Evangelical Answers

The phrase “apostolic succession” admits of two distinct senses. The first, “ecclesiastical” apostolic succession, denotes a succession of persons and places—an external, historical continuation of office-holders and of those who consecrate them. The second, “doctrinal” apostolic succession, denotes a succession of truths—the unbroken transmission of the same faith and teaching which the apostles delivered “once for all” (Jude 3). Only the latter is essential. A succession of persons, however meticulously traced, establishes nothing if the doctrine is altered.

The true apostolic Church is, as ST. PAUL affirms, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20)—that is, upon their writings. It is the Scriptures alone which are, as IRENAEUS rightly states, “the ground and pillar of our faith” (ANF, 1:414). It is the Scriptures alone that enable us to determine whether we stand as successors of the apostles—for only therein do we possess their doctrine. It is the Gospel itself, as IRENAEUS observes, that is “the pillar and ground of the Church” (ANF, 1:428). We are therefore called to the example of the Bereans, who “examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). To those who claim the seats of the apostles we reply, with AQUINAS, that “we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings” (Truth, 2:258). We affirm, with JEROME, that “the Church does not consist in walls, but in the truths of her teachings. The Church is there where there is true faith” (FC, 48:344).

Those who insist upon an “ecclesiastical” succession seek to prove the faith by the persons who occupy the office. Those who insist upon a “doctrinal” succession, by contrast, require, with TERTULLIAN, that the persons be proved by their faith (ANF, 3:244).

i.2. The Fathers of the Church (cf. § 2) Return to Outline

The Fathers consistently define the Church by the presence of true faith and apostolic teaching rather than by mere institutional office. We who maintain that apostolic succession is a succession of doctrine therefore affirm with the DIDACHE that “wherever the Lord’s nature is preached, there the Lord is” (AF, 349, 351); with IGNATIUS that “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church” (AF, 255); with IRENAEUS that “where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace” (ANF, 1:458); with CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA that “it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church” (ANF, 2:530); and with AMBROSE that one must “make careful enquiry as to whether a church is of the true Faith. If Christ dwells in it, you need have no hesitation in choosing it” (PL, 15:1685).

Those who insist upon ecclesiastical succession claim that grace depends upon the place (that is, the office). We reply with GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, that “the Grace [of God] does not come of a place, but of the Spirit” (NPNF2, 7:369); and with ATHANASIUS that “they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?” (NPNF2, 4:550–551).

They claim to be the heirs of the apostles. We answer with TERTULLIAN that we are the heirs of the apostles (ANF, 3:261), since “we hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.” (ANF, 3:252–253).

They assert that they are successors of the apostles because they sit in the places of the apostles. We reply with JEROME that “they are not the sons of the saints, who hold the places of the saints, but those who carry out their works (PL, 187:214); with CLAUDIUS OF TURIN that “the one who is to be called apostolic is not the man who sits in the apostle’s chair, but the one who fulfills the apostolic office” (PL, 105:464); and with PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM that “every Christian who receives Peter’s word becomes Peter’s throne, and Peter sits in it; so too are the thrones of all the apostles those who have received and hold within themselves the doctrine of all the apostles” (PG, 56:814).

They declare that we went out from them. We respond with PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM: “rather, however, they went out from us, as John explains (1 John 2:19). Who is said to go out from the Church? For it does not seem that the one who leaves bodily goes out from the Church, but the one who spiritually abandons the foundations of ecclesiastical truth. For we went out from them in body, but they from us in soul. We went out from them in place, they from us in faith. We left with them the foundations of the walls, they left with us the foundations of the Scriptures. We departed from them according to the sight of men, but they from us according to the judgment of God” (PG, 56:896).

We maintain with AUGUSTINE that “whether they themselves hold the Church, let them demonstrate it from no other source than the canonical Books of the divine Scriptures” (PL, 43:430); and with CHRYSOSTOM: “What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule” (NPNF1, 11:210–211).

All these things we say with the Fathers. Yet why do we say them? Because the Fathers said them? We affirm with BASIL THE GREAT, “what our fathers said, we repeat… but we are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of Scripture” (PPS, 42:34); and with AUGUSTINE, we “do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason” (NPNF1, 1:350). Therefore, “come now, and let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18).

i.3. The Nature of the Apostolic Office (cf. § 3) Return to Outline

The apostolic office, as set forth in the New Testament, was by its very nature exceptional, temporary, and non-renewable, and therefore incapable of transmission to later bishops or prelates. The Apostles formed a definite and limited company of men personally selected by Christ (Gal. 1:1) to serve as His authoritative witnesses—to His doctrines, the facts of His life, death, and resurrection (Acts 1:21–22). The indispensable qualifications for this office included: a complete knowledge of the gospel received by immediate revelation rather than secondary instruction (Gal. 1:12); a direct experience of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8); inspiration from the Holy Spirit, such that their teaching was to be received as the word of Christ Himself (1 Cor. 14:37); and divine authentication through ministerial success, and the performance of “signs and wonders and mighty works” (2 Cor. 12:12; cf. Gal. 2:8; 1 Cor. 9:2). St. Paul, when compelled to vindicate his own apostleship, repeatedly appealed to precisely these credentials.

Modern claimants to episcopal succession possess none of these gifts or credentials—no direct commission, no independent revelation, no personal infallibility, no immediate experience of the risen Lord, and no miraculous authentication.

“That is, they claim the authority of the office, but not its reality. It is very plain, therefore, that they are not apostles. They cannot have the authority of the office without having the gifts on which that authority was founded, and from which it emanated. If a man cannot be a prophet without the gift of prophecy; or a miracle-worker without the gift of miracles; or have the gift of tongues without the ability to speak other languages than his own; no man can rightfully claim to be an apostle without possessing the gifts which made the original Apostles what they were. The deaf and dumb might as reasonably claim to have the gift of tongues” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:140).

Authority in the apostolate was inseparable from the extraordinary endowments that constituted it; without those endowments the claim to the office is empty.

The sacred Scriptures plainly declare that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20). A foundation, however, by its very nature, can be laid only once; it does not, and can not, repeat itself (1 Cor. 4:15). Nor is there any necessity for such a repetition.

“For though the men were removed one after another, their place was taken, under a superintending Providence, by their writings, in which, though dead, they yet speak. The New Testament Scriptures are the only real Apostolate which the Church now possesses; and, we may add, the only one which is suitable to the spiritual constitution of the Church, as the temple of the Holy Ghost. In every Christian society which is in a healthy state Matthew, John, Paul, Peter still decide points of doctrine, order its affairs, and preside in its councils with undisputed authority” (Litton, Dogmatic Theology, 389).

In their ordinary ministerial functions of preaching and pastoral care the apostles serve as the prototypes of all subsequent ministry. “In this sense it is true that no ministry deserves the name of Christian which is not Apostolical or derived from the Apostles” (Litton, Dogmatic Theology, 389). However, the claim of modern prelates to inherit the unique authority of the apostolic office is a fundamental misapprehension of its nature. The office was, from the beginning, non-transferable and has not been perpetuated.

i.4. The Silence of the Scriptures (cf. § 4) Return to Outline

Scripture supplies neither command nor provision for the continuation of the office of apostle. In contrast to every permanent office of the Church—for which Scripture furnishes both a promise of continued gifts, a command to appoint, specified qualifications, a record of installation, and historical continuity—the apostleship lacks every such provision. After the original company the office simply disappears from the New Testament record.

The weight of this silence is further compounded by the fact that St. Luke is demonstrably familiar with the technical terminology of succession. He employs διαδεξάμενοι (“having received by succession”) in Acts 7:45 of the fathers who successively received the tabernacle and brought it in under Joshua, and διάδοχος (“successor”) in Acts 24:27 of Porcius Festus as the successor of Felix. Yet he nowhere applies this language—or any equivalent concept of office-transmission—to Christian leaders, the apostolic college, or the transfer of ecclesiastical authority. This silence is particularly telling within a narrative that records the death of an apostle (James, Acts 12:2), the appointment of elders, and the extension of the church’s leadership, yet consistently refrains from framing any such transition in the vocabulary of succession that Luke himself deploys in both Israelite and Roman contexts.

The absence of any explicit scriptural commands for the perpetuation of the apostolate (apostolic office) does not, of itself, necessarily exclude the possibility of ecclesiastical apostolic succession. Nevertheless, the complete silence of the apostolic writings regarding any such continuation carries considerable weight. A doctrine to which the Roman and Eastern Churches assign such fundamental importance—one upon which, they hold, the validity of the sacraments and the very constitution of the Church depend—would, if true, almost certainly have been set forth explicitly and with some regularity by Christ and His apostles. The lack of any such exposition constitutes a significant argument against the validity of the doctrine.

i.5. The Office of Presbyter/Overseer (cf. § 5) Return to Outline

The terms presbyter/elder (πρεσβύτερος) and overseer/bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) were used interchangeably by the earliest Christian writers and were synonymous in meaning—that is, there were not two distinct offices, but only one; the presbyter/elder was an overseer/bishop and vice versa. Given the fairly overwhelming nature of the evidence—e.g., Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1–2; Philippians 1:1, cf. 1 Timothy 3:1, 8, 5:17; Titus 1:5–7; 1 Clement, 44.1–6; Didache, 15.1, cf. 1 Clement, 42.4–5; Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 5.3; The Shepherd of Hermas, vision 2.4.3 [8.3], cf. 3.5.1 [13.1]; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 4.26.2, cf. Eusebius, Church History, 5.24.14; Clement, Stromata, 7.1; Cyprian, Epistle 5.4 and 40.1 (Oxford ed. Ep. 14 and 44)—this has been generally acknowledged by the vast majority of academic historians, irrespective of denominational affiliation. It has also been acknowledged by the vast majority of learned men throughout the history of the Church—e.g., Ambrosiaster, In epistolam b. Pauli ad Ephesios (4:11–12); John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians, 1 (1:1–2); Pelagius, In epistolam ad Philippenses (1:1–2); Jerome, Letter 69.3, 146.1–2, and Commentary on Titus, 1.5b; Theodore of Mopsuestia, In epistolas b. Pauli commentarii (Phil. 1:1–2); Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio epistolæ ad Philippenses (2:25); Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum, 7.12.20; Bernold of Constance, De presbyterorum officio tractatus, 4; Peter Lombard, Sentences, 4.24.11 (4.24.9 in Migne).

Given that the earliest evidence shows presbyters and overseers/bishops constituting a single, undifferentiated office, the monarchical episcopate—that is, the modern episcopal form of government found in Rome and the Eastern Churches—cannot be the office through which apostolic succession is transmitted, since no office distinct from and superior to the presbyterate existed at the time when the succession is said to begin, that is, with the apostles themselves. Rather, what later evolved into a threefold hierarchy (bishops, presbyters, and deacons) was a development of ecclesiastical custom arising after the apostolic age rather than a structure originating in it.

i.6. The Congregational Nature of the Episcopacy/Presbytery (cf. § 6). Return to Outline

For at least the first five centuries of the Church, bishops and presbyters were appointed by the local congregation, not by other bishops or presbyters—e.g., Didache, 15.1; Canons of the Church of Alexandria (wrongly ascribed to Hippolytus), canon 2 (of bishops); Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.4; Cyprian, Epistle 5.4, 54.6, and 67.3–5 (Oxford ed. Ep. 14, 59, and 67); Eusebius, Church History, 6.29.3–4; Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 21.8; Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 22; Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians, 1.2.30; Priscillian of Ávila, Tractatus undecim, tractatus II (CSEL, 18:40); Leo the Great, Letter 10.6, 13.3, 14.6, and 167.3.

While this congregational nature of appointment is not an argument per se (in itself) against the concept of ecclesiastical apostolic succession generally, it does certainly militate strongly against the view held by the modern Roman and Eastern Churches. If congregational involvement of this kind was, through much of the patristic period, not a mere formality but an essential condition of a valid and canonical appointment, then ecclesiastical legitimacy cannot be located solely in an unbroken episcopal succession transmitted from cleric to cleric, apart from the congregation. Rather, the evidence suggests that apostolic continuity was understood, for most of the patristic age, to run through the whole body of the local church, clergy and laity together, rather than through a closed clerical succession reproducing itself independently of the community’s active choice.

i.7. Issues of Historical Succession (cf. § 7) Return to Outline

Ecclesiastical apostolic succession cannot serve as a reliable mark of the true Church, for such offices have frequently belonged to heretics. Scripture repeatedly testifies that false teachers and even Antichrist will arise from within the ordinary administration of Church officers (2 Pet. 2:1; 2 Thess. 2:4; Acts 20:29–30; 1 Tim. 4:1–3). The high priests Annas and Caiaphas were the successors of Aaron. The scribes and Pharisees were the successors of the fathers and the interpreters of the law. Likewise, in the fourth century the Arians succeeded the orthodox in numerous sees—including Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople—holding the buildings, the titles, and the external succession while standing outside the apostolic faith. Parallel cases appear with Nestorius, Dioscorus, and others who occupied apostolic chairs. In none of these instances did the chair confer holiness or authority upon the occupant.

i.8. Historical Uncertainty (cf. § 8) Return to Outline

The claim that membership in Christ’s Church, and heirship of the covenant promises, depend upon subjection to a ministry ordained in an unbroken episcopal succession from the Apostles is historically untenable. No minister in Christendom can establish his own spiritual pedigree with anything approaching certainty. Moreover, the recorded disorders of the medieval period—child bishops, illiterate, drunken, and profligate clergy, violent intrusions into sees, and a reckless disregard of canonical form—render any such unbroken regularity highly improbable, if not impossible. For a single undetected irregularity in consecration or ordination would, on this principle, invalidate every subsequent link in the chain.

The practical force of this historical difficulty is compounded by the existence of mutually exclusive claims to an unbroken personal succession. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and various Anglo-Catholic and Old Catholic bodies have each historically maintained the authenticity of their own line while frequently denying the validity of the others. If personal ecclesiastical succession were both a genuine and an exclusive mark of the Church, the criterion would prove self-defeating in practice: claims that directly contradict one another cannot all satisfy the same exclusive mark. Consequently, the question—Which of these mutually contradictory claims to succession is the true one?—remains unanswered.

i.9. Ontology—the Nature of Being (cf. § 9) Return to Outline

The Church’s authority and validity rest not on its own primitive form or subsequent development, but on the solid, unchanging foundation of Christ, attested by the apostles in the sacred Scriptures (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 13:8). The apostles were sent by Christ as His authorized witnesses and organs (John 20:21; Acts 1:8), and the faith they delivered was once for all (Jude 3), to be transmitted through faithful teaching (2 Tim. 2:2) and preserved in the canonical apostolic writings (2 Tim. 3:16–17). To invert this order—that is, to derive the Church’s validity from the ecclesiastical body itself rather than from Christ—is akin to attempting to support a great building by balancing it upon its own highest point rather than upon its proper foundation, an inversion that is not only structurally untenable but also fundamentally impossible, for it mistakes the Church’s derived authority for its divine source and attributes to the Church’s temporal manifestations a primacy that belongs only to the eternal reality of Christ.

i.10. Christology—the Nature of Christ—and Pneumatology—the Nature of the Holy Spirit (cf. § 10) Return to Outline

The Church’s ministry belongs to Christ Himself, not to an office He instituted and then vacated. As prophet, priest, and king (Acts 3:22; Heb. 7:17; Luke 1:32–33), Christ Himself reveals, reconciles, and rules; these acts bring the Church into being, restore it to God, and preserve it under His rule. This is a present reality, not a past achievement: the risen and ascended Christ remains actively present to His Church now (Matt. 18:20; 28:20). Taking this seriously means rejecting the assumption that Christ resigned His ministry to the Church at the ascension, leaving human ministers as its true agents. Without a living doctrine of Christ’s present action—and so of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13–14)—human ministry risks usurping His role. To ground apostolicity in ecclesiastical succession is to confine Christ’s bearing on ministry to a past commission and reduce the Holy Spirit’s role to a power mechanically passed down through ordination, rather than a gift freely and continually given (John 3:8; 1 Cor. 12:11). The failure is twofold: Christologically, neglect of the resurrection and Christ’s ongoing activity (Heb. 7:23–25); pneumatologically, treating the Holy Spirit’s gifts as fixed possessions rather than living, relational events.

i.11. Soteriology—the Nature of Salvation (cf. § 11) Return to Outline

MARIUS VICTORINUS asserts: “For faith itself alone grants justification and sanctification. Thus any flesh whatsoever—Jews or those from the Gentiles—is justified on the basis of faith, not works or observance of the Jewish Law” (PL, 8:1164–1165); and BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX writes: “Therefore the man who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for justice, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, he will have peace with God” (PL, 183:881). If these authorities are to be believed, then the highest spiritual blessings are accessible solely through the appropriation of faith. Such a truth cannot be reconciled with any theory that restricts the ordinary channels of grace to a particular local or temporal ecclesiastical office or institution. Yet the full truth of that question lies beyond the scope of the present argument. We, however, stand with CHRYSOSTOM, “they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed” (NPNF1, 13:26).

i.12. The Priesthood of All Believers (cf. § 12) Return to Outline

Scripture attributes the royal priesthood to the whole body of the faithful, not to a caste set apart within it (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10). The ministerial office is therefore not a rival priesthood, wielding exclusive mediatorial powers by personal succession, but an ordered function within that one priesthood, instituted for the public ministry of the Word and sacraments. To make the validity of ministry or the efficacy of the sacraments depend upon an unbroken ecclesiastical chain is, in effect, to reinstate a mediating priesthood set apart from the common priesthood of believers—an arrangement foreign to the New Testament and contrary to the unity of Christ’s body.

