# Dealing with apostolic succession



## RamistThomist (Feb 4, 2009)

What are some good, _academically-respected_ articles or material dealing with Apostolic Succession claims? I have Mathison's book on _Shape of Sola Scriptura_, but it deals more with debunking Rome's claims to infallibility.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 4, 2009)

Don't know of anything new. Standard Presbyterian works are Bannerman and Smyth in particular. I didn't look for the section I think James Bannerman covers it in his church of Christ vol. 2. 
Internet Archive Search: creator:"Bannerman, James, 1807-1868"
See Thomas Smyth who has a whole volume on it.
Internet Archive: Details: The prelatical doctrine of apostolical succession examined, and the Protestant ministry defended against the assumptions of popery and high-churchism, in a series of lectures


----------



## DTK (Feb 4, 2009)

Ivanhoe said:


> What are some good, _academically-respected_ articles or material dealing with Apostolic Succession claims? I have Mathison's book on _Shape of Sola Scriptura_, but it deals more with debunking Rome's claims to infallibility.



I know of no such "academically-respected articles." As for material, Chris has recommended two books to you. One of the best books I've read that deals with that issue as it relates to the Reformation is James L. Ainslie, The Doctrines of Ministerial Order in the Reformed Churches of the 16th and 17th Centuries (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1940).

Now, I have compiled a great many quotes from Calvin, and maybe one or two from William Whitaker on this subject based on my own research, but I'm not into posting such here automatically any more due to the tendency of some folk simply to wade in and offer their critical remarks when no analysis is offered for them. They think your time is theirs if you post anything. The fact is that I don't always have the time to wax analytical.

But if you request them, I'll do so without analysis and gladly.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 4, 2009)

Pastor King and Chris,

Thank you for your responses. Even without analysis, I would gladly welcome such quotes. I have a compilation of some church fathers against the papacy-- they aren't analyzed but still quite useful.


----------



## DTK (Feb 4, 2009)

I'm glad to offer these to you. I've tried to give enough context for these citations, but I encourage you, where you are able, to investigate each quote in its overall context. Also, the book I recommended you is, I think, very good in addressing this subject.

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* We certainly deny not that the Church of God has always existed in the world; for we hear what God promises concerning the perpetuity of the seed of Christ. In this way, too, we deny not that there has been *an uninterrupted succession* of the Church from the beginning of the gospel even to our day; but we do not concede that it was so fixed to external shows — that it has hitherto always been, and will henceforth always be, in possession of the Bishops. And how, pray, do they prove this to be necessary? No promise can anywhere be found. Nay rather, when Peter admonishes us that there will be false teachers in the Church, as there were among the ancient people, (2 Peter 2:1) and Paul declares that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, (2 Thessalonians 2:4,) they point not to foreign enemies who by violent irruption and for a little time disturb the Church: they speak of what is called the ordinary administration of Prelates, that no one might dream of a tranquil and flourishing state of the kingdom of Christ. Therefore, if the Church resides in the successors of the Apostles, let us search for successors among those only who have faithfully handed down their doctrine to posterity. _Selected Works of Calvin, Vol. 3, Tracts_, Part 3, p. 243.

