Tract No. 15
On the Apostolical Succession
in the
English Church
{1} WHEN
Churchmen in England maintain the Apostolical Commission of their
Ministers, they are sometimes met with the objection, that they cannot
prove it without tracing their orders back to the Church of Rome; a
position, indeed, which in a certain sense is true. And hence it is
argued, that they are reduced to the dilemma, either of acknowledging
they had no right to separate from the Pope, or, on the other hand, of
giving up the Ministerial Succession altogether, and resting the claims
of their pastors on some other ground; in other words, that they are
inconsistent in reprobating Popery, while they draw a line between their
Ministers and those of Dissenting Communions.
It is intended, in the pages that follow, to reply
to this supposed difficulty; but first, a few words shall be said, by
way of preface, on the doctrine itself, which we Churchmen advocate.
The Christian Church is a body consisting of Clergy
and Laity; this is generally agreed upon, and may here be assumed. Now,
what we say is, that these two classes are distinguished from each
other, and united to each other, by the commandment of GOD Himself; that the Clergy have a commission from GOD
ALMIGHTY
through regular succession from the Apostles, to preach the Gospel,
administer the Sacraments, and guide the Church; and, again, that in
consequence the people are bound to hear them with attention, receive
the Sacrament from their hands, and pay them all dutiful obedience. I
shall not prove this at length, for it has been done by others, and
indeed the common sense and understanding of men, if left to themselves,
would be quite sufficient in this case. I do but lay before the reader
the following considerations.
1. We hold, with the Church in all ages, that, when
our LORD,
after His resurrection, breathed on His Apostles, and said, "Receive ye
the HOLY
GHOST,—as
My FATHER
hath sent Me, {2} so send I you;" He gave them the power of sending others
with a divine commission, who in like manner should have the power of
sending others, and so on even unto the end; and that our LORD promised His continual assistance to these
successors of the Apostles in this and all other respects, when He said,
"Lo, I am with you," (that is, with you, and those who shall represent
and succeed you,) "alway, even unto the end of the world."
And, if it is plain that the Apostles left
successors after them, it is equally plain that the Bishops are these
Successors. For it is only the Bishops who have ever been called by the
title of Successors; and there has been actually a perpetual succession
of these Bishops in the Church, who alone were always esteemed to have
the power of sending other Ministers to preach and administer the
Sacraments. So that the proof of the doctrine seems to lie in a very
small space.
2. But, perhaps it may be as well to look at it in
another point of view. I suppose no man of common sense thinks himself
entitled to set about teaching religion, administering Baptism, and the
LORD'S
Supper, and taking care of the souls of other people, unless he has in
some way been called to undertake the office. Now, as religion is a
business between every man's own conscience and GOD ALMIGHTY,
no one can have any right to interfere in the religious concerns of
another with the authority of a teacher, unless he is able to show, that
it is GOD
that has in some way called and sent him to do so. It is true, that men
may as friends encourage and instruct each other with consent of
both parties; but this is something very different from the office of a
Minister of religion, who is entitled and called to "exhort, rebuke, and"
"rule," "with all authority," as well as love and humility.
You may observe that our LORD Himself did not teach the Gospel, without
proving most plainly that His FATHER had sent Him. He and His Apostles proved their divine
commission by miracles. As miracles, however, have long ago come to an
end, there must be some other way for a man to prove his right to
be a Minister of religion. And what other way can there possibly be,
except a regular call and ordination by those who have succeeded to the
Apostles?
3. Further, you will observe, that all sects think
it necessary that their Ministers should be ordained by other Ministers.
Now, if {3} this be the case, then the validity of ordination, even with
them, rests on a succession; and is it not plain that they
ought to trace that succession to the Apostles? Else, why are they
ordained at all? And, any how, if their Ministers have a
commission, who derive it from private men, much more do the Ministers
of our Church, who actually do derive it from the Apostles. Surely those
who dissent from the Church have invented an ordinance, as they
themselves must allow; whereas Churchmen, whether rightly or wrongly,
still maintain their succession not to be an invention, but to be
GOD'S
ordinance. If Dissenters say, that order requires there should be
some such succession, this is true, indeed, but still it is only
a testimony to the mercy of CHRIST,
in having, as Churchmen maintain, given us such a succession. And
this is all it shows; it does nothing for them; for, their
succession, not professing to come from GOD, has no power to restrain any fanatic from setting up to
preach of his own will, and a people with itching ears choosing for
themselves a teacher. It does but witness to a need, without supplying
it.