If ecclesiastical apostolic succession were required as the sole guarantee of sacramental grace, the Church would cease to function as a living, unified body of believers. It would instead be reduced to two distinct and wholly separate classes: a clergy that dispenses grace and a laity that receives it. Such a view would transform the organic, unified body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12–27) into a two-tiered caste system.

We say with TERTULLIAN, ‘Are not even we laics [lay-persons] priests? It is written: “A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us.” …But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith’ (ANF, 4:54).

i.13. The Word of God (cf. § 13) Return to Outline

Wherever the Word of God is proclaimed, the genuine people of God must necessarily be present, however few in number, for the divine promise ensures that the Word does not return empty (Isa. 55:11; John 10:27; Acts 13:46–49) but always gathers and sustains some portion of what is sown (Matt. 13:3–23; Mark 4:3–20; Luke 8:4–15). Scripture and the Church stand in reciprocal dependence: the proclaimed Word cannot exist apart from a people to hear and receive it, nor can the people of God exist apart from the Word that creates, nourishes, and preserves them (Rom. 1:16; 10:13–17; Gal. 3:2, 5; 1 Thes. 2:13; 1 Cor. 1:18; 3:5–9; 4:15; Eph. 2:19–20; 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:23–25; Jam. 1:18; John 6:63; Acts 20:32). Consequently, the presence of this ministry renders the existence of the Church certain, for Christ himself promises to be present where two or three gather in his name (Matt. 18:20; 28:20); while its removal entails the church’s dissolution, as the extinction of prophetic vision scatters the people (Prov. 29:18; Amos 8:11–12; Hos. 4:6).

i.14. Experience (cf. § 14) Return to Outline

Lastly, we must consider the practical results produced by non-episcopal Churches throughout the world. The great majority of missionary labor is carried on by such Churches, and many of them exhibit clear evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit in the fruitfulness of their members (Matt. 7:17–20). The dilemma from the perspective of the Roman and Eastern Churches is:

“How are we to account for these facts when we consider such questions as to whether episcopacy is of the esse [being] or bene esse [well-being] of the Church? How are we to explain the marvellous development of Churches which have no episcopate, and therefore, on this view, no channel of grace? To ordinary observers it would seem to be impossible that by a theory of Apostolic Succession millions of the most intelligent and devoted followers of Christ in the world are to be cut off from any real recognition as part of the true Catholic Church. If the presence of the Holy Spirit is so manifest among these non-episcopal Christians, how can they possibly be rebellious against the will of God?” (Thomas, Principles of Theology, 334–335).

Our Lord Himself expressly declared that “no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit” (Luke 6:44–45), and again, “you will know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:20). If this test, laid down by our Lord, is applied to non-episcopal Christianity, how can it be maintained, with any degree of intellectual honesty, that such communions are not at least the equals of their episcopal counterparts? To say otherwise, that is,

‘to say there is no piety and no salvation out of the papal or prelatic Church, is very much like doing despite unto the Spirit of God; it is to say of multitudes of true Christians, what the Pharisees said of our Lord; “They cast out devils by Beelzebub, the chief of devils.” That is, it is denying the well-authenticated work of the Spirit, and attributing to some other and some evil source, what is really the operation of the Holy Ghost. Wherever the Spirit of God is, there the Church is; and as the Spirit is not only within, but without all external Church organizations, so the Church itself cannot be limited to any visible society’ (Hodge, Discussions, 27).

1. Prolegomena Return to Outline

Alexander Pope:

A little learning is a dang’rous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

And drinking largely sobers us again.

[Alexander Pope, “An Essay on Criticism,” II.215–218, in Frederick Ryland, Pope’s Essay on Criticism (London: Blackie & Son, Limited, 1900), 7.]

1.1. Distinctions Return to Outline

Herman Bavinck:

The fourth attribute of the church is its apostolicity. According to Rome, it is entitled to claim this attribute because it was founded by the apostles and agrees in its doctrine, organization, and ministry with those of the apostles, but especially because its office-bearers [officeholders] are the successors, in an unbroken line, of the apostles and received their power and authority from those who themselves in turn received it in lawful succession from the apostles. In this connection the first meaning is totally subordinate to the second. It is not the word of the apostles, that is, Holy Scripture, that decides which church is apostolic, that is, agrees with the teaching of the apostles; but conversely, it is the church that descends by an unbroken line of succession from the apostles that decides what is apostolic, that is, what the doctrine of the apostles is.

[Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), § 496, p. 323.]

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963), 337.]

Johann Gerhard:

190. First Member. Whether succession is a true and proper mark of the Church.

Succession is of two kinds: one of places and persons, the other of doctrine. The former may be called external, the latter internal. The succession of places and persons is a certain external and mutable accident [i.e., non-essential, or, of outward appearance], and avails nothing apart from the succession of doctrine; but the succession of doctrine is proper to the true Church. “It is not persons stepping into the place of others that constitutes succession, but rather the perpetual consensus of doctrine, which joins those who come later to those who came before by the bond of faith”—as Gelasius rightly writes in his Commentary on Irenaeus, Book 3, chapter 3. [190. Membrum primum. Sitne successio vera et propria ecclesiae nota. Duplex est successio, una quidem locorum et personarum, altera doctrinae. Illam vocare possis externam, hanc vero internam. Successio locorum et personarum est accidens quoddam externum et mutabile, nec quidquam valet absque doctrinae successione, doctrinae autem successio est verae ecclesiae propria. Personae aliae in aliorum locum subeuntes non faciunt successionem, sed perpetuus doctrinae consensus, qui fidei vinculo posteriores prioribus conjungit, ut recte scribit Gelasius in comment. lib. 3. Irenaei c. 3.]

[Johann Gerhard, Loci theologici cum pro adstruenda veritate tum pro destruenda quorumvis contradicentium falsitate per theses nervose solide et copiose explicati, vol. 5, ed. Ed. Preuss (Berolini: Gust. Schlawitz, 1867), 22.5.190, p. 435.]

Francis Turretin:

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.13.28, p. 108.]

1.2. The Foundation Return to Outline

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

(d) What is the meaning of Apostolicity? There are only two tests: (1) continuous succession; (2) primitive truth. The first is impossible, since there are gaps which cannot be covered by any knowledge we possess. Besides, by itself it would be no guarantee of genuine adherence to Apostolic truth and life. The second is verifiable, since we have the New Testament, which represents the Apostolic teaching. This is why we are able to speak of the Church as “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963), 277.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down [tradiderunt, traditioned] to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.1.1, in ANF, 1:414; PG, 7:844.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

…the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life [columna autem et firmamentum Ecclesiæ est Evangelium et spiritus vitæ]...

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.11.8, in ANF, 1:428; PG, 7:885.]

William Goode:

(1) The Apostolical Succession, in the sense of a succession of persons only, does not secure to a Church soundness in the fundamentals of the faith, and that those who have not the latter, though they have the former, are to be avoided.

(2) That the only absolutely essential point is doctrinal succession, or the holding the same faith the Apostles did; and that where that faith is held, there, though perhaps labouring under irregularities and imperfections in other respects, Christ’s Church is to be found, and consequently the presence of his Spirit.

[William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 2 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 338.]

Note: True apostolic succession is the succession of apostolic doctrine, not the succession of an ecclesiastical office.

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

The Church does not consist in walls, but in the truths of her teachings. The Church is there where there is true faith. As a matter of fact, fifteen and twenty years ago, all the church buildings belonged to heretics [i.e., the Arians], for heretics twenty years ago were in possession of them; but the true Church was there where the true faith was.

[Jerome of Stridon, Homilies on the Psalms, Homily 46 (on Psalm 133 [134]), in FC, 48:344; PL, 26:1223.]

Cf. Francis Turretin:

For the church is not to be sought in walls and temples, but in doctrines. The church is where true faith is.

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.13.28, p. 108.]

William Whitaker:

...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. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1849), 510.]

Cf. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274 A.D.):

…we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.

[Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, q. 14 a. 10 ad 11, in St. Thomas Aquinas, Truth, vol. 2, Questions X–XX, trans. James V. McGlynn, S.J. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), 258.]

Johann Gerhard:

The Papists prove the faith from persons—namely, from the personal succession of the bishops—whereas we say that the persons are to be proved from the faith. [Pontificii probant fidem ex personis, scilicet ex personali episcoporum successione, nos vero ex fide probandas dicimus personas.]

Cf. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

Do we prove the faith [i.e., the creed] by the persons, or the persons by the faith [Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas]?

[Tertullian of Carthage, The Prescription Against Heretics, 3, in ANF, 3:244; PL, 2:15.]

Cf. Charles Elliott:

Romanists prove their faith from persons; that is, from the personal succession of their prelates; but Protestants, with Tertullian, maintain that the persons are to be approved of by their faith.

[Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, vol. 2, (New York: G. Lane & P. P. Sanford, 1842), 73.]

1.3. Criterion for Assessing Validity Return to Outline

Leon Morris:

In estimating the weight of this evidence it must be borne in mind that advocates of the theory we are examining do not regard it as simply the most likely reading of the evidence. They regard it as proved beyond reasonable doubt, and they draw inferences from it remorselessly. All those outside the succession they regard as having an invalid or at best a doubtful ministry. ‘Without the succession the ministry is no ministry’ says Bishop Kirk simply.

Unless this theory can be regarded as proven right up to the hilt it is useless for the purposes for which it is required.

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 121.]

Cf. J. E. Lesslie Newbigin:

When a man speaks to us of things which he deems so vital to the redemption of the world that he can place them alongside the Gospel, and demands in their name the excommunication of great parts of Christ’s Church, he must speak a language of like assurance. There are places where historical probability is all we have a right to look for; but here, surely, we are in a realm where probability is not enough. Here we need something as sure as the Cross and the empty tomb.

[J. E. Lesslie Newbigin, The Reunion of the Church: A Defence of the South India Scheme (London: SCM Press, 1948), 157.]

1.4. The Church Return to Outline

Gavin Ortlund:

By defining the church as wherever Christ is present in word and sacrament, Protestantism enables us to recognize true Christians and true churches within multiple institutional expressions of the church. This is not only the more generous position to adopt toward other Christians today, it is also the one that is most faithful to the New Testament’s witness for how we discern Christ’s presence and activity in his church (Matt. 7:15–20; 12:22–33; Mark 9:38–41; 1 Cor. 12:3).

[Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2024), 219.]

John Calvin:

Now, if you can bear to receive a truer definition of the Church than your own, say, in future, that it is the society of all the saints, a society which, spread over the whole world, and existing in all ages, yet bound together by the one doctrine, and the one Spirit of Christ, cultivates and observes unity of faith and brotherly concord. With this Church we deny that we have any disagreement. Nay, rather, as we revere her as our mother, so we desire to remain in her bosom.

[John Calvin, “Reply to Cardinal Sadolet’s Letter,” in Tracts Relating to the Reformation, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1844), p. 37.]

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit…

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1.10.1, in ANF, 1:330; PG, 7:550.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

…the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1.10.3, in ANF, 1:331–332; PG, 7:559.]

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 A.D.):

…we say that the holy Scriptures declare the body of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to be the whole Church of God, and the members of this body—considered as a whole—to consist of those who are believers; since, as a soul vivifies and moves the body, which of itself has not the natural power of motion like a living being, so the Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the Church, to befitting action, awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the Church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word.

[Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus, 6.48, in ANF, 4:595; PG, 11:1373.]

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313–386 A.D.):

It [i.e., the Church] is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.

[Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18.23; trans. NPNF2, 7:139–140; PG, 33:1044.]

Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 344/5–411 A.D.):

They, therefore, who were taught above to believe in one God, under the mystery of the Trinity, must believe this also, that there is one holy Church in which there is one faith and one baptism, in which is believed one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, and one Holy Ghost. This is that holy Church which is without spot or wrinkle.

[Rufinus of Aquileia, A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed (Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolorum), 39, in NPNF2, 3:558; PL, 21:375. Cf. ACW, 20:74.]

Alt. Trans. Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 344/5–411 A.D.):

So the faithful, having had the belief in one God mysteriously triune inculcated in the foregoing sections, are now in addition required to believe in the existence of one holy Church, a Church, that is, in which there is one faith and one baptism, and in which we believe in one God the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and one Holy Spirit.

This, then, is what we mean by the Holy Church, which is without spot or wrinkle.

[Rufinus of Aquileia, A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed (Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolorum), 39, in ACW, 20:74; PL, 21:375. Cf. NPNF2, 3:558.]

Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 445 A.D.):

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.

[Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitory, 2.6, in NPNF2, 11:132; PL, 50:640.]

Note: For more on Vincent and the formulation of the concept of tradition, see: Thomas G. Guarino, Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013).

Note: See further, Rule of Faith (Tradition).

1.5. Methodology Return to Outline

William Goode:

Before I pass on, I would here point out to the notice of the reader, that in the appeal we make, in our controversies with the dissenters on some of the points we have been considering, to the records of the Primitive Church, there is no inconsistency with our rejection of Tradition as a certain witness of the oral teaching of the Apostles, however loudly we may have been accused of it. Our arguments against the dissenters in these matters do by no means, as they are charged with doing, “recoil and wound ourselves,” nor “fall to the ground.” They are as consistent with our general views as they are in themselves valid and conclusive. The principle upon which our Church acts in this matter appears to me to be of the most simple and intelligible kind. In matters of pure doctrine she requires belief in nothing which is not, in her view, clearly testified in Scripture, while she appeals to the writings of the early Christian Fathers as affording a testimony strongly confirmatory of her interpretation of Scripture. In matters relating to rites and usages, for all that she puts forward as intrinsically necessary, she refers to Scripture as the proof of their being divinely or Apostolically appointed; and, as in the last case, points to the records of the early Church as affording confirmatory evidence to the validity of the proof derived from Scripture; and in other points, where she refers to the practice of the orthodox Primitive Church as a justification of her usage, she points to it only as a justification of it, and not as if the fact of their observance in the Primitive Church rendered them intrinsically necessary; but a sufficient justification and recommendation of those rites she does consider the usage of the Apostolically-primitive Church to be, because it cannot fairly be supposed, that they would have been generally observed at that very early period, if they had been unaccordant with the spirit of true Christianity, and consequently, that not only was she justified in requiring their observance, but dissenters were not justified in making such matters a ground for separation.

[William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 2, (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 346–347.]

2. An Argument from the Fathers of the Church Return to Outline

Didache (c. 1st Century A.D.):

For wherever the Lord’s nature is preached, there the Lord is [ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται, ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν].

[Didache, 4.1, in AF, 349, 351.]