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* I know that this *continuous Succession* is extolled by Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, and some other ancient writers. But it is mere imposition to attempt to employ their testimony in defense of the tyranny of the Papacy, which has nothing in common with the ancient form of the Church. Irenaeus and Origen had to do with base miscreants, who, while they advanced monstrous errors, gave out that they had received them by divine revelation. This falsehood was easily refuted, as many were still alive who had been familiar with the disciples of the Apostles. The remembrance of the doctrine which the Apostles had delivered was recent. The very walls, in a manner, still re-echoed with their voice. Is it strange that those holy men cited as witnesses the Churches which had both been constituted by the Apostles, and had, without controversy, retained their constitution? Augustine was contending with the Donatists, who, inflated with frantic pride, boasted that they alone possessed the Church, though there was no reason why they should dissent from others. Augustine objects to them, that the Churches which they repudiated, and from which they had become schismatics, had flowed in uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. This he did on the best grounds, as the Donatists acknowledged that these Churches had persevered in the doctrine which they had originally received.
Very different is our case: for we deny the title of *Successors of the Apostles* to those who have abandoned their faith and doctrine. Those perfidious mediators who confound light and darkness are not ignorant how unlike, or rather how contrary, the present perverted government is to the ancient government of the Church. What effrontery, then, is it to use the name of the Church herself as a cloak for oppressing the Church? Would that the Succession which, they falsely allege had continued until this day: with us it would have no difficulty in obtaining the reverence which it deserves. Let the Pope, I say, be the successor of Peter, provided he perform the office of an Apostle. *Wherein does Succession consist, if it be not in perpetuity of doctrine?* But if the doctrine of the Apostles has been corrupted, nay, abolished and extinguished by those who would be regarded as their successors, who would not deride their foolish boasting? By the same kind of argument I might prove that all tyrants have been the best supporters of freedom, since there was an uninterrupted transition from the republic to their monarchy. Whether it now be so let fact determine. But our mediators purposely endeavor to prevent this estimate from being made, by raising a prejudice in favor of the doctrine from the honor which they bestow on the persons. _Selected Works of Calvin, Vol. 3, Tracts_, Part 3, pp. 243-245.

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* There remains now another question, namely, that there should be a legitimate *succession of persons* to give a due sanction to the ordination of pastors. Because I perceive, it to be of high importance, that nothing should be done irregularly in the church, lest thus a loose should be given to the capricious humor of each; and because it has been distinctly enjoined us by the Spirit of God, speaking through the mouth of St. Paul, that all things should be done decently, and in order, I am therefore of opinion that we should reverently study to have a regularly appointed ministry. Thus then right reason as well as the command of God shews that no one should rashly intrude into, nor any private person usurp the office of a pastor, but that the man selected by the judgment of the pastors, and presented to the flock with their own consent, should be approved of. Add to these conditions the solemn imposition of hands, which is called ordination. Respecting this one point alone the Papists, in wrangling so warmly with us, clearly demonstrate that they neglect the chief thing of all, which is the right of election. For with them there is so much indifference in testing the qualifications of the candidate that ordination is a mere show; add that it is at the same time a mockery of God — so much stress do they lay on the pomp of the ceremony — and not content with the ancient rite of the imposition of hands, they consecrate their priests by anointing them; a usage neither mentioned in the Scriptures, nor practiced traditionally in the apostolic church; but which, as they have derived it from the scum of Judaism, should be abolished, together with the other corrupt practices of Popery, wherever a purer form of religion shall prevail. But there is another superstition still more pernicious, which is that they ordain their priests not to the office of feeding and teaching the flock, but that with sacrilegious audacity they may arrogate to themselves, and usurp the privilege and office of Christ, while they institute them to celebrate the sacrifice of the mass by which they feign that God is propitiated. For which reason the whole Popish priesthood is not only an impious profanation of the true ministry, but an execrable contumely upon Christ; so that whosoever is a Popish priest cannot, till he abjure that title, be a servant of Christ. Thus, though according to their pretensions the character of the priestly office is indelible, yet nevertheless it behooves it to be eradicated and obliterated before the church of God can possess undefiled priests. The Popish priesthood is deservedly held in abhorrence of all pious men for another mark of infamy. For when according to the old canons, whosoever demands ordination of heretics or schismatics, is implicated in a charge of the same crime, your majesty is not ignorant what has been the character for many centuries of these mitered anointers. Now does not every one who desires to be admitted into their order indirectly consent to that disorder with which they are chargeable before God and angels? _Selected Works of Calvin, Vol. 6, Letters 1554-1558_, pp. 108-109. Letter 374 - To the King of Poland, December 5, 1554.

