APOSTOLICAL

In Theology. By these words is meant the uninterrupted succe ion oV priests in the church by regular ordination, from the first commi ion given by our Saviour to the Apostles, and recorded in the Gospels, down to the present day. And the doctrine of "the apostolical succe ion," as it is popularly called, means the belief that the clergy so regularly ordained have a commi ion from God to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, and guide the church; that through their ministration only we can derive the grace which is communicated by the sacraments. It follows, of course, that those sects of Christians which have no regular succe ion (having seceded from Romanism without retaining ministers regularly ordained, or having subse quently interrupted the succe ion, that is, all Protestant bodies, except the church of England) have, properly speaking, neither church nor sacraments, since they po e no apostolical authority. This doctrine was, by admi ion on all hands, of very great antiquity in the church; but whether that antiquity is primitive or not, is matter of discu ion at the present day. The arguments from Scripture cannot alone be relied upon by either parity. As to the historical part of the question, those Epistles of Ignatius which the learned have in the most part agreed to regard as genuine (commonly called the Greater), are much referred to by the maintain ors of the doc:rine in support of it. They do not, indeed, declare it in expre terms; but the strict and repeated injunctions to honour and obey the bishop and presbytery, together with some insulated expre ions (such as. "If a man be not within the altar, he failelh of the bread of God," ), have been thought important in the controversy;and, as Mr. Keble observes, "the discovery ot" those remains probably lent considerable force to the cour>e of opinions among the clergy of England in favour of the doctrine in the 17th century." • At the Reformation it was almost entirely lost suzht of; and that the succe ion was actually preserved in England is rather owing (humanly speaking) to i>oliiical causes than to any deliberate intention on the part of the then leaders of the church. In fact, the Romanists contest the validity of English ordinations, partly on the ground that the succe ion was actually interrupted at the acce ion of Elizabeth;but there is no need to discu an historical question on which there seems to be no subs tanti a] doubt whatever. The church of England does not affirm the doctrine in her articles; and the language of art. 19, although not excluding it, is plainly not such as would have been used by framers who wished to inculcate it. Many expre ions of her services, borrowed as they arc from ancient liturgies, more or le distinctly point towards it. The first school of Anglican divines did not rely on it in their controversy with Puritanism. They rather rested their argument on the fact, that the church had in early times appointed the episcopal government and regular ordination, and that it could not, therefore, be wise or prudent to swerve from it. It was at this point that Hooker took up the subject. Whether he actually held the tenet or no, has been much controverted. His recent editor (Mr. Keble) contends that he did; but, at the same time, admits that there is a marked difference between bis language and that of the succeeding school of Laud, Hammond, anil Leslie. (Preface to Hooker, p. lxxvii.) Under that school, it became the rallying point of high churchmen, and was zealously maintained by the divines of that section of the church down to and long after the Revolution. But since that time, without being renounced, it had certainly long ceased to be brought prominently forward in ecclesiastical controversy, until within the last seven or eight \ In fact, the opposite ground had been constantly taken by ordinary Protestant reasoners, both in and out of this country, in their contests with the church of Koine. Chit ling worth, as is well known, argues against the Roaumisl tenet, that " succe ion is a certain and perpetual mark of the true church," by maintaining that it is impo ible to prove it; that is, that it is impo ible that any individual can feel cep tin that his orders were derived by regular [s. 1206]