1. The phrase '■^apostolic sticcession'' is essentially ab- surd and self -contradictory. Strictly construed, it can only mean that the apostles have had a continuous line of successors to the present time. But the apostolic office was sui yeneris, and bj' its very constitution con- fined to the first incumbents. This is clear from two inherent qualifications of the order itself, not to mention others.
a. It was necessary that an apostle should have been personally conversant with our incarnate Lord; he must have been an eye-witness of his miracles, have' directly received his instructions, and immediately accepted the appointment at his hands (Mark iii, 14; Acts i, 21, 22). On this ground Paul bases his claim to the apostolate (1 Cor. ix, 1), by virtue of the revelation of the Gospel to him without human intervention (xi, 23; Gal. i, 1, 12). Hence the office was in its very nature intrans- missible and incapable of succession, as soon, at least,
SUCCESSIOX (
as all the "original eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" had deceased. See Arosri.K.
b. The •' siij;ii" of an apostle was the power of confer- ring miraculous endowments upon others hy the imposi- tion of liands. Tliis is often referred to in the Acts and Kpistles as a dislinguisliing mark hetwet'U them and ordinary Ciiristians. All believers iluring the primi- tive period of tlie Churcli enjoyed these preternatural gifts, which were lirst imparted on the day of I'ente- cost (Acts ii, 4) ; but the apostles alone were empow- ered to communicate the same to subseipient accessions (viii, 19). Hence when the original apostles died, these miraculous manifestations soon ceased, and have never been renewed. The Homan Catholic Cluirch claims, indeed, a like power of miracle-working for eminent saints of later times, but it has never had the hardi- hood to aver that its "apostolical succession" is invari- ably accompanied with this peculiar gift. How pre- posterous, then, for sober Christians to set up a preten- sion that legitimately involves such impossibilities ! See Gil rs, Si'iurruAL,
2. EffH the claim of an uninterrupted clerical suc- cession is incapable oj' proof'. All the modern churches of Europe and this country, which set up this claim, trace their lineage untimately through the Koman pon- tift's. But tlie records of the early popes are irrecovcr- ablv lost. It is not certain tliat Peter (([. v.) ever was in Rome, much less that he ever acted as bishop there. All etl'orts to make out the asserted succession thus fail at this initial point. Many other links in the chain are historically wanting. The lineage is a myth, or at best a mere eking-out of probabilities by vague and late trailitions. This is now candidly admitted by the best and most careful Protestant scholars. The title is indefensible. See I'orii. "I am fully satisfied," says bishop lloadly, " that till a consummate stupidity can be happily established, and universally spread over the land, there is nothing that tends so much to destroy all due respect to the clergy as tlie demand of more than can be due to them; and nothing has so effectually thrown contemjit upon a regular succession of the ministry as the calling no succession regular but what was unin- terrii|>ted ; and the making the eternal salvation of Christians to depend upon that uninterrupted succes- sion, of which the most learned must have the least assurance, and the unlearned can have no notion but through ignorance and credulity." (See below.)
3. The claim is offensive and te/ids to bigotry and ex- clusicene^s. In the lioman Catholic, Greek, and An- glican churches, this tendency and result are notorious, and in the High-Church party of the Protestant Epis- copal Church tliey are almost equally obvious. In fact, "a good churchman," as he is stj-led, is compelled by this fact to hold himself aloof from other communions, and such a rule is avowed, more or less distinctly, in the canons and regulations of all the bodies last named. This single circumstance is to-day one of the greatest scandals of Christendom. No principle can be just which leads to such unchristian lack of brotherly kind- uess. See Chaui ry.
4. The assertion is unnecessary, umche, and based upon a wrony view of ecclesiastical polity. The true evidences of an evangelical Church are the conversion, sanctilication, and salvation of souls; the propagation of a spiritual Gospel, and the amelioration of the state of society. But the "churchly" claim referred to turns the attention of its adherents too earnestly upon their own organization and technical order, and thus leads them away from a broad and catholic spirit, and from a wholesome personal experience, as well as from the highest forms of individual and collective usefulness. The question with them habitually inclines to be, not what will best promote the welfare of Christendom at large, and most effectually promote personal holiness ; but what must be done to subserve party purposes, and keep up the pretensions of a select circle. The Church is too often put in the place both of Christ and man.
SUCCESSION
This, ahas, is no ideal picture ; it is but the record of sad, solemn fact, Ecclesiasticism and its fellow formalism have ever been the greatest banes to genuine piety, and the direst foes to the real kingdom of (iod. Big- otry was excusable in Jiulaisni ; but sectarianism, of which the fable of ''apostolical succession" has been the most fruitful source, is a crime under Christianity. It is both a libel on its name (John xvii, 23) and trea- son to its first law (1 John ii, 7; iii, 11). Wherever this assum])tion has been ])revalcnt and active, religious bodies have held points of order and esprit du corps among tlu-ir mend)ers in higher esteem than historical truth in pnpfcssion or vital godliness in practice. Per- secution lias been more fiercely waged against secession than even against heresy. Zealots for orthodoxy have gathered many a fagot for the martyr, but sticklers for legitimacy have been foremost in kindling the pyre. Even nonconformity lias at times caught the passion for its own established system, and Puritans have act- ually maltreated others — if not burned them at the stake — for refusing the ordinances of the so-called Church. The prelatist smiles at such pseudo-ecclesi- asticism, and the Komanist looks with equal contempt upon the Anglican mimicry of " the mother Church ;" while the Great Head of all weeps at this petty rivalry as to who shall be esteemed first and greatest in the brotherhood of saints. In this competition all that is more valuable in religion has been lost sight of. Lax- ity of morals has been winked at. while an infringement of canonical rules has been severely punished. It is the old story over again ; making void the law of God by the tradition of men, tithing herbs and neglecting judgment, mercy, and faith. We need ever to revert from the symbols of Christianity to its essentials, or we shall find ourselves holding its form, but denying its power. See Puelacy.