Full. Didache (c. 1st Century A.D.):

My child, remember night and day the one who preaches God’s word to you, and honor him as though he were the Lord. For wherever the Lord’s nature is preached, there the Lord is. …So, if anyone should come and teach you all these things that have just been mentioned above, welcome him. But if the teacher himself goes astray and teaches a different teaching that undermines all this, do not listen to him.

[Didache, 4.1, 11.1–2 in AF, 349–351, 361.]

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35–108/40 A.D.):

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church [ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ ῾Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς', ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία].

[Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8.2, in AF, 255.]

Cf. Everett Ferguson:

Ignatius appears to make exalted claims for the episcopal office. The bishop is in the place of God, but this seems to be a matter of symbolism and should not be pressed too far. There is no word about apostolic institution or apostolic succession for the position of the one bishop. Ignatius’ bishop is a congregational bishop or pastor. He functions as president of the presbytery.

[Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Austin: Sweet Publishing Company, 1971), 174.]

Cf. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35–108/40 A.D.):

The priests, too, were good, but the high priest,[Cf. Heb. 4:14–5:10.] entrusted with the Holy of Holies, is better; he alone has been entrusted with the hidden things of God, for he himself is the door[Cf. John 10:7, 9.] of the Father, through which Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and the prophets and the apostles and the church enter in. All these come together in the unity of God. But the gospel possesses something distinctive, namely, the coming of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, his suffering, and the resurrection. For the beloved prophets preached in anticipation of him,[Cf.1 Pet. 1:10–12.] but the gospel is the imperishable finished work. All these things together are good, if you believe with love.

[Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 9.1–2, in AF, 243, 245.]

Cf. Colin J. Bulley:

…recent scholarship rightly views the priests referred to as the OT priests and the high priest as Christ, as the following context makes clear.

[Colin J. Bulley, The Priesthood of Some Believers: Developments from the General to the Special Priesthood in the Christian Literature of the First Three Centuries (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 57.]

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

…Ignatius, while proving the early evidence of a real episcopacy in Asia Minor, gives no indication either of sacerdotalism, or even of anything like the monarchical and diocesan episcopates. The fact of continuity is clear as a matter of history without any association with a specific doctrine of what is now called Apostolic Succession.

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963), 326.]

Cf. Allen Brent:

Ignatius has no doctrine of bishops as successors to the apostles.

[Allen Brent, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (London: Continuum, 2007), 122.]

Note: Cf. Idem, 86–87, 122–129.

Cf. Robert Lee Williams:

Ignatius says nothing of apostolic succession.

[Robert Lee Williams, Bishop Lists: Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises, Gorgias Studies in Early Christianity and Patristics 16 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005), 68.]

Note: See §§ 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 for a more thorough treatment.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace [ubi Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia, et omnis gratia];

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.24.1, in ANF, 1:458; PG, 7:966.]

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 A.D.):

For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church.

[Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 7.5, in ANF, 2:530; PG, 9:437.]

Cf. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 A.D.):

Such being the case, it is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth].

From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.

[Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 7.17, in ANF, 2:555; PG, 9:552.]

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.

[Tertullian of Carthage, The Prescription Against Heretics, 32, in ANF, 3:258; PL, 2:45.]

Full. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.

[Tertullian of Carthage, The Prescription Against Heretics, 32, in ANF, 3:258; PL, 2:45.]

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a doctor, if even a martyr, have fallen from the rule (of faith), will heresies on that account appear to possess the truth? Do we prove the faith by the persons, or the persons by the faith?

[Tertullian of Carthage, The Prescription Against Heretics, 3, in ANF, 3:244; PL, 2:15.]

Cf. Charles Elliott:

Romanists prove their faith from persons; that is, from the personal succession of their prelates; but Protestants, with Tertullian, maintain that the persons are to be approved of by their faith.

[Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, vol. 2, (New York: G. Lane & P. P. Sanford, 1842), 73.]

Cf. Johann Gerhard:

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

[Tertullian of Carthage, The Prescription Against Heretics, 21, in ANF, 3:252–253; PL, 2:33.]

Full. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

[Tertullian of Carthage, The Prescription Against Heretics, 21, in ANF, 3:252–253; PL, 2:33.]

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

Full. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

…they [i.e., the Apostles] next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity…

[Tertullian of Carthage, The Prescription Against Heretics, 20, in ANF, 3:252; PL, 2:32.]

Note: Regarding the priesthood of all believers, see: Tertullian, On Exhortation to Chastity, 7, and The Prescription Against Heretics, 37.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

Are not even we laics [i.e., lay-persons] priests? It is written: “A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us.” It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order, which has established the difference between the Order and the laity. Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says.

[Tertullian of Carthage, On Exhortation to Chastity, 7, in ANF, 4:54; PL, 2:922.]

Note: “Laics,” that is, “lay-persons.”

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles [Ego sum hæres Apostolorum]. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers—as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles?”

[Tertullian of Carthage, The Prescription Against Heretics, 37, in ANF, 3:261; PL, 2:51.]

Note: Tertullian, who is a lay-person—not a member of the clergy—is an “heir of the apostles” (hæres Apostolorum) because of his faith.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 A.D.):

[Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 12.10–11, in ANF, 9:456; PG, 13:997, 1004.]

Note: It is worth observing, in passing, that the patristic writers are very nearly unanimous in their exegesis of Matthew 16:18: the Church is built upon faith in Christ (and, of course, upon the person of Christ Himself), not upon the person of Peter, the Apostles, or those who claim to be their institutional successors. See further: William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock, 2nd edition (Battle Ground: Christian Resources Inc., 1999). Many excerpts from Webster’s writings are, to my knowledge, freely available on his website: https://christiantruth.com/.

Full. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 A.D.):

And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. …“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “Thou art Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.”

[Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 12.10–11, in ANF, 9:456; PG, 13:997–1000, 1001–1004.]

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 A.D.): (Translated from the Latin of Rufinus)

…the holy Scriptures . . . written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and to be transmitted [tradita, traditioned] and entrusted to us by the will of God the Father, through His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, what appears to us, who observe things by a right way of understanding, to be the standard [regulam, rule] and discipline delivered [traditam, traditioned] to the apostles by Jesus Christ, and which they handed down [tradiderunt, traditioned] in succession to their posterity, the teachers of the holy Church.

[Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis (On First Principles), 4.1.9, in ANF, 4:357; PG, 11:359.]

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 A.D.): (Greek Fragment)

And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard [κανόνος] of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.

[Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis (On First Principles), 4.1.9, in ANF, 4:357; PG, 11:360.]

Note: Apostolic succession, for Origen, consists in the transmission of the standard (κανών, regula) and discipline delivered by Christ to the apostles and handed down in succession to the teachers of the holy Church. The succession is invoked specifically as the means of preserving the correct rule (regulam, the rule of faith), for interpreting the inspired Scriptures, which have been transmitted (tradita, traditioned) to us. This is doctrinal apostolic succession—the continuity of the apostolic teaching and rule of faith—rather than a later institutional conception centered primarily upon an unbroken chain of episcopal ordinations.

Cf. E. Flesseman-van Leer:

…the Regula is the real content of revelation, the fundamental tenor of the one message of scripture. …it is one and the same to explain scripture according to its inherent harmony and according to the Regula. This is the same as what the Reformation calls interpretation according to the analogy of faith. For in neither case is meant a formal principle outside of scripture, but the purport, intention of scripture itself…

[E. Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum and Co., 1954), 194.]

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 A.D.):

And let us consider whether perhaps, just as in some city where, for instance, there are no Christians as yet, if someone goes there and begins to teach, labor, give instruction and lead them to the faith, and he himself later becomes [et ipse postmodum, and then becomes] the ruler and bishop for those whom he has taught…

[Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Numbers, 11.4.5, in Ancient Christian Texts: Homilies on Numbers: Origen, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 56; PG, 12:649.]

Alt. Trans. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 A.D.):

Consider . . . cities where Christians are not yet found, some one arrives and begins to teach, labors, instructs, leads to the faith, and finally becomes himself the ruler and bishop for those whom he taught.

[Origen of Alexandria, Homilies in Numbers, 11.4.5, in Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Austin: Sweet Publishing Company, 1971), 170; PG, 12:649.]

Note: Observe the congregational nature of the episcopacy. A teacher arrives, labors in instruction, leads hearers to faith, and thereafter becomes “the ruler and bishop for those whom he has taught” (et ipse postmodum iis quos docuit princeps et episcopus fiat). The episcopal office is portrayed as arising directly from the missionary’s formative relationship to the newly gathered believers. Authority is not depicted as descending from a preexisting hierarchical structure external to the local body; rather, the one who has created the congregation through proclamation and teaching becomes its bishop.

Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8–373 A.D.):

[Athanasius of Alexandria, Festal Letter Fragment, in NPNF2, 4:550–551; PG, 26:1189.]

Full. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8–373 A.D.):

I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place, when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell there. …But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off by their attempts to do so. For this is it that is written, ‘Thou art the Son of the Living God,’ Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, ‘Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee,’ but ‘My Father Who is in heaven,’ and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren. For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. What profit then is the Place to them?

For behold they that hold the Place are charged by them that love God with making it a den of thieves, and with madly making the Holy Place a house of merchandise, and a house of judicial business for themselves to whom it was unlawful to enter there. For this and worse than this is what we have heard, most beloved, from those who are come from thence. However really, then, they seem to hold the church, so much the more truly are they cast out. And they think themselves to be within the truth, but are exiled, and in captivity, and [gain] no advantage by the church alone.

[Athanasius of Alexandria, Festal Letter Fragment, in NPNF2, 4:550–551; PG, 26:1189–1190.]

Cf. Archibald Robertson:

The following fragment (Migne, ib.[xxvi] p. 1189), was published by Montfaucon from a Colbertine Latin MS. of about 800 A.D. He conjectured that it belonged to a Festal Letter. On this hypothesis, which is, however, as Mai observes, by no means self-evident, we append it to the above fragments of Letter 29, since internal evidence connects it with the handing over of the churches at Alexandria to the partisans of George, June, 356. At any rate, in spite of the heading of the fragment, its beginning is clearly not preserved.

[Archibald Robertson, footnote, in NPNF2, 4:550 fn. 7.]

Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310–367 A.D.):

For you have been wrongly captivated by a love of the walls; you wrongly venerate the Church of God in buildings and structures; you wrongly invoke the name of peace under these things. [male enim vos parietum amor cepit, male Ecclesiam Dei in tectis ædificiisque veneramini, male sub his pacis nomen ingeritis]

[Sancti Hilarii, Contra Arianos, liber unus, § 12, in PL, 10:616.]

Alt. Trans. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310–367 A.D.):

They ought no longer to communicate with them as ministers of Christ, but to avoid them as antichrists, as angels of Satan, as enemies of Christ, as devils, though by the emperor’s favour they were in possession of the churches. They should not be so much in love with walls and buildings, as to think the true Church of God was confined to them, and for their sakes have peace with the Arians. For Antichrist himself was to sit within the walls of the Church. So that mountains, and woods, and lakes, and prisons where the prophets of God were cast, were safer places than the buildings of the Church in such a condition. Therefore depart from Auxentius, that angel of Satan, that enemy of Christ, that wicked destroyer, that denier of the faith, which he made profession of before the emperor, in such a manner as to deceive him; and so deceived him, as to blaspheme Christ. Let him gather as many synods as he pleases against me; let him proscribe me as a heretic by public titles, as he has often done already; let him stir up the anger of great men as much as he will against me: yet he shall never be any better, in my opinion, than a devil, because he is an Arian. Nor will I ever desire to be at peace with any but those, who, according to the rule of the Nicene fathers, anathematize the Arians, and preach Christ to be the true God.

[Sancti Hilarii, Contra Arianos, liber unus, § 12, in Joseph Bingham, Scholastical History of Lay-Baptism, pt. II, ch. VII, § 1, in Origines Ecclesiasticæ; Or, The Antiquities of the Christian Church, And Other Works, Of the Rev. Joseph Bingham, vol. 8 (London: William Straker, 1840), 291; PL, 10:616–617.]

Alt. Trans. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310–367 A.D.):

Let there not be excessive love for the walls of the Church.—I would have preferred, brothers, to reveal the secret of this most deadly mystery in person rather than through letters, and to explain each of Auxentius’ blasphemies word by word. But since that is not possible, let each person understand what is permitted to him. Shame prevents me from bringing forth many other things for the Church, and I am afraid to commit the disgrace of Arian blasphemies to a letter. One thing I warn: beware of the antichrist. For you have been wrongly captivated by a love of the walls; you wrongly venerate the Church of God in buildings and structures; you wrongly invoke the name of peace under these things. Is it unclear that the antichrist will sit in these places? The mountains, forests, lakes, prisons, and abysses are safer for me—for in these, the prophets either remained or were submerged, and they prophesied by the Spirit of God. Therefore, withdraw from Auxentius, the angel of Satan, the enemy of Christ, the lost destroyer, the denier of the faith. He swore his allegiance to the king only to deceive; he deceived so that he might blaspheme. Let him now convene as many synods as he wishes against me, and, as he has often done before, publicly proclaim me a heretic, and stir up as much wrath of the powerful as he can against me—for to me, he will always be nothing but a devil, because he is an Arian. Nor will peace ever be desired by any except those who, following the discussion of our fathers at Nicaea, after anathematizing the Arians, will proclaim Christ as the true God. [Ecclesiæ parietum ne nimius sit amor.—Arcanum igitur tam pestiferi mysterii optassem, Fratres, ipse potius quam per litteras revelare, et omnes blasphemias Auxentii verbis singulis explicare. Verum quia id non licet, saltem unusquisque quod sibi liceat intelligat. Multa alia proferre Ecclesiæ me pudor inhibet, et committere epistolæ Arianorum blasphemiarum dedecora pertimesco. Unum monco: cavete antichristum: male enim vos parietum amor cepit, male Ecclesiam Dei in tectis ædificiisque veneramini, male sub his pacis nomen ingeritis (hæc citat Facundus, Spicil. t. m, p. 118). Anne ambiguum est, in his antichristum esse sessurum? Montes mihi, et sylvæ, et (e) lacus, et carceres, et voragines sunt tutiores in his enim prophetæ, aut manentes, aut demersi, Dei spiritu prophetabant. Absistite itaque ab Auxentio satanæ angelo, hoste Christi, vastatore perdito, fidei negatore: quam sic est regi professus, ut falleret; sic fefellit, ut blasphemaret. Con greget nunc ille quas volet in me synodos, et hæreticum me, ut sæpe jam fecit, publico titulo proscrihat, et quantam volet iram in me potentium moliatur mihi certe ille numquam aliud quam diabolas erit, quia Arianus est: neque pax aliquorum umquam optabitur, nisi eorum, qui secundum patrum nostrorum apud Nicæam tractatum, anathematizatis Arianis, Christum Deum verum prædicabunt.]

[Sancti Hilarii, Contra Arianos, liber unus, § 12, in PL, 10:616–617.]

Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310–367 A.D.):

This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven.

[Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), 6.37, in NPNF2, 9:112; PL, 10:187.]

Gregory of Nazianzus, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329–390 A.D.):

For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense.

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 21.8 (On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria), in NPNF2, 7:271; PG, 35:1089.]

Full. Gregory of Nazianzus, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329–390 A.D.):

Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense.

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 21.8 (On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria), in NPNF2, 7:271; PG, 35:1089.]

Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329–390 A.D.):

For I do not praise the disorder and irregularity which sometimes exist among us, even in those who preside over the sanctuary. I do not venture, nor is it just, to accuse them all. I approve the nautical custom, which first gives the oar to the future steersman, and afterward leads him to the stern, and entrusts him with the command, and seats him at the helm, only after a long course of striking the sea and observing the winds. As is the case again in military affairs: private, captain, general. This order is the best and most advantageous for their subordinates. And if it were so in our case, it would be of great service. But, as it is, there is a danger of the holiest of all offices being the most ridiculous among us. For promotion depends not upon virtue, but upon villany; and the sacred thrones fall not to the most Worthy, but to the most powerful. Samuel, the seer into futurity, is among the prophets: but Saul, the rejected one, is also there. Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, is among the kings, but so also is Jeroboam, the slave and apostate. And there is not a physician, or a painter who has not first studied the nature of diseases, or mixed many colours, or practised drawing: but a prelate is easily found, without laborious training, with a reputation of recent date, being sown and springing up in a moment, as the legend of the giants goes. We manufacture those who are holy in a day, and bid those to be wise, who have had no instruction, and have contributed nothing before to their dignity, except the will. So one man is content with an inferior position, and abides in his low estate, who is worthy of a lofty one, and has meditated much on the inspired words, and has reduced the flesh by many laws into subjection to the spirit: while the other haughtily takes precedence, and raises his eyebrow over his betters, and does not tremble at his position, nor is he appalled at the sight, seeing the disciplined man beneath him; and wrongly supposes himself to be his superior in wisdom as well as in rank, having lost his senses under the influence of his position.

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43.26, in NPNF2, 7:404; PG, 36:532–533.]

Gregory of Nazianzus, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329–390 A.D.):

These men [i.e., the Arians] have the houses, but we the Dweller in the house; they the Temples, we the God; and besides it is ours to be living temples of the Living God, lively sacrifices, reasonable burnt-offerings, perfect sacrifices, yea, gods through the adoration of the Trinity. They have the people, we the Angels; they rash boldness, we faith; they threatenings, we prayer; they smiting, we endurance; they gold and silver, we the pure word.

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 33.15 (Against The Arians, and Concerning Himself), in NPNF2, 7:333; PG, 36:232–233.]

Gregory of Nazianzus, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329–390 A.D.):

…the Grace [of God] does not come of a place, but of the Spirit [οὐ γὰρ τόπων ἡ χάρις, ἀλλὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος]…

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 40.26 (On Holy Baptism), in NPNF2, 7:369; PG, 36:396.]

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

You must first of all make careful enquiry as to whether a church is of the true Faith. If Christ dwells in it, you need have no hesitation in choosing it.

[Ambrose of Milan, Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Íde M. Ní Riain (Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001), 6.68, p. 176; PL, 15:1685. Cf. ACCS, NT/3:149.]

Full. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

You must first of all make careful enquiry as to whether a church is of the true Faith. If Christ dwells in it, you need have no hesitation in choosing it. But if the congregation there are of bad faith, or if an heretical teacher disfigures the place, you must not have communion with these heretics, and should shun their gatherings. You must shake the dust from your feet. Otherwise the dry and sterile dust of their unbelief would – like an arid and sandy desert – soil the steps of your spirit.

The Gospel preacher must take on himself the physical infirmities of the faithful; he should carry off and get rid of their foolish behaviour, as though shaking dust from his feet – for it is written: “Who is weak and I am not weak?” (2 Co 11:29). If this is so, then he must also abandon every church that rejects the Faith and does not possess the foundations of the apostolic preaching, for fear of being spattered and stained by an erroneous faith. The apostle says this quite plainly: “After a single warning, avoid the heretic” (Tt 3:10).

[Ambrose of Milan, Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Íde M. Ní Riain (Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001), 6.68, pp. 176–177; PL, 15:1685–1686. Cf. ACCS, NT/3:149.]

Note: Cf. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), 6.68, pp. 216–217.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

Christ is the rock – “they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and the rock was Christ” (1 Co 10:4), yet He does not refuse this title to Peter. He, too, is rock because he has the solid constancy of rock, and his faith will be strong as a rock.

Try, my friend to be a rock. You will find this rock not outside you, but inside. Your rock is your action; your rock is your spirit. Your house is built on this rock, so that no hurricane of evil spirits can topple it over. Your rock is the faith; faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock [i.e., have firm faith] you will be within the Church, for the Church rests on the rock. If you are in the Church the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you (cf. Mt 16:18). The gates of Hell are death’s gates; and death’s gates cannot be the entrance to the Church.

[Ambrose of Milan, Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Íde M. Ní Riain (Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001), 6.97–98, p. 186; PL, 15:1694. Cf. TCF, 415.]

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

Christ did not deny to his disciple the favour of this name, [i. e. rock,] that he also may be called Peter, having, like the rock, unshaken constancy, even a firm faith. Strive, therefore, that thou also mayest be a rock. Therefore, seek the rock, not out of thyself, but within thyself. . . . Thy rock is faith, the foundation of the Church is faith. If thou shalt be a rock [i. e. have firm faith], thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is on the rock.

[Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, lib. VI, §§ 97–98, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 2 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 346; PL, 15:1694.]

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

They do not have the inheritance of Peter, who do not have the faith of Peter, which they tear apart by impious division [hæreditatem Petri non habent, qui fidem Petri non habent, quam impia divisione discerpunt].

[Sancti Ambrosii, De poenitentia, lib. I, caput VII, § 33, in Fr. Abraham Bzouius, Romanus Pontifex (Coloniæ Agrippinæ: Antonium Boelzerum, 1619), caput XXXV, p. 462.]

Note: Father Abraham Bzowski was a Roman Catholic Historian.

Objection. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

And this confession is indeed rightly made by them, for they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair [sedem] of Peter…

[Ambrose of Milan, Concerning Repentance, 1.7.33, in NPNF2, 10:334 PL, 16:476.]

Note: This is almost certainly a pious forgery—a practice that was all too common among Roman Catholic scribes in the centuries following the Reformation. The Roman Catholic editor of the sixteenth volume of Patrologiæ Latinæ writes “Omnes edit. ac mss. nonnulli, qui Petri fidem; alii multo plures potioresque, qui Petri sedem”—All the printed editions and some manuscripts read “Peter’s faith”; but many more and better ones read “Peter’s chair” (PL, 16:476; cf. CSEL, 73:135). However, in the 16th century, all of the references I have found—both Protestant and Roman Catholic—are to fidem. Even into the early 17th century, for example, the Roman Catholic historian Father Abraham Bzowski has fidem (Fr. Abraham Bzouius, Romanus Pontifex, (Coloniæ Agrippinæ: Antonium Boelzerum, 1619], caput XXXV, p. 462). That fidem is the correct reading is easily confirmed by Ambrose’s other writings (e.g., De incarnationis dominicæ sacramento, 4.33–5.34; Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, 6.97–98; etc.).

Cf. Charles Hastings Collette:

We may note here the fact that Romanists have in some of their reprints of Ambrose’s work tampered with this passage, in order to establish this figment of a personal succession. They have changed fidem to sedem, so that they would have Ambrose say, “They have not the succession of Peter who have not his seat.” Grat. de Pænit., dist. 1, c. Potest fieri, c. lii., col, 1687, Tom. i., Lug. 1671. Ingenious, but not very honest! The Paris edition of Ambrose’s Works, 1690, p. 399, Tom. ii., has sedem instead of fidem, with the following note:—“Omnes edit. ac Miss, nonulli, qui Petri fidem alii multo plures potiorisque qui Petri sedem.”

[Charles Hastings Collette, Dr. Newman on Anglican Orders, In a Letter Addressed to Father Coleridge, With a Reply, (London: William MacIntosh, 1868), 13.]

Cf. John Ayre:

But the earlier editions have Petri fidem.

[John Ayre, ed., The Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, vol. 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1850), 929 fn. 20.]

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

I would advise you, then, to believe in the way that Peter believed. If you do, you will have the great happiness of hearing those words addressed to you: “It is not flesh and blood that has revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven” (Mt 16:17). …One who overcomes the flesh is a foundation stone of the Church [Qui enim carnem vicerit, Ecclesiæ fundamentum est]. And if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him.

[Ambrose of Milan, Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Íde M. Ní Riain (Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001), 6.94–95, p. 185; PL, 15:1693.]

Full. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

I would advise you, then, to believe in the way that Peter believed. If you do, you will have the great happiness of hearing those words addressed to you: “It is not flesh and blood that has revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven” (Mt 16:17). …But I trust, I hope in God, that those who hear me are not flesh and blood. I pray that they are free of the lusts of flesh and blood, and that each of my hearers can say: “I will not fear what flesh can do against me” (Ps 55:5)! One who overcomes the flesh is a foundation stone of the Church [Qui enim carnem vicerit, Ecclesiæ fundamentum est]. And if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him.

[Ambrose of Milan, Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Íde M. Ní Riain (Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001), 6.94–95, p. 185; PL, 15:1693.]

Note: Qui enim carnem vicerit, Ecclesiæ fundamentum est—“For whoever conquers the flesh is a foundation of the Church”.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies.

[Ambrose of Milan, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, 5.34, in FC, 44:231; PL, 16:827.]

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

Faith, therefore, is the foundation of the Church. For it was said not concerning Peter’s flesh, but concerning his faith: “the gates of death shall not prevail against it.” Rather, the confession conquered hell. And this confession did not exclude only one heresy; for although the Church, like a good ship, is often battered by many waves, the foundation of the Church ought to prevail against all heresies. [Fides ergo est Ecclesiæ fundamentum non enim de carne Petri, sed de fide dictum est, quia portæ mortis ei non prævalebunt: sed confessio vicit infernum. Et hæc confessio non unam hæresim exclusit; nam cum Ecclesia multis tamquam bona navis fluctibus sæpe tundatur, adversus omnes hæreses debet valere Ecclesiæ fundamentum.]

[Sancti Ambrosii, De incarnationis dominicæ sacramento, liber unus, caput V, § 34, in PL, 16:827.]

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

It is this Peter who answers for the other apostles, yea, before the others; and therefore he is called a foundation, because he professes to keep not only that which is proper to himself, but common to all. To him Christ declares that his Father had revealed it. For he who speaks the true generation of the Father, receives it not from flesh, but from the Father. Faith, therefore, is the foundation of the church [Fides ergo est Ecclesiæ fundamentum]: for it was not said of the flesh of Peter, but of his faith [Non enim de carne Petri, sed de fide dictum est], that the gates of death should not prevail against it: but the confession (of faith) overcame hell. And this confession does not exclude one heresy only; for since the Church, like a good ship, is often assailed by many waves, the foundation of the Church ought to prevail against all heresies.

[Sancti Ambrosii, De incarnationis dominicæ sacramento, liber unus, caput IV–V, §§ 33–34, in John Henry Hopkins, The Church of Rome, In Her Primitive Purity, Compared with the Church of Rome, At the Present Day (London: J. G. & F. Rivington, 1839), 278–279; PL, 16:827.]

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

Very often the clergy have erred, the priest has changed his opinion, the rich have sided with the earthly king of this age, but the people have preserved their own faith. [Plerumque clerus erravit, Sacerdos mutavit sententiam, divites cum sæculi istius terreno rege senserunt; populus fidem propriam reservavit.]

[Sancti Ambrosii, In Psalmum David CXVIII expositio, sermo decimus septimus, § 17, in PL, 15:1446.]

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

That many times have the clergy erred; the bishop has wavered in his opinion; the rich men have adhered in their judgment to the earthly princes of the world; meanwhile the people alone preserved the faith entire [populus fidem propriam reservavit].

[Sancti Ambrosii, In Psalmum David CXVIII expositio, sermo decimus septimus, § 17, in John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers, 2nd edition (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1856), 197; PL, 15:1446.]

Note: See also: Sancti Ambrosii, Commentarius in cantica canticorum, caput septimum, § 4, in PL, 15:1947.

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340–397 A.D.):

Therefore the Church, in imitation of Christ, is beautiful, and in her shoes stained with every sin. And perhaps, when she speaks wisdom among the mature, she is beautiful in her upper members; but when even men of lower rank or education follow the Word, do not forget the sequence of faith, and keep the priest’s commands, she is beautiful in her shoes. Very often the clergy have erred, the priest has changed his opinion, the rich have sided with the earthly king of this age, but the people have preserved their own faith. [Ergo Ecclesia ad imitationem Christi speciosa est, et in calceamentis omni obluta delicto. Et fortasse quando sapientiam inter perfectos loquitur, speciosa est in superioribus membris: quando autem etiam inferioris gradus aut doctrinæ homines Verbum sequuntur, fidei seriem non obliviscuntur, sacerdotis praccepta custodiunt, speciosa est in calceamentis. Plerumque clerus erravit, sacerdos mutavit sententiam, divites cum sæculi istius terreno rege senserunt, populus fidem propriam reservavit.]

[Sancti Ambrosii, Commentarius in cantica canticorum, caput septimum, § 4, in PL, 15:1947.]

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347–407 A.D.):

What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against [εἴ τις μάχεται, if anyone opposes] them, he is far from this rule [κανόνος].

[John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 33, in NPNF1, 11:210–211; PG, 60:243–244.]

Note: Conformity to the apostolic deposit, as revealed in the sacred Scriptures, constitutes the principal mark of a legitimate (i.e., apostolic) Church.

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):

And a rule [κανὼν] admits neither addition, nor subtraction, since that destroys its being a rule [κανὼν].

[John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Philippians, 12 (on Phil. 3:16), in NPNF1, 13:240; PG, 62:273.]

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347–407 A.D.):

For we do not possess the body of Peter, but we possess the faith of Peter as [though it were] Peter; and possessing the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself. [τὸ μὲν γὰρ σῶμα Πέτρου οὐ κατέχομεν, τὴν δὲ πίστιν Πέτρου κατέχομεν ὡς Πέτρον· τὴν δὲ πίστιν Πέτρου κατέχοντες, αὐτὸν ἔχομεν Πέτρον.]

[S. Joannis Chrysostomi, In inscriptionem altaris et in principium actorum, II, in, PG, 51:86.]

Alt. Trans. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347–407 A.D.):

…for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.

[S. Joannis Chrysostomi, In inscriptionem altaris et in principium actorum, II, in Dom John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), 96; PG, 51:86.]

Alt. Trans. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347–407 A.D.):

…for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter.

[John Chrysostom, On the Inscription of the Acts, II, in Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96–454, ed. E. Giles (London: SPCK, 1952), 168; PG, 51:86.]

Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

For every Christian who receives Peter’s word becomes Peter’s throne, and Peter sits in it; so too are the thrones of all the apostles those who have received and hold within themselves the doctrine of all the apostles. [Omnis enim Christianus, qui suscipit verbum Petri, thronus fit Petri, et Petrus sedet in eo: sic et omnium apostolorum throni sunt, qui omnium apostolorum doctrinam susceperunt et tenent in se.]

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XXXIII, ex capite xix; PG, 56:814.]

Note: Throughout the history of the church, until Desiderius Erasmus (who questioned its authorship), the Opus imperfectum in Matthæum was attributed to John Chrysostom. It is said that Thomas Aquinas so greatly desired a complete copy of the manuscript (which appears to have been lost to history) that he would have preferred acquiring it over ruling Paris—cf. Guillaume de Tocco, Ystoria Sancti Thome de Aquino, ed. Claire Le Brun-Gouanvic, Studies and Texts 127 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996), capitulum XLII, p. 172. Aquinas cites this treatise (the Opus imperfectum in Matthæum) more frequently than any other author in his Catena Aurea on the four Gospels.

Note: Cf. William of Tocco, The Life of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. David M. Foley (Saint Marys: Angelus Press, 2023), ch. 42, p. 150; Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 7; G. K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas (New York: Sheed & Ward, Inc., 1933), 113–114; Guillaume de Tocco (1323), Ystoria Sancti Thome de Aquino, Studies and Texts 127, ed. Claire Le Brun-Gouanvic (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1996), capitulum XLII, p. 172.

Cf. David M. Foley:

The anonymous Opus imperfectum was a highly important source for St. Thomas; he cites it more frequently than any other author in his Catena Aurea on the four Gospels.

[David M. Foley, footnote, in William of Tocco, The Life of St. Thomas Aquinas (Saint Marys: Angelus Press, 2023), ch. 42, p. 150 fn. 112.]

Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

And so, too, with this new Jerusalem, that is, the Church: those who were spiritual Christians, leaving the bodily Church that the faithless had seized by violence, went out from them. Rather, however, they went out from us, as John explains (1 John 2:19). Who is said to go out from the Church? For it does not seem that the one who leaves bodily goes out from the Church, but the one who spiritually abandons the foundations of ecclesiastical truth. For we went out from them in body, but they from us in soul. We went out from them in place, they from us in faith. We left with them the foundations of the walls, they left with us the foundations of the Scriptures. We departed from them according to the sight of men, but they from us according to the judgment of God. …But it was left desolate and abandoned, since from that bodily Church the spiritual Church departed, that is, from that people of his who seemed Christian and was not. This people departed, which did not seem so and yet was so; and rather, as we said, they went out from us than we from them. [sic et de ista nova Jerusalem, id est, de Ecclesia, qui spirituales Christiani fuerunt, relicta corporali Ecclesia, quam perfidi occupaverant violentia, exierunt ab illis. Magis autem illi exierunt a nobis, sicut Joannes exponit (1. Joan. 2. 19). Exire de Ecclesia quis dicatur. Non enim ille de Ecclesia exire videtur, qui corporaliter exit, sed qui spiritualiter veritatis ecclesiasticæ fundamenta relinquit. Nos enim ab illis exivimus corpore, illi autem a nobis animo. Nos ab illis exivimus loco, illi a nobis fide. Nos apud illos reliquimus fundamenta parietum, illi apud nos reliquerunt fundamenta Scripturarum. Nos ab illis egressi sumus secundum aspectum hominum, illi autem a nobis secundum judicium Dei. …Relicta est autem et deserta, ex quo de illa corporali Ecclesia spiritualis exivit id est, de populo suo, qui videbatur Christianus, et non erat, populus iste exivit, qui non videbatur, et erat: et magis autem, secundum quod diximus, illi a nobis exierunt, quam nos ab illis.]

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLVI, ex capite xxiv, in PG, 56:896, 898.]

Alt. Trans. Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

Even so, touching this new Hierusalem, which is the church, they that were spiritual christian men, leaving the bodily church, which the wicked by violence had invaded, departed out from them; or, as St John expoundeth it, they rather departed out from us. For he seemeth not indeed to depart from the church, that bodily departeth; but he that spiritually leaveth the foundations of the ecclesiastical truth. We have departed from them in body; they have departed from us in mind: we from them by place; they from us by faith. We have left with them the foundations of the walls: they have left with us the foundations of the scriptures. We are departed forth from them in the sight of man: they are departed from us in the judgment of God. …But now, after that the spiritual church is gone forth, the bodily church is left forsaken; that is to say, from that people, that seemed to be a christian people and was not, this people is gone forth, that seemed not outwardly but was so indeed. Notwithstanding, as we have said before, they have rather departed from us, than we from them.

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLVI, ex capite xxiv, in John Jewel, The Defense of the Apology, pt. 5, in The Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, vol. 4, ed. John Ayre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1850), 876–877; PG, 56:896, 898.]

Alt. Trans. Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

He does not seem to go out of the Church who goes out bodily, but he who spiritually deserts the fundamentals of ecclesiastical truth. We have gone out from them [i. e. the heretics, whoever they were, who, he tells us, then possessed the Churches] in body, but they from us in mind. We have gone out from them in respect of place, they from us in respect of the faith. We have left with them the foundations of the walls, they have left with us the foundations of the Scriptures. We have gone out from them to human eyes, they from us in the judgment of God.

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLVI, ex capite xxiv, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 2 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 345–346; PG, 56:896.]

Alt. Trans. Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

Understand here Jerusalem as the Church, which is called the city of peace, whose foundations are placed upon the mountains of the Scriptures. As therefore those Jews who were of the spiritual Jerusalem, having come in, have believed in Christ; but those who were of the literal Jerusalem remained in literal Judaism, persecuted the spiritual Jews, that is, the apostles, and the rest of the circumcision who believed: so also respecting this new Jerusalem, that is, the Church; they who were spiritual Christians, having forsaken the literal Church, which the infidels had seized with violence, went out from them; but rather they went out from us, as John explains. For he does not seem to go out of the Church who goes out bodily, but he who spiritually deserts the fundamentals of ecclesiastical truth. We have gone out from them in body, but they from us in mind; we have gone out from them in respect of place, they from us in respect of the faith. We have left them the foundations of the walls, they have left us the foundations of the Scriptures. We have gone out from them according to human appearance, they from us according to the judgment of God.

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLVI, ex capite xxiv, in John Harrison, Whose are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867), 537; PG, 56:895–896.]

Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLIX, ex capite xxiv, in PG, 56:908–909.]

Full. Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

That is to say: when you see the impious heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the Church, at that time let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; that is, let those who are in Christianity go themselves to the Scriptures. For just as the true Jew is the Christian, as the Apostle says, “not he who is a Jew outwardly, but he who is inwardly” (Rom. 2:28–29), so the true Judea is Christianity, whose name signifies confession. Now the mountains are the Scriptures of the apostles or prophets, concerning which it is said, “Thou enlightenest wonderfully from the everlasting mountains” (Ps. 75:5). And again he says of the Church, “Its foundations are in the holy mountains” (Ps. 86:1). And why does he command all Christians at this time to go themselves to the Scriptures? Because in this time, since heresy has taken possession of those churches, no proof of true Christianity can exist, nor can there be any other refuge for Christians who desire to know the truth of the faith, except the divine Scriptures. For formerly it was shown in many ways which was the Church of Christ and which was paganism; but now it is in no way known, for those who wish to know which is the true Church of Christ, except solely through the Scriptures. Why? Because all those things which truly belong to Christ are also found in those heresies in schism: likewise churches, likewise the very divine Scriptures, likewise bishops and the other orders of clergy, likewise baptism, likewise the Eucharist, and all the rest, and finally Christ Himself [i.e., in name]. Therefore, if someone wishes to know which is the true Church of Christ, by what means can he distinguish it amid so great a confusion of likeness, except solely by the Scriptures? Likewise, formerly it was also by signs that those who were true Christians and those who were false were recognized. How? The false either could not perform such things as true Christians did, or they could not do such things as true Christians did; but they performed empty things, producing wonder indeed, but having no usefulness, as we have often explained. Christians, however, performed things that were complete, not only producing wonder, but also having every usefulness. And by these things it was known who were the true Christians and who the false. But now the working of signs has altogether declined; rather, even among those who are false Christians, counterfeit signs are found to be done. But as Peter explains in Clement, power to perform even full signs is also to be granted to Antichrist. Again, the Church of Christ was formerly understood from the very way of life, when the conduct of Christians, whether of all or of many, was holy, which was not found among the impious. But now Christians have become either such as, or worse than, heretics or pagans. Moreover, even greater continence is found among them, although they are in schism, than among Christians. Therefore, he who wishes to know which is the true Church of Christ, by what shall he know it, except solely by the Scriptures? Since the Lord knew that in the last days such a confusion of things would come to pass, therefore He commands that Christians who are in Christianity, and who wish to receive firmness in the true faith, should flee to nothing except the Scriptures. Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be scandalized and perish, not understanding which is the true Church. And by this they will fall into the abomination of desolation, which stands in the holy places of the Church. [Id est. Cum videritis hæresim impiam, quæ est exercitus Antichristi, stantem in locis sanctis Ecclesiæ, in illo tempore qui in Judæa sunt, fugiant ad montes: id est, qui sunt in Christianitate, conferant se ad Scripturas. Sicut enim verus Judæus est Christianus, dicente Apostolo. Non qui in manifesto Judæus est, sed qui in occulto (Rom. 2. 28. 29): sic vera Judæa Christianitas est, cujus nomen intelligitur confessio. Montes autem sunt Scripturæ apostolorum aut prophetarum, de quibus dictum est: Illuminas tu mirabiliter a montibus æternis (Psal. 75. 5). Et iterum de Ecclesia dicit: Fundamenta ejus in montibus sanctis (Psal. 86. 1). Et quare jubet in hoc tempore omnes Christianos conferre se ad Scripturas? Quia in tempore hoc, ex quo obtinuit hæresis illas Ecclesias, nulla probatio potest esse veræ Christianitatis, neque refugium po-test esse Christianorum aliud, volentium cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi Scripturæ divinæ. Antea enim multis modis ostendebatur, quæ esset Ecclesia Christi, et quæ gentilitas: none autem nullo modo cognoscitur, volentibus cognoscere quæ sit vera Ecclesia Christi, nisi tantummodo per Scripturas. Quare? Quia omnia hæc, quæ sunt proprie Christi in veritate, habent et hæreses illæ in schismate: similiter Ecclesias, similiter et ipsas Scripturas divinas, similiter episcopos, cæterosque ordines clericorum, similiter baptismum, aliter eucharistiam, et cætera omnia, denique ipsum Christum. Volens ergo quis cognoscere quæ sit vera Ecclesia Christi, unde cognoscat in tantæ confusione similitudinis, nisi tantummodo per Scripturas? Item antea et per signa cognoscebantur, qui erant veri Christiani, et qui falsi. Quomodo? Falsi quidem aut non poterant facere, sicut veri Christiani: aut talia non poterant, qualia veri Christiani: sed faciebant vacua, admirationem quidem facientia, utilitatem autem nullam habentia sicut frequenter exposuimus. Christiani autem faciebant plena, non solum admirationem facientia, sed etiam omnem utilitatem habentia. Et per hæc cognoscebantur qui erant veri Christiani, qui falsi. Nunc autem signorum operatio omnino levata est magis autem et apud eos invenitur, qui falsi sunt Christiani, fieri ficta. Sicut autem Petrus apud Clementem exponit, Antichristo etiam plenorum signorum faciendorum est danda potestas. Item ex moribus ipsis prius intelligebatur Ecclesia Christi, quando conversatio Christianorum, aut omnium, aut multorum erat sancta, quæ apud impios non erat. Nunc autem aut tales aut pejores facti sunt Christiani, quales sunt hæretici aut gentiles. Adhuc autem et major continentia apud illos invenitur, quamvis in schismate sint, quam apud Christianos. Qui ergo vult cognoscere quæ sit vera Ecclesia Christi unde cognoscat, nisi tantummodo per Scripturas? Sciens ergo Dominus tantam confusionem rerum in novissimis diebus esse futuram: ideo mandat, ut Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate, volentes firmitatem accipere fidei veræ, ad nullam rem fugiant, nisi ad Scripturas. Alioqui si ad alia respexerint, scandalizabuntur, et peribunt, non intelligentes quæ sit vera Ecclesia. Et per hoc incident in abominationem desolationis, quæ stat in sanctis Ecclesiæ locis.]

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLIX, ex capite xxiv, in PG, 56:908–909.]

Alt. Trans. Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

That is, when ye shall see the impious heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the Church, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; that is, let Christians betake themselves to the Scriptures. . . . The mountains are the Scriptures of the Apostles or Prophets. . . . And why does he bid all Christians at that time to betake themselves to the Scriptures? Because, at that time, when heresy hath got possession of those Churches, there can be no proof of true Christianity, nor any other refuge for Christians wishing to know the true faith, but the divine Scriptures. For before, it was shown in many ways which was the Church of Christ, and which heathenism; but now, it is known in no way to those who wish to ascertain which is the true Church of Christ, but only through the Scriptures. Why? Because all those things which are properly Christ’s in the truth, those heresies have also in their schism; Churches alike, the divine Scriptures themselves alike, bishops alike, and the other Orders of the clergy, baptism alike, the Eucharist alike, and everything else; nay, even Christ himself [i. e. the same in name]. Therefore, if any one wishes to ascertain which is the true Church of Christ, whence can he ascertain it, in the confusion arising from so great a similitude, but only by the Scriptures?. . . . Therefore the Lord, knowing that such a confusion of things would take place in the last days, commands, on that account, that the Christians who are in Christianity, and desirous of availing themselves of the strength of the true faith, should betake themselves to nothing else but the Scriptures. Otherwise, if they shall look to other things, they shall stumble and perish, not understanding which is the true Church. And through this they shall fall upon the abomination of desolation, which stands in the holy places of the Church.

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLIX, ex capite xxiv, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 2 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 342–343; PG, 56:908–909.]

Note: For alternate translations, see: John Harrison, Whose are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867), 537–538; Thomas Cranmer, A Confutation of Unwritten Verities, ch. 2, in The Works of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, vol. 2, ed. John Edmund Cox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1846), 24–25; Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), 1.5.1, p. 156; T. Cooper, An Answer in Defense of the Truth Against the Apology of Private Mass, ed. William Goode (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1850), 187; William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849), 683–685; George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, (London: G. Norman, 1831), 4, 6; Thomas James, A Treatise of the Corruption of Scripture, Counsels, and Fathers, ed. John Edmund Cox (London: John W. Parker, 1843), 104–107.

Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

What, then, does he say about priests? “The scribes and Pharisees sat on the chair of Moses,” that is, many priests and few priests. Many in name, few in deed. See, therefore, how you are to sit upon it: for it is not the chair that makes the priest, but the priest that makes the chair; it is not the place that sanctifies the man, but the man the place. Not every priest is holy, but every holy man is a priest. He who shall have sat well upon the chair will receive honor from it; he who shall have sat badly does injury to the chair. [Quid ergo dicit de sacerdotibus? Super cathedram Moysi sederunt scribæ et Pharisæi, id est, multi sacerdotes, et pauci sacerdotes. Multi nomine, pauci opere. Videte ergo, quomodo sedeatis super eam: quia cathedra non facit sacerdotem, sed sacerdos cathedram; non locus sanctificat hominem, sed homo locum. Non omnis sacerdos sanctus est, sed omnis sanctus sacerdos. Qui bene sederit super cathedram, honorem accipiet ab illa; qui male sederit, injuriam facit cathedræ.]

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLIII, ex capite xxiii, in PG, 56:876.]

Alt. Trans. Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

What, therefore, doth he say concerning priests? “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.’ (Matt. xxiii. 2.) That is, there are many priests, and few priests; many in name, few in works. See ye therefore how ye sit upon the chair; because the chair does not make the priest, but the priest the chair [quia cathedra non facit sacerdotem, sed sacerdos cathedram]; the place does not make the man holy, but the man the place [non locus sanctificat hominem, sed homo locum]. Every priest is not holy, but every holy man is a priest [Non omnis sacerdos sanctus est, sed omnis sanctus sacerdos]. He who occupies the chair well, receives honour from it; he who does not occupy it well does injury to the chair.

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLIII, ex capite xxiii, in John Harrison, Whose are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867), 536–537; PG, 56:876.]

Note: Cf. Thomas Becon, The Early Works of Thomas Becon: Being the Treatises Published by Him in the Reign of King Henry VIII, ed. John Ayre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1843), 6.

Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

Accordingly, we also say this about heretics: where faith is, there is the Church; where the Church is, there is the priest; where the priest is, there is baptism; where baptism is, there is a Christian. But where faith is not, there neither is the Church; where the Church is not, there neither is the priest; where the priest is not, there neither is baptism; where baptism is not, no one becomes a Christian. [Secundum hoc et de hæreticis dicimus: quia ubi est fides, illic est Ecclesia: ubi Ecclesia, ibi sacerdos: ubi sacerdos, ibi baptismum: ubi baptismum, ibi Christianus. Ubi autem fides non est, ibi nec Ecclesia est: ubi Ecclesia non est, nec sacerdos est: ubi sacerdos non est, nec baptismum: ubi baptismum non est, nec Christianus fit aliquis.]

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia sexta, ex cap. quarto, in PG, 56:673.]

Alt. Trans. Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

Where the faith, there the Church is . . . . but where the faith is not, there the Church is not [quia ubi est fides, illic est Ecclesia . . . . Ubi autem fides non est, ibi nec Ecclesia est].

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia sexta, ex cap. quarto, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 2 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 345; PG, 56:673.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

[Jerome of Stridon, Homilies on the Psalms, Homily 46 (on Psalm 133 [134]), in FC, 48:344; PL, 26:1223.]

Cf. Francis Turretin:

For the church is not to be sought in walls and temples, but in doctrines. The church is where true faith is.

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.13.28, p. 108.]

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

After these proceedings the Council was dissolved. All returned in gladness to their own provinces. For the Emperor and all good men had one and the same aim, that the East and West should be knit together by the bond of fellowship. But wickedness does not long lie hid, and the sore that is healed superficially before the bad humour has been worked off breaks out again. Valens and Ursacius and others associated with them in their wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.