4. I have now given some slight suggestions by way
of evidence for the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, from
Scripture, the nature of the case, and tile conduct of Dissenters. Let
me add a word on the usage of the Primitive Church. We know that the
succession of Bishops, and ordination from them, was the invariable
doctrine and rule of the early Christians. Is it not utterly
inconceivable, that this rule should have prevailed from the first age,
everywhere, and without exception, had it not been given them by the
Apostles?
But here we are met by the objection, on which I
propose to make a few remarks, that, though it is true there was a
continual Succession of pastors and teachers in the early Church who had
a divine commission, yet that no Protestants can have it; that we gave
it up, when our communion ceased with Rome, in which Church it still
remains; or, at least, that no Protestant can plead it without
condemning the Reformation itself, for that our own predecessors then
revolted and separated from those spiritual pastors, who, according to
our principles, then had the commission of JESUS
CHRIST.
Our reply to this is a flat denial of the alleged
facts on which it rests. The English Church did not revolt from those
who in {4} that day had authority by succession from the Apostles. On
the contrary, it is certain that the Bishops and Clergy in England and
Ireland remained the same as before the separation, and that it was
these, with the aid of the civil power, who delivered the Church of
those kingdoms from the yoke of Papal tyranny and usurpation, while at
the same time they gradually removed from the minds of the people
various superstitious opinions and practices which had grown up during
the middle ages, and which, though never formally received by the
judgment of the whole Church, were yet very prevalent. I do not say the
case might never arise, when it might become the duty of private
individuals to take upon themselves the office of protesting against and
abjuring the heresies of a corrupt Church. But such an extreme case it
is unpleasant and unhealthy to contemplate. All I say here is, that this
was not the state of things at the time of the Reformation. The Church
then by its proper rulers and officers reformed itself. There was no new
Church founded among us, but the rights and the true doctrines of the
Ancient existing Church were asserted and established.
In proof of this we need only look to the history
of the times. In the year 1534, the Bishops and Clergy of England
assembled in their respective convocations of Canterbury and York, and
signed a declaration that the Pope or Bishop of Rome had no more
jurisdiction in this country by the word of GOD,
than any other foreign Bishop; and they also agreed to those acts of the
civil government, which put an end to it among us [Note
1].
The people of England, then, in casting off the
Pope, but obeyed and concurred in the acts of their own spiritual
Superiors, and committed no schism. Queen Mary, it is true, drove out
after many years the orthodox Bishops, and reduced our Church again
under the Bishop of Rome, but this submission was only exacted by force,
and in itself null and void; and, moreover, in matter of fact it lasted
but a little while, for on the succession of Queen Elizabeth, the true
Successors of the Apostles in the English Church were reinstated in
their ancient rights. So, I repeat, there was no revolt, in any part of
these transactions, against those who had a commission from God; for it
was the Bishops and Clergy themselves, who maintained the just rights of
their Church. {5}
But, it seems, the Pope has ever said, that our
Bishops were bound by the laws of GOD
and the Church to obey him; that they were subject to him; and
that they had no right to separate from him, and were guilty in doing
so, and that accordingly they have involved the people of England in
their guilt; and, at all events, that they cannot complain of
their flock disobeying and deserting them, when they have revolted from
the Pope. Let us consider this point.
Now that there is not a word in Scripture
about our duty to obey the Pope, is quite clear. The Papists indeed say,
that he is the Successor of St. Peter; and that therefore he is Head of
all Bishops, because St. Peter bore rule over the other Apostles. But
though the Bishops of Rome were often called the Successors of St. Peter
in the early Church, yet every other Bishop had the same title.
And though it be true, that St. Peter was the foremost of the
Apostles, that does not prove he had any dominion over them. The
eldest brother in a family has certain privileges and a precedence, but
he has no power over the younger branches of it. And so Rome has ever
had what is called the primacy of the Christian Churches; but it
has not therefore any right to interfere in their internal
administration; not more of a right, than an elder brother has to meddle
with a younger brother's household.
