APOSTOLICAL

In Theology. By these words is meant the uninterrupted succe ion of 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 subsequently 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 antiquitjr 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 party. 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 maintainers of the doctrine 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 faileth of the bread of God," .), have been thought important in the controversy; and, as Mr. Keble observes, " the discovery of those remains probably lent considerable force to the course of opinions among the clergy of England in favour of the doctrine in the 17th century." At the Reformation it was almost entirely lost sight of; and that the succe ion was actually preserved in England is rather owing (humanly speaking) to political 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 substantial doubt whatever. The church of England does not aflBrm 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 are from ancient liturgies, more or le 1184 SUCCESSION, LAW OF. 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 liad 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 oeen much controverted. His recent editor (Mr. Keble) contends that he did; but, at the same time, admits that there is a marked difference between his language and that of the succeeding school of Laud, Hammond, and Leslie. (Preface to Hooker, p. Ixxvii.) Under that school, it became the rallying point of hig'h 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 years. 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 Rome. Chilling worth, as is well known, argues against the Romanist 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 certain that his orders were de. rived by regular succe ion from the Apostles. If we a ume, with the Romanist, d prior i, tliat the church must have regular succe ion because of Christ's promise to it, then there is no room for such doubts; but if we are endeavouring to insist on the fact of succe ion as a test of the truth of a church, then it cannot be denied that this argument presents difficulties not easily surmounted. SUCCESSION, [s. 1197]