*John Calvin (1509-1564): *The question, however, is not yet resolved, because if it is not right that any persons whatever should without distinction aspire to the pastoral office, it follows as a necessary consequence that those should be duly called to it and instituted who wish to prove themselves legitimate pastors, and worthy of such an honor. And here I confess it were to be wished, that *an uninterrupted succession* lent us its sanction that the function itself were transmitted as it were from hand to hand. But let us keep in mind what I have already cursorily mentioned, that since purity of doctrine is the soul of a church, it is vain to look for the peculiar qualities of a church and whatever depends on the state of its purity, among those men who are beyond all question the avowed enemies of the gospel. But because by the tyranny of the Pope, the continuous line of ordination has been broken, a new expedient is requisite for the restoration of the Church. Vainly indeed do the Papists pride themselves on that chain, which, as I have said, they themselves have broken. For is the Papacy anything but a revolt from Christ? With what front, then, can apostates boast themselves successors? But God himself brings the remedy in raising up fitting and upright teachers to build up the church, now lying deformed among the ruins of Popery. And this office, which the Lord laid upon us when he made use of our services in collecting churches, is one that is altogether anomalous. Those then who in an unwonted manner, and so contrary to the expectations of men, appeared as the defenders of pure religion, ought not to have their vocation judged of by the common rule. They were divinely called for this special purpose, that churches being duly constituted, they might substitute other pastors in their own room. _Selected Works of Calvin, Vol. 6, Letters 1554-1558_, pp. 109-110. Letter 374 - To the King of Poland, December 5, 1554.

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* First, I ask them why they do not mention Africa, Egypt, and all Asia. The reason is that in all these districts *this sacred succession of bishops*, by virtue of which they boast that the churches have been maintained, has ceased to be. They therefore revert to the point that they have the true church because from its beginning it has not been destitute of bishops, for one has followed another in *unbroken succession*. But what if I confront them with Greece? I therefore ask them once more why they say that the church perished among the Greeks, among whom the *succession of bishops* (in their opinion the sole custodian and preserver of the church) has never been interrupted. They make the Greeks schismatics; with what right? Because in withdrawing from the apostolic see, they lost their privilege. What? Would not they who fall away from Christ deserve to lose it much more? *It therefore follows that this pretense of succession is vain unless their descendants conserve safe and uncorrupted the truth of Christ* which they have received at their fathers’ hands, and abide in it. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.II.2, p. 1043.

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* According to this reasoning, God denies that he is bound to wicked priests by the fact that he covenanted with their father Levi to be His angel or interpreter. Indeed, he turns back upon them that false glorying with which they habitually rose up against the prophets—that the dignity of the priesthood was to be held in peculiar esteem. God willingly admits this and disputes with them on the ground that he is ready to keep the covenant, but that when they do not reciprocate, they deserve to be repudiated. See what value this succession has, unless it also include a true and uninterrupted emulation on the part of the successors! For they, as soon as they are convicted of degenerating from their origin, are deprived of all honor [Malachi 2:1-9]. Unless, perhaps, because Caiaphas succeeded many devout priests (indeed, from Aaron to him there was an unbroken succession), that wicked assembly deserved the name “church”! Yet not even in earthly dominions was it tolerable that the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, or the like should be considered a true state of the commonwealth just because they succeeded a Brutus, a Scipio, or a Camillus. But especially in the organization of the church nothing is more absurd than to lodge the *succession in persons alone* to the exclusion of teaching. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.II.2, pp. 1044-1045.

*John Calvin (1509-1564): *Now all the people’s right in electing a bishop has been taken away. Votes, assent, subscriptions, and all their like have vanished; the whole power has been transferred to the canons alone. They confer the episcopate on whom they please; they introduce him directly before the people, but to be adored, not to be examined.
Yet Leo cries out that no reason allows this, and declares it a violent imposition. Cyprian, in testifying that only election by the people’s consent flows from divine right, shows that the contrary custom conflicts with God’s Word. Very many decrees of synods stringently forbid its being done otherwise, and, if it be done otherwise, declare it void. If these things are true, no canonical election remains today in the entire papacy either by divine or by ecclesiastical right. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.V.2, pp. 1085-1086.