[Jerome of Stridon, The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 19, in NPNF2, 6:329; PL, 23:172.]

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

…I know that a difference must be made between the apostles and all other preachers. The former always speak the truth; but the latter being men sometimes go astray. …It is for these virtues that I and others have left our homes, it is for these that we would live peaceably without any contention in the fields and alone; paying all due veneration to Christ’s pontiffs—so long as they preach the right faith—not because we fear them as lords but because we honour them as fathers deferring also to bishops as bishops, but refusing to serve under compulsion, beneath the shadow of episcopal authority, men whom we do not choose to obey.

[Jerome of Stridon, Letter 82.7, 11 (To Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria), in NPNF2, 6:173, 175; PL, 22:740, 743.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

They are not the sons of the saints, who hold the places of the saints, but those who carry out their works [non sanctorum filii sunt, qui tenent loca sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum].

[Gratiani, Concordia discordantium canonum, ac primum, de jure divino et humanæ constitutionis, distinctio XL, c. II, in PL, 187:214.]

Note: This quotation, which is ascribed to Jerome, is drawn from the Concordia discordantium canonum, also known as the Decretum Gratiani (a foundational work of canon law compiled in the twelfth century by the jurist Gratian). Jerome’s original treatise, from which it is drawn, no longer appears to be extant.

Alt. Trans. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

It is not easy to stand in the place of Peter and Paul, and to occupy the chair of those who governed with Christ, because it is said, They are not the children of saints who occupy the places of the saints, but those who do the same acts. [Non est facile stare loco Pauli et tenere gradum Petri jam cum Christo regnantium, quia hinc dicitur: non sanctorum filii sunt, qui tenent loca sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum.]

[Gratiani, Concordia discordantium canonum, ac primum, de jure divino et humanæ constitutionis, distinctio XL, c. II, in Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, vol. 2 (New York: G. Lane & P. P. Sanford, 1842), 73; PL, 187:213–214.]

Note: Cf. John Jewel, Epistola ad d. Scipionem, in The Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, vol. 4, ed. John Ayre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1850), 1117.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

“But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” Then He added, “and I say unto thee.” As if He had said, “Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But I am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

[Augustine of Hippo, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 26.1–2, in NPNF1, 6:340; PL, 38:479–480 (Sermo LXXVI).]

Isidore of Pelusium (d. c. 450 A.D.):

Let Eusebius, the leader of the people dwelling among the Pelusians, learn what the Church is. For it is most absurd and extremely terrible that one who does not even know this should seem fit to minister in sacred things. For to those who have tasted wisdom, it is clear that the Church is the assembly of the saints, formed from right faith and the best conduct. But since he does not know this, he destroys the true Church, causing many to stumble, while he builds a mere church building. He strips the one of its adornment by driving out the worthy, while he adorns the other with costly marble, and this is evident to all. If he were to understand clearly that Church and church building are not the same thing—for the one consists of pure souls, while the other is built of stones and wood—I believe he would cease tearing down the one and adorning the other beyond what is needed. [Μανθανέτω Εὐσέβιος ὁ τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς Πηλουσιωτῶν παροικοῦντος προεστώς, τί ἐστιν Ἐκκλησία· ἀτοπώτατον γάρ ἐστι καὶ λίαν δεινότατον, μηδὲ τὸ αὐτὸν γινώσκοντα δοκεῖν ἱερᾶσθαι. Ὅτι γὰρ τὸ ἄθροισμα τῶν ἁγίων τὸ ἐξ ὀρθῆς πίστεως καὶ πολιτείας ἀρίστης συγκεκροτημένον Ἐκκλησία ἐστὶ, δῆλόν ἐστι τοῖς σοφίας γευσαμένοις. Ὅτι δὲ τοῦτο μὴ γινώσκων ἐκεῖνος, τὴν μὲν ὄντως Ἐκκλησίαν καθαιρεῖ σκανδαλίζων πολλοὺς, τὸ δ᾽ ἐκκλησιαστήριον οἰκοδομεῖ· καὶ τὴν μὲν ἀποκοσμεῖ, τοὺς σπουδαίους ἐξοστρακίζων, τὸ δὲ πολυτελέσι μαρμάροις κοσμεί, καὶ τοῦτο πᾶσὶν ἐστι γνώριμον. Εἰ δὲ γνοίη ἀκριβῶς, ὅτι ἄλλο ἐστὶν Ἐκκλησία καὶ ἄλλο ἐκκλησιαστήριον· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἀμώμων ψυχῶν συνέστηκε, τὸ δ᾽ ἀπὸ λίθων καὶ ξύλων οἰκοδομεῖται· ἡγοῦμαι ὅτι παύσεται τὴν μὲν καθαιρῶν, τὸ δὲ πλέον τῆς χρείας κοσμῶν.]

[S. Isidori Pelusiotæ, Epistolarum, lib. II, epist. CCXLVI (Theodosio Episcopo), in PG, 78:684–685.]

Claudius, Bishop of Turin (c. 780–827 A.D.):

Certainly the one who is to be called apostolic is not the man who sits in the apostle’s chair, but the one who fulfills the apostolic office. [Certe non ille dicendus est apostolicus qui in cathedra sedens apostoli, sed qui apostolicum implet officium.]

[Claudii Episcopi, Apologeticum atque rescriptum adversus Theutmirum abbatem, in PL, 105:464.]

Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274 A.D.):

All the intermediaries through which faith comes to us are above suspicion. We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles, as Mark (16:20) says: “...and confirming the word with signs that followed.” And we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.1.1, in ANF, 1:414; PG, 7:844.]

Cf. Didache (c. 1st Century A.D.):

[Didache, 4.1, 11.1–2 in AF, 349–351, 361.]

2.1. Augustine of Hippo—Where is the Church Found? Return to Outline

Note: See further: Augustine of Hippo, The Unity of the Church (De unitate ecclesiæ), in PL, 43:391–446; cf. CSEL, 52:231–322.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

But between us and the Donatists the question is “where is this body,” that is, “where is the Church?” What, then, are we to do? Seek it in our own words, or in the words of its Head, our Lord Jesus Christ? I think that we ought rather to seek it in his words, who is the truth and knows his body best. For the Lord knows who are his (2 Timothy 2:19). [Inter nos autem et Donatistas quæstio est, ubi sit hoc corpus, id est, ubi sit Ecclesia. Quid ergo facturi sumus? in verbis nostris eam quæsituri, an in verbis capitis sui, Domini nostri Jesu Christi? Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam quærere debemus, qui veritas est, et optime novit corpus suum. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt ejus (II Tim. II, 19).]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. II, § 2, in PL, 43:392.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

But, as I was beginning to say, let us not hear, “You say this, I say this”; but let us hear, “The Lord says this.” Surely there are the Lord’s books, to whose authority we both agree, to whose authority we both submit, to whose authority we both serve: there let us seek the Church, there let us examine our case. [Sed, ut dicere cœperam, non audiamus, Haæc dicis, hæc dico; sed audiamus, Hæc dicit Dominus. Sunt certe Libri dominici, quorum auctoritati utrique consentimus, utrique cedimus utrique servimus: ibi quæramus Ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causam nostram.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. III, § 5, in PL, 43:394.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Let us not hear, You say this, I say that; but let us hear Thus saith the Lord. There are the Dominical books, whose authority we both acknowledge, we both yield to, we both obey; there let us seek the Church, there let us discuss the question between us.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. III, § 5, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol.3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 164; PL, 43:394.]

Cf. Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome,—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable, on the Jesuit theory, that in these seventy-five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he knows nothing.

[Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger), The Pope and the Council, new edition (London, Oxford, and Cambridge: Rivingtons, 1873), 88–89.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

To be sure, if the truth is revealed so clearly that it cannot come into doubt, it ought to be preferred to all the things by which I am held in the Catholic Church.

[Augustine of Hippo, Answer to the Letter of Mani Known as The Foundation, 4.5, in WSA, I/19:236; PL, 42:175.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

A man may lie; Truth cannot lie. From the mouth of Truth I recognize Christ, who is Truth itself; from the mouth of Truth I recognize the Church, which partakes of the Truth. [Potest fieri ut homo mentiatur: non potest fieri ut veritas mentiatur. Ex veritatis ore agnosco Christum, ipsam veritatem: ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam, participem veritatis.]

[S. Augustini, In psalmum LVII enarratio, § 6 (vers. 4), in PL, 36:679.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

By the mouth of God, which is the truth, I know the Church of God which is partaker of the truth [Ex veritatis ore agnosco Ecclesiam participem veritatis].

[S. Augustini, In psalmum LVII enarratio, § 6 (vers. 4), in Humphrey Lynde, “The By-Way (Via Devia),” 18, in Supplement to Gibson’s Preservative Against Popery, vol. 4, Sir Humphrey Lynde’s Via Tuta and Via Devia (London: British Society for Promoting the Religious Principles of the Reformation, 1850), 279; PL, 36:679. Cf. WSA, III/17:128.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

A human being can lie, but it is not possible for Truth to lie. From the womb of truth I recognize Christ, who is Truth itself, and from the words of Truth I recognize the Church, which participates in the Truth.

[Augustine of Hippo, Exposition of Psalm 57, 6 (on verse 4), in WSA, III/17:128; PL, 36:679.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

I do not want the holy Church to be demonstrated by human proofs, but by divine oracles. [nolo humanis documentis, sed divinis oraculis sanctam Ecclesiam demonstrari.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. III, § 6, in PL, 43:395.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

I would not have the holy Church demonstrated by human testimonies, but by divine oracles.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. III, § 6, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 164–165; PL, 43:395.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Therefore, let those things be set aside, which we cite against one another, that come not from the divine canonical books, but from elsewhere. [Auferantur ergo illa de medio, quæ adversus nos invicem, non ex divinis canonicis Libris, sed aliunde recitamus.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. III, § 5, in PL, 43:395.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Therefore let those testimonies which we mutually bring against each other, from any other quarter than the divine canonical books, be put out of sight.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. III, § 5, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol.3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 164; PL, 43:395.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

In the Scriptures we have learned Christ; in the Scriptures we have learned the Church. We both possess the Scriptures; why do we not both hold to Christ and the Church in them?

[Augustine of Hippo, Letter 105 (To the Donatists [409]), in FC, 18:206; PL, 33:401.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Whoever departs from the Holy Scriptures concerning that Head [i.e., Christ], even if they are found everywhere the Church is found, are not in the Church. [quicumque de ipso capite, ab Scripturis sanctis dissentiunt, etiamsi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus Ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. IV, § 7, in PL, 43:395–396.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Whoever dissents from the sacred Scriptures, even if they are found in all places in which the church is designated, are not the church.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. IV, § 7, in Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.13.30, pp. 109–110; PL, 43:395–396.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

We hold this Church; against these divine utterances we admit no human accusations. …I have the clearest voice of my Shepherd, commending the Church to me and expressing it without any ambiguity: I will lay the blame on myself if I should wish to be seduced and to wander away from His flock, which is the Church itself, by the words of men; especially since He has warned me by saying, “My sheep hear my voice, and follow me” (John 10:27). Behold, His voice is clear and plain: having heard it, whoever does not follow Him, how will he dare to call himself one of His sheep? Let no one say to me, “O, what did Donatus say? O, what did Parmenianus say? or Pontius, or any of those men!” For neither are catholic bishops to be obeyed if they should by chance err, so that they think anything contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God. [Nos hanc Ecclesiam tenemus, contra istas divinas voces nullas humanas criminationes admittimus. …Habeo manifestissimam vocem pastoris mei, commendantis mihi et sine ullis ambagibus exprimentis Ecclesiam: mihi imputabo si ab ejus grege, quod est ipsa Ecclesia, per verba hominum seduci atque aberrare voluero; cum me præsertim admonuerit dicens, Quæ sunt oves meæ, vocem meam audiunt et sequuntur me (Joan. x, 27). Ecce vox ejus clara et aperta: hac audita qui eum non sequitur, quomodo se ovem ejus dicere audebit? Nemo mihi dicat: O quid dixit Donatus, o quid dixit Parmenianus, aut Pontius, aut quilibet illorum! Quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei Scripturas aliquid sentiant.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XI, § 28, in PL, 43:410–411.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

We adhere to this Church; against those divine declarations we admit no human cavils.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XI, § 28, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 165; PL, 43:410.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

I have the most manifest voice of my pastor commending to me, and without any hesitation setting forth the church, I will impute it to myself, if I shall wish to be seduced by the words of men and to wander from his flock, which is the church itself, since he specially admonished me saying, my sheep hear my voice and follow me; listen to his voice clear and open and heard; who does not follow him, how will he dare to call himself his sheep?

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XI, § 28, in Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.12.15, pp. 91–92; PL, 43:410.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God [Quia nec catholicis episcopis consentiendum est, sicubi forte falluntur, ut contra canonicas Dei Scripturas aliquid sentiant].

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XI, § 28, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 165; PL, 43:410–411.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

What do they say to this, they who so arrogantly call themselves Christians and so openly contradict Christ. We hold to this Church, we admit no human accusations against those divine utterances. It moves us greatly that our Lord, whom not to believe is sacrilegious and impious, in his last words spoken on earth, left this last saving evidence of the primitive church. For having said these things, he soon ascended into heaven. He wished to fortify our ears against those whom he had predicted in earlier times would rise up and say Look, here is the Christ. Look, there he is (Mt. 24:23). He warned us not to believe them. Nor is there any excuse for us if we believe them against the voice of our shepherd that is so clear, so open, so obvious that no one whether insensible or slow witted could say, “I didn’t understand,” for who wouldn’t understand Thus it is fitting that the Christ suffer and rise on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:46–47). Who wouldn’t understand You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. When he had said this he was lifted up and a cloud took him up and they saw him going into heaven (Acts 1:8–10). What is this I ask? When these last words are heard of a dying man who would go among the dead, no one says he lied, and he is judged an impious heretic who perchance makes light of them. So how do we flee the wrath of God if, either not believing or belittling, we spurn the last words of the only son of God, our Lord and savior, who would go to heaven and from there watch who neglects these words and who observes them and then would come to judge concerning all of them. I have the most obvious voice of my shepherd commending the Church to me without any ambiguity. I will blame myself if I should be led astray or wander from his flock which is the Church itself, through the words of men when he has especially warned me, saying, those who are my sheep hear my voice and follow me (John 10:27). See, his voice is clear and open. Having heard it, who does not follow him? How will he dare to say he is his sheep? No one tells me “O, what does Donatus say, what does Parmenianus say, or Pontius or any of them? No one agrees with the catholic bishops if they are anywhere by chance mistaken in holding any opinion contrary against the canonical Scriptures of God. But if they maintain the bond of unity and love and they fall into error, it will be done to them what the Apostle says if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you (Phil. 3:15). But now those divine utterances about the universal Church are so obvious that the heretics cannot rant against them unless out of perversity of mind or blind rage.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XI, § 28, in PL, 43:410-411, trans. William Webster.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Therefore, all such things being set aside, let them show their Church, if they can, not in the speeches and rumors of Africans, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the writings of any disputants, not in lying signs and wonders, because we have also been made ready and cautious against these by the word of the Lord: but in the prescription of the Law, in the foretold things of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the one Shepherd himself, in the preaching and labors of the Evangelists; that is, in the authority of all the canonical books of the holy Scriptures. [Remotis ergo omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini præparati et cauti redditi sumus: sed in præscripto Legis, in Prophetarum prædictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius Pastoris vocibus, in Evangelistarum prædicationibus et laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum Librorum auctoritatibus.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XVIII, § 47, in PL, 43:427–428.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

All such matters, therefore, being put out of sight, let them show their Church, if they can; not in the discourses and reports of Africans, not in the councils of their own bishops, not in the writings of any controversialists, not in fallacious signs and miracles, for even against these we are rendered by the word of the Lord prepared and cautious, but in the ordinances of the Law, in the predictions of the Prophets, in the songs of the Psalms, in the words of the very Shepherd himself, in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists, that is, in all the canonical authorities of sacred books. Nor so as to collect together and rehearse those things that are spoken obscurely, or ambiguously, or figuratively, such as each can interpret as he likes, according to his own views. For such testimonies cannot be rightly understood and expounded, unless those things that are most clearly spoken are first held by a firm faith.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XVIII, § 47, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 165; PL, 43:427–428.]