And this is plainly the state of matters between us
and Rome, in the judgment of the Ancient Church also, to which
the Papists are fond of appealing, and by which we are quite ready to
stand or fall. In early times, as is well known, all Christians thought
substantially alike, and formed one great body all over the world,
called the Church Catholic, or Universal. This great body, consisting of
a vast number of separate Churches, with each of them its own Bishop at
its head, was divided into a number of portions called Patriarchates;
these again into others called Provinces, and these were made up of the
separate Dioceses or Bishoprics. We have among ourselves an instance of
this last division in the Provinces of Canterbury and York, which
constitute the English Church, each of them consisting of a number of
distinct Bishoprics or Churches. The head of a Province was called
Archbishop, as in the case of Canterbury and York; the Bishops of those
two sees being, we know, not only Bishops with Dioceses of their own,
but having, over and above this, the place of precedence among the
Bishops in the same Province. In like {6} manner, the Bishop at the head
of a Patriarchate was called the Patriarch, and had the place of honour
and certain privileges over all other Bishops within his own
Patriarchate. Now, in the early Christian Church, there were four or
five Patriarchates; e.g. one in the East, the Head of which was the
Bishop of Antioch; one in Egypt, the Head of which was the Bishop of
Alexandria; and, again, one in the West, the Head of which was the
Bishop of Rome. These Patriarchs, I say, were the Primates or Head
Bishops of their respective Patriarchates; and they had an order of
precedence among themselves, Rome being the first of them all. Thus the
Bishop of Rome, being the first of the Patriarchs in dignity, might be
called the honorary Primate of all Christendom.
However, as time went on, the Bishop of Rome, not
satisfied with the honours which were readily conceded to him, attempted
to gain power over the whole Church. He seems to have been
allowed the privilege of arbitrating in case of appeal from other
Patriarchates. If, e.g. Alexandria and Antioch had a dispute, he
was a proper referee; or if the Bishops of those Churches were at any
time unjustly deprived of their sees, he was a fit person to interfere
and defend them. But, I say, he became ambitious, and attempted to lord
it over GOD'S
heritage. He interfered in the internal management of other
Patriarchates; he appointed Bishops to sees, and Clergy to parishes
which were contained within them, and imposed on them various religious
and ecclesiastical usages illegally. And in doing so, surely he became a
remarkable contrast to the Holy Apostle, who, though inspired, and an
universal Bishop, yet suffered not himself to control the proceedings
even of the Churches he founded; saying to the Corinthians, "not for
that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy; for
by faith ye stand." 2 Cor. i. 24. This impressive declaration, which
seems to be intended almost as a prophetic warning against the times of
which we speak, was neglected by the Pope, who, among other tyrannical
proceedings, took upon him the control of the Churches in Britain, and
forbade us to reform our doctrine and usages, which he had no right at
all to do. He had no pretence for so doing, because we were altogether
independent of him; the English and Irish Churches, though in the West,
being exterior to his Patriarchate. Here again, however, some
explanation is necessary. {7}
You must know, then, that from the first there were
portions of the Christian world, which were not included in any
Patriarchate, but were governed by themselves. Such were the Churches of
Cyprus, and such were the British Churches. This need not here be
proved; even Papists have before now confessed it. Now it so happened,
in the beginning of the 5th century, the Patriarch of Antioch, who was
in the neighbourhood of Cyprus, attempted against the Cyprian Churches
what the Pope has since attempted against us; viz. took measures to
reduce them under his dominion. And, as a sign of his authority over
them, he claimed to consecrate their Bishops. Upon which the Great
Council of the whole Christian world assembled at Ephesus, A.D. 451, made the following decree, which you
will find is a defence of England and Ireland against the Papacy, as
well as of Cyprus against Antioch.