*The Scot Confession of Faith 1569: Article XVIII: *It is ane thing maist requisite, that the true Kirk be decerned fra the filthie Synagogues, be cleare and perfite notes, least we being deceived, receive and imbrace, to our awin condemnation, the ane for the uther. The notes, signes, and assured takens whereby the immaculate Spouse of Christ Jesus is knawen fra the horrible harlot, the Kirk malignant, we affirme, are nouther Antiquitie, Title, usurpit, lineal Descence, Place appointed, nor multitude of men approving ane error.

*John Calvin (1509-1564):* These worthy men, when they see themselves overwhelmingly convicted and mortally wounded, tell us that no molestation must be given to the *Successors of the Apostles!* *But a knowledge of the fact is to be ascertained by a discussion of doctrine*, and to this we, trusting confidently in a good cause, voluntarily challenge them. To save themselves from answering, they wish to prejudge the very point in debate. Can it indeed be, that those who are in everything contrary to the Apostles, are able to prove merely by continuity of time that they hold the place and act as the Vicegerents of the Apostles? On the same pretext, one who, after murdering a man seizes on his house, might hold himself out as his representative!
The Papacy is much further distant from that mode of government which the Apostles recommend to us, than tyranny, however fierce and truculent, is from a free and well ordered state of liberty. Who would now bear a tyrant boasting the name of consular, or other lawful magistracy which he may have assumed? Not one whit less is the effrontery of those who, after overthrowing the sacred regimen, established both by the order of Christ and the practice of the Apostles,* yet claim succession* to it for their tyranny. For though the series of time were perfectly continuous, still if the Apostleship has fallen, (and this must be when the worship of God is torn asunder, the office of Christ buried, the light of doctrine extinguished, and the Sacraments polluted,) *what Succession can remain?* Unless perhaps it be, that as the heir succeeds to the dead, so these men think they have obtained the succession by the demise of godliness. But seeing they have completely changed the whole method of government, the chasm between them and the Apostles is too deep to allow of any intercommunication of right. To conclude this part of the subject in one word, I deny Succession to a thing which has no original. I likewise deny that the office of sacrificing, which they account the chief in their priesthood, ever flowed from the Apostles. Let them, therefore, look out for the founders of their order.
When under the same pretext they shut the mouths of all the pious who long for a revival of the Church, by telling them they are not duly called to the office of teaching, they gain nothing more than to let the whole world see that their tyranny cannot stand unless the truth is oppressed. It is true, indeed, that in a well ordered Church none are to be admitted to the office of teaching but those who have been called by the ordinary pastors. But what is this to the Papacy unless the power of Christ be transferred to Antichrist? The Apostles gave endeavor, as was meet, to propagate the Church to posterity. For this purpose they ordained pastors elected by the suffrages of the people. Afterwards, along with purity of doctrine, the just method of electing became obsolete. Will none now be a proper minister of Christ save he who has crept in by corruption?
The *Succession* which they so haughtily arrogate to themselves I have already rescued from them. Let us remember, besides, that since, by their inauguration, they make Priests, not Pastors, all who submit to ordination by their hand are tied down to sacrilege. Shall none, then, be able to come forward, except under wicked and detestable auspices, to advance the kingdom of Christ? Nay, they say how much soever all things may have gone to wreck, let no man who is not called interfere. I have already observed that wherever the state of the Church is safe, or at least tolerable, an ordinary call is requisite. But is a law, therefore, laid upon God, and may not he extraordinarily, by his Spirit, raise up prophets and other ministers to restore his fallen and ruined Church? But they say the perpetuity of the Church will never suffer this to happen. I indeed admit that the Church can never perish. But when that which is promised concerning the perpetual character of the Church is by them referred to Pastors, they err exceedingly. Though pastors were wanting the Church would not forthwith cease to be. Then, indeed, I admit, it truly stands and flourishes when the sheep are collected into one sheepfold, which can only be by the exertion of shepherds. But experience teaches that the sheep, though scattered, are sometimes preserved by the secret power of God. John Calvin, _The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and Reforming the Church_ (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995), pp. 272-273.