Full. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Remotis ergo omnibus talibus Ecclesiam suam demonstrent, si possunt, non in sermonibus et rumoribus Afrorum, non in conciliis episcoporum suorum, non in litteris quorumlibet disputatorum, non in signis et prodigiis fallacibus, quia etiam contra ista verbo Domini præparati et cauti redditi sumus: sed in præscripto Legis, in Prophetarum prædictis, in Psalmorum cantibus, in ipsius unius Pastoris vocibus, in Evangelistarum prædicationibus et laboribus, hoc est, in omnibus canonicis sanctorum Librorum auctoritatibus. Nec ita, ut ea colligant et commemorent, quæ obscure vel ambigue vel figurate dicta sunt, quæ quisque sicut voluerit, interpretetur secundum sensum suum. Talia enim recte intelligi exponique non possunt, nisi prius ea, quæ apertissime dicta sunt, firma fide teneantur.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XVIII, § 47, in PL, 43:427–428.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

But no one will be able to have Christ as his head unless he is in His body, that is, the Church; and this Church, just as the Head Himself, we ought to recognize in the holy canonical Scriptures, not to seek in the various rumors, opinions, deeds, sayings, and visions of men. [Habere autem caput Christum nemo poterit, nisi qui in ejus corpore fuerit, quod est, Ecclesia, quam sicut ipsum caput in Scripturis sanctis canonicis debemus agnoscere, non in variis hominum rumoribus, et opinionibus, et factis, et dictis, et visis inquirere.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XIX, § 49, in PL, 43:429.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

We ought to find the Church, as the Head of the Church, in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, not to inquire for it in the various reports, and opinions, and deeds, and words, and visions of men.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XIX, § 49, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 165; PL, 43:429.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

But whether they themselves [i.e., the Donatists] hold the Church, let them demonstrate it from no other source than the canonical Books of the divine Scriptures. For we also do not say on that account that it ought to be believed that we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevis or Ambrose of Milan or innumerable other bishops of our communion commended the very Church which we hold, or because it was proclaimed by the councils of our colleagues, or because throughout the whole world, in the holy places which our communion frequents, so many wonders occur, whether of answered prayers or of healings. [Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi de divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant: quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam quam tenemus, commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius, vel alii innumerabiles nostræ communionis episcopi; aut quia nostrorum collegarum conciliis ipsa prædicata est; aut quia per totum orbem in locis sanctis, quæ frequentat nostra communio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum, vel sanitatum fiunt]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XIX, § 50, in PL, 43:430.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Whether they [i.e. the Donatists] hold the Church, they must show by the Canonical books of the Divine Scriptures alone; for we do not say, that we must be believed because we are in the Church of Christ, because Optatus of Milevi, or Ambrose of Milan, or innumerable other bishops of our communion, commended that Church to which we belong, or because it is extolled by the Councils of our colleagues, or because through the whole world in the holy places which those of our communion frequent such wonderful answers to prayers or cures happen.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XIX, § 50, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 165; PL, 43:430.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Whatever such things happen in the catholic Church ought therefore to be approved because they happen in the catholic Church; the catholic Church is not manifested because these things happen in her. The Lord Jesus himself, when he had risen from the dead judged . . . that they must be confirmed by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms... These are the proofs of our cause, these the foundations, these the supports. We read in the Acts of the Apostles that certain believers daily searched the Scriptures to see whether these things were so: which Scriptures, surely, if not the canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these were added the Gospels, the apostolic Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse of John. [Quæcumque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt; non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia hæc in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis . . . eos testimoniis Legis et Prophetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit… Hæc sunt causæ nostræ documenta, hæc fundamenta, hæc firmamenta. Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum dictum de quibusdam credentibus, quod quotidie scrutarentur Scripturas, an hæc ita se haberent: quas utique Scripturas, nisi canonicas Legis et Prophetarum? Huc accesserunt Evangelia, apostolicæ Epistolæ, Actus Apostolorum, Apocalypsis Joannis.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XIX, §§ 50–51, in PL, 43:430.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be approved of because they take place in the Catholic Church; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself when he had risen from the dead . . . judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms… These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports for our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. What Scriptures but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XIX, §§ 50–51, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 165–166; PL, 43:430.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

But if they are unwilling to understand, it is enough for us that we hold that Church which is shown by the most manifest testimonies of the holy and canonical Scriptures. [Quod si nolunt intelligere, sufficit nobis quod eam tenemus Ecclesiam, quæ manifestissimis sanctarum et canonicarum Scripturarum testimoniis demonstratur.]

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XXII, § 62, in PL, 43:437.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

But if they do not choose to understand, it is sufficient for us that we adhere to that Church which is demonstrated by such extremely clear testimonies of the Holy and Canonical Scriptures.

[S. Augustini, De unitate ecclesiæ, lib. I, cap. XXII, § 62, in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition , vol. 3 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 166; PL, 43:437.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Nevertheless in this matter also the truth of those same Scriptures is held fast by us, when we do that which has already pleased the whole Church, which the authority of the Scriptures themselves commends: namely, because Holy Scripture cannot deceive, whoever fears to be deceived by the obscurity of this question should consult that same Church concerning it, which Holy Scripture demonstrates without any ambiguity. [earumdem tamen Scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas, cum hoc facimus quod universæ jam placuit Ecclesiæ, quam ipsarum Scripturarum commendat auctoritas ut quoniam sancta Scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuritate quæstionis, eamdem ecclesiam de illa consulat, quam sine ulla ambiguitate sancta Scriptura demonstrat.]

[S. Augustini, Contra Cresconium Donatistam, lib. I, cap. XXXIII, § 39, in PL, 43:466.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

The authority of the scriptures themselves commends the church; therefore since the holy scripture cannot deceive, let him who fears to be misled by the obscurity of the present question (concerning baptism) consult concerning it the same church, which without any ambiguity the holy scripture demonstrates.

[S. Augustini, Contra Cresconium Donatistam, lib. I, cap. XXXIII, § 39, in William Palmer, A Treatise on the Church of Christ: Designed Chiefly for the Use of Students in Theology, 3rd edition, vol. 2 (London: J. G. F. & J. Rivington, 1842), 59; PL, 43:466.]

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

Furthermore, although there is no certain example can be brought out of the canonical scriptures of this thing, yet in this very thing do we hold the truth, when we do that which pleaseth the whole church, which the authority of the scriptures themselves commendeth; that seeing the holy scripture cannot deceive, whosoever fears to be deceived in the obscurity of this question, (whether heretics are to be again baptized,) let him consult the same church concerning it, which the scripture demonstrateth without any ambiguity.

(S. Augustini, Contra Cresconium Donatistam, lib. I, cap. XXXIII, § 39, in William Beveridge, Ecclesia Anglicana Ecclesia Catholica: Or, The Doctrine of the Church of England, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840), 127–128; PL, 43:466.]

Cf. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England:

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

[The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, art. 20, in COC, 3:500.]

Note: Historical Protestant confessions are in full agreement with Augustine.

Note: See further: Did Augustine Believe in Sola Scriptura?

Note: See further: Sola Scriptura in Church History: A Survey of Patristic Literature.

2.2. Irenaeus?—A Case Study Return to Outline

Note: A brief aside is warranted regarding the dangers of anachronism—that is, the reading of modern conceptions back into writers from different times and places—and the corresponding importance of attending carefully to historical context. For example, when Irenaeus appeals to a succession of teachers (Against Heresies, 4.26.2–4), he does so principally to demonstrate the continuity of public, apostolic doctrine (3.3.1; 3.3.3; 3.4.1) over against Gnostic claims concerning the existence and authority of a secret, unwritten apostolic tradition (3.1.1; 3.2.1; 3.11.8). In their original historical setting, therefore, these “succession” lists functioned as a check upon the faithfulness of doctrinal teaching rather than as an independent guarantee of sacramental grace or ecclesiastical validity.

The same principle of contextualization that governs the interpretation of any other historical document must also govern our reading of Irenaeus’s language regarding succession. Just as the ordinary sense of common English words has shifted markedly across the centuries, so the term “succession” itself cannot be assumed to carry the same freight in the late second century that later ecclesiastical usage would assign it. The word “girl,” for instance, first appears in English at the end of the twelfth century, referring to a child or young person of either gender; only in the mid-fifteenth century did it come to denote the female gender exclusively. Similarly, in the thirteenth century “nice” meant “foolish, ignorant, frivolous, or senseless”; in the early fourteenth it signified “timid or faint-hearted”; in the late fourteenth, “fussy or fastidious”; in the fifteenth, “dainty or delicate”; in the sixteenth, “precise or careful”; in the eighteenth, “agreeable or delightful”; and only in the nineteenth century did it acquire its modern connotation of “kind or thoughtful.” When attempting to ascertain the true meaning of a historical text, it is therefore imperative that we understand the context in which its words were used and how that context changes across times and places. We must always guard against reading our own present-day understanding—whether of “succession” or of any other term—back into a historical text, as the sense of language continually evolves according to time, place, and circumstance.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

…Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, “No man sees us,” shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance (secundum gloriam), nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart…

…From all such persons, therefore, it behoves us to keep aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the order of priesthood (presbyterii ordine), display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.26.2–4, in ANF, 1:497; PG, 7:1053–1055.]

Cf. William Goode:

Here, then, are evidently two sorts of successors of the Apostles, and from one of them we are directed to hold ourselves aloof.

[William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, vol. 2 (London: John Henry Jackson, 1853), 340.]

Cf. Francis Turretin:

When the fathers bring forward succession in disputing against heretics, they do not mean so much a personal or local as a doctrinal succession. They even always connect and suppose a doctrinal succession.

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.13.30, p. 109.]

Cf. Nick Needham:

In Irenaeus, however, it was more a case of the bishop deriving his importance from belonging to an apostolic church, rather than a church being a true church because it had an apostolic bishop.

[Nick Needham, 2000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol. 1 (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2023), 108.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.1.1, in ANF, 1:414; PG, 7:844.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce [orally, sed per vivam vocem, lit. by a living voice]…

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.2.1, in ANF, 1:415; PG, 7:846.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life [columna autem et firmamentum Ecclesiæ est Evangelium et spiritus vitæ]; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.11.8, in ANF, 1:428; PG, 7:885.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace [ubi Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia, et omnis gratia];

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.24.1, in ANF, 1:458; PG, 7:966.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.4.1, in ANF, 1:416–417; PG, 7:855.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.3.3, in ANF, 1:416; PG, 7:851.]

Cf. Michael J. Kruger:

Irenaeus’ insistence that the monepiscopate dates back to the first century presents us with a confusing web of historical evidence. While a variety of sources from the first and early second centuries (surveyed above) suggest that the office of a singular bishop was not the earliest form of church government, Irenaeus, looking back, argues that this office has been there from the time of the apostles themselves. While such conflicting lines of evidence are difficult to resolve, scholars have understandably tended to prioritize the earlier sources (Acts, Pauline letters, Didache, 1 Clement) over the later ones (Irenaeus, Eusebius). Moreover, there are good reasons why Irenaeus may have been drawn to the idea of apostolic succession, even if he ended up being incorrect about some of the historical details. During the latter half of the second century, the Valentinian gnostics had begun to justify their heterodox theology by claiming that these teachings were from the apostles that had been secretly passed down to them over time. Irenaeus employed a persuasive counter-argument, namely that orthodox theology had been reliably passed down from bishop to bishop, all the way from the apostles to his own day. This concern is evident in Irenaeus’ conclusion to the list of bishops… This historical context suggests a plausible explanation for the origin of Irenaeus’ list. Irenaeus, or perhaps even Hegesippus before him, may have looked back at the key presbyters who preserved church tradition in prior generations (perhaps individuals who functioned as the ‘chairman’ of the larger presbytery) and mistakenly assumed they were bishops like the ones that existed in his own day. But even if Irenaeus applied ‘apostolic succession’ anachronistically (i.e., on the basis of practices in his own time), the core principle he drew upon – namely that apostolic teaching is preserved by the appointed teachers of the Church – had a long and distinguished pedigree. We see this principle in 1 Clement where we are told that the apostles ‘appointed the first fruits of their ministries as bishops and deacons and that 'if these should die, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry’. 1 Clement’s understanding of apostolic succession is more primitive than Irenaeus’ since it makes no mention of a singular named bishop but instead mentions that ‘succession’ occurs through a plurality of bishops (or elders). Put differently, 1 Clement conceives apostolic succession in more general terms – the path of church tradition goes all the way back to the apostles but not necessarily through named individuals. Going back even further, we can see this same principle evident in 2 Timothy 2.2 and Acts 20.28–31. The teaching of the apostles is passed down by the leaders of the Church, but not necessarily through singular, named bishops.

[Michael J. Kruger, Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2018), 82–83, 83–84.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.3.1, in ANF, 1:415; PG, 7:848.]

Cf. Martin Chemnitz:

Therefore, because the heretics kept on placing the traditions in opposition to the Scriptures in such a way that they attempted to show from the traditions: (1) that the Scriptures which the church had received as canonical are not the true Scriptures and are not to be received in all their parts; (2) that the truth cannot be understood from the Scripture because of the variety, that is, ambiguity, or uncertainty and obscurity; (3) that the truth cannot be learned from the Scriptures alone unless also the traditions which were not delivered in writing but orally are added; for beside those things which the apostles delivered publicly and to all, which afterward they set down in writing, they also entrusted certain other things secretly to only a few — because of all this, Irenaeus and Tertullian refer the heretics to tradition. And because traditions were paraded on both sides, they debate the question what the true tradition of the apostles is. They prove that that is the one and only truth which Christ received from God and delivered to the apostles, which the apostles on their part delivered to the churches, and which was guarded in the churches through the succession of presbyters. And because at that time the truth of apostolic teaching and of the Christian faith flourished chiefly in those churches which had been founded by apostles, so that they still faithfully kept and preserved the true stock for propagating the religion, therefore it was certainly most appropriate to consider the order and agreement of these churches in the doctrine. Rightly did Irenaeus then declare: “Even if no writing had been left by the apostles, nevertheless, from that tradition which the church had received from the apostles and which it had preserved uncorrupted until that time, it could be learned what the true apostolic doctrine was.” But will the same be applicable to the papal church, so that whatever she holds and preserves must be judged to be apostolic solely because of this name [tradition], even though they cannot prove it with any testimony of Scripture?

[Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), 2.3.7, p. 235.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God—namely, strange doctrines—shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.26.2, in ANF, 1:497; PG, 7:1053–1054.]

Note: Here Irenaeus acknowledges as the successors of the apostles only those who, in succession to the Ephesian presbyterate or episcopate, possessed the undoubted gift of truth; and he teaches that those who had departed from the principal succession were the ones who introduced new or strange doctrines, just as Nadab and Abihu, though the successors of Aaron, were punished with fire from heaven because they offered strange fire to the Lord.

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.26.5, in ANF, 1:498; PG, 7:1056.]

Cf. Charles Elliott:

The ancient fathers place no stress on a mere local and personal succession, apart from the succession of pure doctrines and correct moral principles and conduct.

[Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, vol. 2 (New York: G. Lane & P. P. Sanford, 1842), 72.]

Cf. Everett Ferguson:

Apostolic succession as formulated by Irenaeus was from one holder of the teaching chair in a church to the next and not from ordainer to ordained, as it became.

[Everett Ferguson, “Apostolic Succession,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd edition, vol. 1, A–K, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997), 94.]

