sentiments belong to the true church.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 6, 2009)

Bannerman is online via the links:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/church-Christ-james-bannerman-42353/


----------



## Wayne (Dec 6, 2009)

Thomas Smyth wrote an extensive refutation in _The Prelatical Doctrine of Apostolical Succession Examined_. It can be found on Google Books.


----------