*William Whitaker (1547-1595) on apostolic succession: *...though we should concede the *succession* of that church to have been unbroken and entire, yet that succession would be a matter of no weight; because we regard not the external succession of places or persons, but the internal one of faith and doctrine. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 510.


----------



## Jon Lake (Feb 4, 2009)

DTK beat me to the punch (well stated) a number of the reformers including Calvin wrote of Apostolic Succession, but they only attacked the Romish notion of it as this "Tag you are it" framework, the Bible never uses the term Apostolic Succession, but within a BIBLICAL framework, I do not "object" in the sense of the teaching of Christ and His Apostles being handled and handed on faithfully. That delivered once to the Saints.


----------



## PresbyDane (Feb 4, 2009)




----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 4, 2009)

David,

Can you confirm something for me because I have not read very much of the early Church Fathers but, from what I understand, the nascent appeals to Apostolic succession against the heretics in the second centuries dealt with the idea of passing down what the Apostles taught rather then some sort of inherent passing of authority.

I've been taught that Cyprian was the first Church Father to apply Matthew 16 in the way that Rome does today but, in his case, he applied the authority as residing in the Episcopate and not in the Bishop of Rome.


----------



## MW (Feb 4, 2009)

It was argued that the teaching of the church can be shown to be apostolic because of the succession of men which stood in the apostolic line. It is not necessary to concede the high episcopalian claim of "magisterial tradition" that is often based on it, but it seems clear that the fathers confidently appealed at least to an unbroken "ministerial tradition" which could be traced back to the apostles, and which served in some sense to confirm their claim to be the apostolic church.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 4, 2009)

This all ties in with the fascinating concept of the "rule of faith" whereby the Apostles handed down the doctrine of the Church which was necessary in the absence of the canon being recognised. This "rule of faith" is the purest form of church tradition that is on parity with the Bible when it comes to authority.

Of course no one knows exactly what the full contents of this "rule of faith" was and we have no need to know as God has given us his Scriptures that contains much the same teachings, and indeed which were initially interpreted according to this Apastolic teaching.

In many ways the true Apatolic succession was not through a line of bishops but to the Bible, the key factor that weighed in the mind of the Church when recognising the canon was the Apostolic authority contained in the various manuscripts. 

I dearly love mathisons book and it is tragic how many have misused the reformation to reject any notion of the authority of tradition or the Apostles.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 4, 2009)

Mega-Ditto's to Semper's post above. I've read alot of the Church fathers. Eusebius, for one, has lists, but uses it to establish apostolic teaching as opposed to the heretics. The heretics were trying to claim 'special' knowlege passed from Jesus, and used a list of people. Eusebius shows that their list of people were made up of unkown's and base heretics.


----------



## Jon Lake (Feb 4, 2009)

Grymir said:


> Mega-Ditto's to Semper's post above. I've read alot of the Church fathers. Eusebius, for one, has lists, but uses it to establish apostolic teaching as opposed to the heretics. The heretics were trying to claim 'special' knowlege passed from Jesus, and used a list of people. Eusebius shows that their list of people were made up of unkown's and base heretics.


Thanks Tim! I have a set of reference books and was going to check that, you saved me from getting out of my recliner! (Hey! I have a good CD in I'm comfy. Nice.)


----------



## DTK (Feb 4, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Can you confirm something for me because I have not read very much of the early Church Fathers but, from what I understand, the nascent appeals to Apostolic succession against the heretics in the second centuries dealt with the idea of passing down what the Apostles taught rather then some sort of inherent passing of authority.