"An innovation upon the Rule of the Church and the
Canons of the Holy Fathers, such as to affect the general liberties of
Christendom, has been reported to us by our venerable brother Rheginus,
and his fellow Bishops of Cyprus, Zeno, and Evagrius. Wherefore, since
public disorders call for extraordinary remedies, as being more
perilous, and whereas it is against ancient usage, that the Bishop of
Antioch should ordain in Cyprus, as has been proved to us in this
Council both in words and writing, by most orthodox men, We therefore
decree, that the Prelates of the Cyprian Churches shall be suffered
without let or hindrance to consecrate Bishops by themselves; and
moreover, that the same rule shall be observed also in other dioceses
and provinces every where, so that no Bishop shall interfere in another
province, which has not from the very first been under himself and his
predecessors; and further, that if any one has so encroached and
tyrannized, he must relinquish his claim, that the Canons of the Fathers
be not infringed, nor the Priesthood be made an occasion and pretence
for the pride of worldly power, nor the least portion of that freedom
unawares he lost to us, which our LORD
JESUS CHRIST,
who bought the world's freedom, vouchsafed to us, when He shed His own
blood. Wherefore it has seemed good to this Holy Ecumenical Council,
that the rights of every province should be preserved pure and
inviolate, which have always belonged to it, according to the usage
which has ever obtained, each Metropolitan {8} having full liberty
to take a copy of the acts for his own security. And should any rule be
adduced repugnant to this decree, it is hereby repealed."
Here we have a remarkable parallel to the dispute
between Rome and us; and we see what was the decision of the General
Church upon it. It will be observed, the decree is past for all
provinces in all future times, as well as for the immediate
exigency. Now this is a plain refutation of the Romanists on their own
principles. They profess to hold the Canons of the Primitive
Church: the very line they take, is to declare the Church to be one and
the same in all ages. Here then they witness against themselves. The
Pope has encroached on the rights of other churches, and violated
the Canon above cited. Herein is the difference between his relation to
us, and that of any civil Ruler, whose power was in its origin illegally
acquired. Doubtless we are bound to obey the Monarch under whom we are
born, even though his ancestor were an usurper. Time legitimises a
conquest. But this is not the case in spiritual matters. The Church goes
by fixed laws; and this usurpation has all along been counter to
one of her acknowledged standing ordinances, founded on reasons of
universal application.
After the Canon above cited, it is almost
superfluous to refer to the celebrated rule of the First Nicene Council,
A.D.
325, which, in defending the rights of the Patriarchates, expresses the
same principle in all its simple force and majesty.
"Let the ancient usages prevail, which are
received in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, relative to the authority of
the Bishop of Alexandria; as they are observed in the case of the Bishop
of Rome. And so in Antioch too, and other provinces, let the
prerogatives of the Churches be preserved."
On this head of the subject, I will but notice,
that, as the Council of Ephesus controlled the ambition of Antioch, so
in like manner did St. Austin rebuke Rome itself for an encroachment of
another kind on the liberties of the African Church.
Bingham says,
"When Pope Zosimus and Celestine took upon them to
receive Appellants from the African Churches, and absolve those whom
they had condemned, St. Austin and all the African Churches sharply
remonstrated against this, as an irregular practice, violating
{9} the laws of unity, and the settled rules of ecclesiastical
commerce; which required, that no delinquent excommunicated in one
Church should be absolved in another, without giving satisfaction to his
own Church that censured him. And therefore, to put a stop to this
practice and check the exorbitant power which Roman Bishops assumed to
themselves, they first made a Law in the Council of Milevis, That no
African Clerk should appeal to any Church beyond sea, under pain of
being excluded from communion in all the African Churches. And then,
afterwards, meeting in a general Synod, they dispatched letters to the
Bishop of Rome, to remind him how contrary this practice was to the
Canons of Nice, which ordered, That all controversies should be ended in
the places where they arose, before a Council and the Metropolitan." [Note
2]
Thus I have shown, that our Bishops, at the time of
the Reformation, did but vindicate their ancient rights; were but acting
as grateful, and therefore jealous champions of the honour of the old
Fathers, and the sanctity of their institutions. Our duty surely in such
matters lies in neither encroaching nor conceding to encroachment; in
taking our rights as we find them, and using them; or rather in
regarding them altogether as trusts, the responsibility of which we
cannot avoid. As the same Apostle says, "Let every man abide in the same
calling, wherein he is called." And, if England and Ireland had a plea
for asserting their freedom under any circumstances, much more so, when
the corruptions imposed on them by Rome even made it a duty to do so.