Sometimes the ECFs intended *both* uses, the passing down of teaching and authority, but in the *second century* the use does seem to be restricted to the passing down of teaching. But one has to question some of the facts of the tradition as Irenaeus received it, especially since he insists that Jesus must have been close to 50 years of age when Christ was crucified, which fits his recapitulation theory of the atonement. He claims that this fact (the age of Christ at the time of His death) was "transmitted" as apostolic teaching/tradition.



Semper Fidelis said:


> I've been taught that Cyprian was the first Church Father to apply Matthew 16 in the way that Rome does today but, in his case, he applied the authority as residing in the Episcopate and not in the Bishop of Rome.



Rich, please think carefully about your question and tell me if you worded it as carefully as you intended, because Cyprian could not have applied it "in the way that Rome does today" if he viewed "the authority as residing in the Episcopate and not in the Bishop of Rome."

Pope Stephen (Cyprian's opponent in the dispute over the rebaptism of the lapsed) was the first to apply Matthew 16 in the way that Rome does today around the middle of the third century.

It is true that Cyprian viewed ecclesial authority as residing in the episcopate, which he (Cyprian) equated with "the chair of Peter." Cyprian stated that Peter is the "rock" in Matthew 16, but he viewed Christ's words to Peter to be a symbol of unity, i.e., figuratively representing all the bishops of the Church. Cyprian believed that the Church was founded, not upon a single bishop in a single see (chair), but on all bishops equally and collegially.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Feb 5, 2009)

Dear Jacob,

Unfortunately there is no definitive work that refutes apostolic succession. J. N. D. Kelly's _Early Christian Doctrines_ is a good place to see how the idea developed. Apostolic succession evolved over the years, and what is crucial is the original contexts in which it grew.

What many misunderstand is why the doctrine arose in the first place. The reason is that 2nd century Gnosticism claimed that they had a secret tradition that went back to the apostles.

In response to this claim Irenaeus traced a succession of bishops back to Rome, because Rome was where Peter and Paul died, and hence was a place of certain pure doctrine. He did this to show that there was no such secret doctrine that had been passed on. Irenaeus went so far as to say that the Holy Spirit protects the bishops so that true doctrine is passed on.

When we see the context, we can understand how people can read later ideas of "apostolic succession" back into Irenaeus. However, there are significant differences in Irenaeus' teaching to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Anglo-Catholicism:

[1] Irenaeus also believed that true doctrine was safeguarded by presbyters, not just bishops.

[2] He traces the line back to Rome not because Peter was the first Pope and had special authority, but because both Peter and Paul died there (in his mind anyway) and thus the doctrine would've been pure there.

[3] Irenaeus clearly taught that Scripture was both clear (any human could discover the basic message of salvation themselves in Scripture) and sufficient (all that is needed for salvation is in Scripture), and thus by implication the episcopate is not absolutely necessary for salvation.

[4] Irenaeus' doctrine of the church is that one is a member via beilef in right doctrine (after baptism).

The reason why Cyprian was a significant step forward in formulating a more developed understanding of apostolic succession, is because of his context: the Novatianist schism at Carthage (and also at Rome). Whilst Cyprian was in hiding during the persecutions the Novatianists set up a rival church. This church believed all the same things as the "catholic" church of Cyprian, so Irenaeus' ecclesiology (membership according to belief) wasn't sufficient to refute the Novatianists. Hence, Cyprian developed the idea that one cannot be in the "catholic" church unless they are in communion with their local bishop (which happened to be Cyprian!). Thus to justify the importance of the local bishop he argued the novelty that they were successors to the apostles (not an idea in Irenaeus).

The papacy, of course, would take much longer to develop, and didn't look at all like the modern papacy until the 11th century under the influence of Hildebrand (who became Pope Gregory VII).

Hope this helps brother,

Marty.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 5, 2009)

DTK said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I've been taught that Cyprian was the first Church Father to apply Matthew 16 in the way that Rome does today but, in his case, he applied the authority as residing in the Episcopate and not in the Bishop of Rome.
> ...



Thank you for refining that.


----------