I shall answer briefly one or two objections, and
so bring these remarks to an end.
1. First, it may be said, that Rome has withdrawn
our orders, and excommunicated us; therefore we cannot plead any longer
our Apostolical descent. Now I will not altogether deny, that a
Ministerial Body might become so plainly apostate, as to lose its
privilege of ordination. But, however this may be, it is a little too
hard to assume, as such an objection does, the very point in
dispute. When we are proved to be heretical in doctrine, then
will be the time to begin to consider, whether our heresy is of so
grievous a character as to invalidate our orders; but, till then,
{10} we may fairly and fearlessly maintain, that our Bishops are still
invested with the power of ordination.
2. But it may be said on the other hand, that if we
do not admit ourselves to be heretic, we necessarily must accuse the
Romanists of being such; and that therefore, on our own ground, we have
really no valid orders, as having received them from an heretical
Church. But even if Rome be so considered now, at least she was not
heretical in the primitive ages; no one will say that she was then
Antichrist [Note 3]. Nay, as to the
middle ages, we may say with the learned Dr. Field, "that none of those
points of false doctrine and error which Romanists now maintain, and we
condemn, were the doctrines of the Church before the Reformation
constantly delivered or generally received by all them that were of it,
but doubtfully broached, and devised without all certain resolution, or
factiously defended by some certain only, who as a dangerous faction
adulterated the sincerity of the Christian verity, and brought the
Church into miserable bondage." [Note 4]
Accordingly, acknowledging and deploring all the errors of the middle
ages, yet we need not fear to maintain, that after all they were but the
errors of individuals, though of large numbers of Christians; and we may
safely maintain, that they no more interfere with the validity of the
ordination received by our Bishops from those who lived before the
Reformation, than errors of faith and conduct in a priest interfere with
the grace of the Sacraments received at his hands.
3. It may be said, that we throw blame on Luther,
and others of the foreign Reformers, who did act without the authority
of their Bishops. But we reply, that it has been always agreeable to the
principles of the Church, that, if a Bishop taught and upheld what was
contrary to the orthodox faith, the Clergy and people were not bound to
submit, but were obliged to maintain the {11} true religion; and if
excommunicated by such Bishops, they were never accounted to be cut off
from the Church. Luther and his associates upheld in the main the true
doctrine; and though it is not necessary to defend every act of
fallible men like them, yet we are fully justified in maintaining, that
the conduct of those who defended the truth against the Romish party,
even in opposition to their spiritual rulers, was worthy of great
praise. At the same time it is impossible not to lament, that they did
not take the first opportunity to place themselves under orthodox
Bishops of the Apostolical Succession. Nothing, as far as we can judge,
was more likely to have preserved them from that great decline of
religion, which has taken place on the Continent.
[NEW EDITION.]
———————————————————————
These Tracts are continued in
Numbers, and sold at the price of 2d. for each sheet, or 7s. for 50
copies.
LONDON: PRINTED FOR
J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE.
1840.
Top | Contents
| Works | Home
Notes
1. Vide Collier, Eccl. Hist. v. ii. p. 94.
Return to text
2. Bingh. Antiq. xvi. 1. § 14.
Return to text
3. The following is from the
Life of Bernard Gilpin, vid. Wordsworth's Ecclesiastical Biography, vol.
iv. p. 94. "Mr. Gilpin would often say that the Churches of the
Protestants were not able to give any firme and solid reason of their
separation besides this, to wit, that the Pope is Antichrist … The
Church of Rome kept the rule of faith intire, until that rule was
changed and altered by the Council of Trent, and from that time it
seemed to him a matter of necessitie to come out of the Church of Rome,
that so that Church which is true and called out from thence might
follow the word of God ... But he did not these things violently, but by
degrees."
Return to text
4. See Field on the Church,
Appendix to book iii. where he proves all this. See also Birkbeck's
Protestant's Evidence.
Return to text
Top | Contents
| Works | Home
Newman Reader Works of John Henry Newman
Copyright © 2007 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. All rights reserved.
|