Leon Morris:

Sequence and transmission. Upholders of the theory claim transmission of grace or authority by ordination. It is necessary for the bishop to lay on hands for the succession to be maintained. But often the arguments they produce demonstrate no more than sequence, which is not the same thing. Thus Turner points out that, for Augustine, ‘The apostolic succession of the church of Rome is, as with St Irenaeus, from holder to holder, not from consecrator to consecrated.’ The importance of this is that sequence does not involve the doctrinal consequences that transmission does. Sequence can be broken upon great and serious cause, but transmission cannot. C. B. Moss likens apostolic succession to the line of the kings of England. But that succession has from time to time been broken without subsequent rulers all being ‘invalid’. It is not enough to produce arguments which indicate sequence and then draw conclusions which are valid only on the assumption of transmission.

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 127–128.]

Cf. C. H. Turner:

[For Augustine] The apostolic succession of the church of Rome is, as with St Irenaeus, from holder to holder, not from consecrator to consecrated.

[C. H. Turner, “Apostolic Succession,” in Essays on the Early History of The Church and the Ministry, ed. H. B. Swete (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1918), 193.]

Cf. Everett Ferguson:

Apostolic succession arose in a polemical situation as an effective argument for the truth of Catholic tradition against Gnostic teachings. As so often happens to successful arguments, it came to be regarded as an article of faith, not just a defense of the truth but a part of the truth itself.

[Everett Ferguson, “Apostolic Succession,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd edition, vol. 1, A–K, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997), 95.]

Cf. Eric Osborn:

The subjection of all churches to Rome would be unthinkable for Irenaeus.

[Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 130.]

Cf. Eric Osborn:

The doctrinal succession is definitive, not Rome, which is only important because it possesses the doctrine which serves as a standard for others.

[Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 129.]

Note: For general historical context regarding apostolic succession, see: Everett Ferguson, “Apostolic Succession,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd edition, vol. 1, A–K, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997), 94–95.

3. An Argument from the Nature of the Apostolate (Apostolic Office) Return to Outline

Charles Hodge:

To determine whether modern bishops are apostles, it is necessary in the first place to determine the nature of the Apostleship, and ascertain whether modern prelates have the gifts, qualifications, and credentials of the office. Who then were the Apostles? They were a definite number of men selected by Christ to be his witnesses, to testify to his doctrines, to the facts of his life, to his death, and specially to his resurrection. To qualify them for this office of authoritative witnesses, it was necessary, (1.) That they should have independent and plenary knowledge of the gospel. (2.) That they should have seen Christ after his resurrection. (3.) That they should be inspired, i. e., that they should be individually and severally so guided by the Spirit as to be infallible in all their instructions. (4.) That they should be authenticated as the messengers of Christ, by adherence to the true gospel, by success in preaching (Paul said to the Corinthians that they were the seal of his apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. 2); and by signs and wonders and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost. Such were the gifts and qualifications and credentials of the original Apostles; and those who claimed the office without possessing these gifts and credentials, were pronounced false apostles and messengers of Satan.

When Paul claimed to be an apostle, he felt it necessary to prove, (1.) That he had been appointed not by man nor through men, but immediately by Jesus Christ. (Gal. i. 1.) (2.) That he had not been taught the gospel by others, but received his knowledge by immediate revelation. (Gal. i. 12.) (3.) That he had seen Christ after his resurrection. (1 Cor. ix. 1 and xv. 8.) (4.) That he was inspired, or infallible as a teacher, so that men were bound to recognize his teachings as the teaching of Christ. (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) (5.) That the Lord had authenticated his apostolic mission as fully as he had done that of Peter. (Gal. ii. 8.) (6.) “The signs of an apostle,” he tells the Corinthians, “were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” (2 Cor. xii. 12.)

Modern prelates do not claim to possess any one of these gifts. Nor do they pretend to the credentials which authenticated the mission of the Apostles of Christ. They claim no immediate commission; no independent knowledge derived from immediate revelation; no personal infallibility; no vision of Christ; and no gift of miracles. That is, they claim the authority of the office, but not its reality. It is very plain, therefore, that they are not apostles. They cannot have the authority of the office without having the gifts on which that authority was founded, and from which it emanated. If a man cannot be a prophet without the gift of prophecy; or a miracle-worker without the gift of miracles; or have the gift of tongues without the ability to speak other languages than his own; no man can rightfully claim to be an apostle without possessing the gifts which made the original Apostles what they were. The deaf and dumb might as reasonably claim to have the gift of tongues. The world has never seen or suffered a greater imposture than that weak, ignorant, and often immoral men, should claim the same authority to teach and rule that belonged to men to whom the truth was supernaturally revealed, who were confessedly infallible in its communication, and to whose divine mission God himself bore witness in signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost. The office of the Apostles as described in the New Testament, was, therefore, from its nature incapable of being transmitted, and has not in fact been perpetuated.

There is no command given in the New Testament to keep up the succession of the Apostles. When Judas had apostatized, Peter said his place must be filled, but the selection was to be confined to those, as he said, “which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us.” (Acts i. 21, 22.) The reason assigned for this appointment was not that the Apostleship might be continued, but that the man selected might be “a witness with us of his resurrection.” “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.” And that was the end. We never hear of Matthias afterward. It is very doubtful whether this appointment of Matthias had any validity. What is here recorded (Acts, i. 15–26), took place before the Apostles had been endued with power from on high (Acts i. 8), and, therefore, before they had any authority to act in the premises. Christ in his own time and way completed the number of his witnesses by calling Paul to be an Apostle. But, however this may be, here if ever exceptio probat regulam [the exception confirms the rule]. It proves that the ranks of the Apostles could be filled, and the succession continued only from the number of those who could bear independent witness of the resurrection and doctrines of Christ.

Besides the fact that there is no command to appoint apostles, there is clear evidence that the office was not designed to be perpetuated. With regard to all the permanent officers of the Church, there is, (1.) Not only a promise to continue the gifts which pertained to the office, and the command to appoint suitable persons to fill it, but also a specification of the qualifications to be sought and demanded; and (2.) a record of the actual appointment of incumbents; and (3.) historical evidence of their continuance in the Church from that day to this. With regard to the Apostleship, all this is wanting. As we have seen, the gifts of the office have not been continued, there is no command to perpetuate the office, no directions to guide the Church in the selection of proper persons to be apostles, no record of their appointment, and no historical evidence of their continuance; on the contrary, they disappear entirely after the death of the original twelve. It might as well be asserted that the Pharaohs of Egypt, or the twelve Cæsars of Rome have been continued, as that the race of apostles has been perpetuated.

It is true that there are a few passages in which persons other than the original twelve seem to be designated as apostles. But from the beginning of the Church until of late, no one has ventured on that account to regard Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and Titus, as apostles, in the official sense of the word. All the designations given to the officers of the Church in the New Testament, are used in different senses. Thus, “presbyter” or “elder,” means, an old man, a Jewish officer, an officer of the Church. The word “deacon,” means, a domestic, sometimes a secular officer, sometimes any minister of the Church; sometimes the lowest order of church officers. Because Paul and Peter call themselves “deacons,” it does not prove that their office was to serve tables. In like manner the word “apostle” is sometimes used in its etymological sense “a messenger,” sometimes in a religious sense, as we use the word “missionary;” and sometimes in its strict official sense, in which it is confined to the immediate messengers of Christ. Nothing can be plainer from the New Testament than that neither Silas nor Timothy, nor any other person, is ever spoken of as the official equal of the twelve Apostles. These constitute a class by themselves. They stand out in the New Testament as they do in all Church history, as the authoritative founders of the Christian Church, without peers or colleagues.

[Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874), 139–142.]

Herman Bavinck:

In the third place, it is certain, according to Scripture, that the apostolate was an exceptional, temporary, and nonrenewable office in the New Testament church. Even if the episcopate was a different office from the presbyterate, this would by no means imply that it was identical with the apostolate and the continuation of it. Of course there can be good sense in saying that the episcopi or presbyteri are the successors of the apostles, for the latter appointed them in all the churches they founded and charged them with the care of those churches. But that fact does not remove the great and essential distinction between the two. Nor can theologians on the Roman Catholic side of this discussion wipe out this distinction. The apostles, after all, enjoyed a very special guidance of the Holy Spirit and held an office that extended to the entire church, indeed, to the entire world (Matt. 28:20). But their successors, even if they are bishops in the Roman Catholic sense of the word, by no means hold such an office. Also, according to Rome, they are not infallible, and they oversee only a small part of the church, a diocese. But the difference is even greater. The apostles had been the ear-and-eye witnesses of Jesus’s words and deeds. They were directly called by Christ himself to their office, received a special measure of the Holy Spirit, and were called to a unique task, that is, to lay the foundation of the church and to offer in their message the permanent medium of fellowship between Christ and his church. In all these things they are distinguished from all others, are situated on a level far above all their successors, and hold an office that is nontransferable and nonrenewable. The extraordinary gifts in which they shared were given to no other ministers of the church. As apostles in the true sense, they have no successors, even though it is the case that the leadership of the church to which they were called has also been entrusted—in another mode and in a more limited circle—to others after them.

[Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), § 502, pp. 361–362.]

Edward Arthur Litton:

On examining the New Testament we find that Christ appointed the ministry, in its outward form, no further than that He appointed Apostles for various functions and with special qualifications. He chose the twelve to be His constant associates, in order to receive at first hand the impress of that personality which stands alone in history, and which they have transmitted to us in the gospels; to be the chosen witnesses of His resurrection; to receive from His lips, after that event, such instruction in ‘things pertaining to the kingdom of God,’ its nature and ordinances, as they were able to receive (Acts i. 3); to be present at His ascension; and after His departure to exercise supreme authority in the Church when it should formally come into existence. Their properly ministerial function dates from an early period, but it was also the last charge committed to them by their Master. They were to go forth and preach the Gospel to every creature, to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. The Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood had already been instituted in their persons, and now they were commanded to admit disciples of all nations into the visible Church by baptism. Not merely a missionary, but a pastoral charge was laid upon them; for we cannot suppose that the command to Peter to feed the sheep and the lambs of Christ’s flock (John xxi. 15, 16) was given to him in a personal capacity, and not rather as a representative of the Apostolic college.

The Apostles, may, in fact, be regarded under three aspects. On some occasions they represent the whole body of believers, as at the institution of the Lord’s Supper. After the departure of Judas the Apostles were ‘clean through the word’ that Christ had spoken unto them (John xv. 3)—fit representatives of the blessed company of all faithful people to the end of time. To them, in this capacity, our Lord gave the symbols of His body broken and His blood shed, and in them, to His Church, until He should come again. Here their official character is merged in their Christian. Again, they were to be the special instruments of the Holy Spirit in founding and building up the Church; the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice; for the discharge of which office they received, as no Christians have since received, the gift of inspiration. And, lastly, they were, as has been observed, ministers of Christ—prototypes, in their offices of preaching and pastoral work, of the ordinary Christian ministry, and as such a distinct order in the Church.

From this it will be seen in what sense they have successors. As inspired teachers and rulers of the Church they can have no successors. We are built upon ‘the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles’ (Ephes. ii. 20); but a foundation does not repeat itself. We may have ten thousand instructors in the faith, but we have not, and cannot have, many fathers (1 Cor. iv. 15). Nor is there any necessity for such a personal succession. For though the men were removed one after another, their place was taken, under a superintending Providence, by their writings, in which, though dead, they yet speak. The New Testament Scriptures are the only real Apostolate which the Church now possesses; and, we may add, the only one which is suitable to the spiritual constitution of the Church, as the temple of the Holy Ghost. In every Christian society which is in a healthy state Matthew, John, Paul, Peter still decide points of doctrine, order its affairs, and preside in its councils with undisputed authority. As representatives of the mystical body of Christ, the Apostles have successors only in the sense that the true Church never can fail nor the gates of Hades prevail against it. But, as ministers of Christ, they are the predecessors of all Christian ministers; their office stripped of its personal prerogatives, propagates itself; the functions of preaching and teaching never can become obsolete. Their example, especially that of St. Paul, is that to which Christian ministers must evermore endeavour to conform. In this sense it is true that no ministry deserves the name of Christian which is not Apostolical or derived from the Apostles.

[Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, ed. Philip E. Hughes (London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1960), 387–389.]

Hans Küng: (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian)

As direct witnesses and messengers of the risen Lord, the apostles can have no successors. No further apostles were called. Apostleship in the sense of the original and fundamental ministry of the first witnesses and messengers died out with the death of the last apostle. Apostleship in this sense of witness and mission cannot be repeated or continued. What remains is a task and a commission. The apostolic commission is not finished, but will remain to the end of time. The apostolic task is not completed; it embraces all peoples to the ends of the earth.

[Hans Küng, The Church (Garden City: Image Books, 1976), 456.]

James Ussher:

I come now unto the second, which is propounded negatively, that “no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.” The foreigner that challengeth this ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction over us is the Bishop of Rome, and the title whereby he claimeth this power over us is the same whereby he claimeth it over the whole world, because he is St Peter’s successor, forsooth. And indeed if St Peter himself had been now alive, I should freely confess that he ought to have spiritual authority and superiority within this kingdom. But so would I say also if St Andrew, St Bartholomew, St Thomas, or any of the other Apostles had been alive. For I know that their commission was very large, to go into all the world, and to preach the gospel unto every creature; so that in what part of the world soever they lived, they could not be said to be out of their charge, their apostleship being a kind of an universal bishoprick. If, therefore, the Bishop of Rome can prove himself to be one of this rank, the oath must be amended, and we must acknowledge that he hath ecclesiastical authority within this realm.

True it is, that our lawyers in their year-books by the name of the Apostle do usually design the Pope. But if they had examined his title to that apostleship, as they would try an ordinary man’s title to a piece of land, they might easily have found a number of flaws and main defects therein. For, first, it would be enquired whether the apostleship was not ordained by our Saviour Christ as a special commission, which, being personal only, was to determine with the death of the first Apostles. For howsoever at their first entry into the execution of this commission we find that Matthias was admitted to the apostleship in the room of Judas, yet afterwards, when James the brother of John was slain by Herod, we do not read that any other was substituted in his place. Nay, we know that the Apostles generally left no successors in this kind, neither did any of the bishops (he of Rome only excepted) that sat in those famous churches wherein the Apostles exercised their ministry, challenge an apostleship or an universal bishoprick by virtue of that succession.

It would, secondly, therefore be enquired, what sound evidence they can produce to shew that one of the company was to hold the apostleship as it were in fee for him and his successors for ever, and that the other eleven should hold the same for term of life only? Thirdly, if this state of perpetuity was to be cast upon one, how came it to fall upon St Peter rather than upon St John, who outlived all the rest of his fellows, and so, as a surviving feoffee, had the fairest right to retain the same in himself and his successors for ever? Fourthly, if that state were wholly settled upon St Peter, seeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome, we require them to shew why so great an inheritance as this should descend unto the younger brother, as it were by Borough-English, rather than to the elder, according to the ordinary manner of descents; especially seeing Rome hath little else to allege for this preferment, but only that St Peter was crucified in it, which was a very slender reason to move the Apostle so to respect it. Seeing therefore the grounds of this great claim of the Bishop of Rome appear to be so vain and frivolous, I may safely conclude that he “ought to have no ecclesiastical or spiritual authority within this realm,” which is the principal point contained in the second part of the oath.

[James Ussher, A Speech Delivered in the Castle-Chamber Concerning the Oath of Supremacy,” in Answer to a Jesuit; With Other Tracts on Popery (Cambridge: The Pitt Press, 1835), 647–649.]

4. An Argument from Silence Return to Outline

Archibald Alexander Hodge:

The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbyter and deacon (1 Tim. iii. 1–13) there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the “signs of an apostle.”—2 Cor. xii. 12; 1 Cor. ix. 1; Gal. i. 1, 12; Acts i. 21, 22.

[Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879), 89.]

Note: The absence of any explicit scriptural commands for the perpetuation of the apostolate (apostolic office) does not, of itself, preclude the possibility that an inferential argument for ecclesiastical apostolic succession might be constructed from the New Testament. Nevertheless, the complete silence of the apostolic writings regarding any such continuation carries considerable weight. A doctrine to which the Roman and Eastern Churches assign such fundamental importance—one upon which, they hold, the validity of the sacraments and the very constitution of the Church depend—would, if true, almost certainly have been set forth explicitly and with some regularity by Christ and His apostles. The lack of any such exposition constitutes a significant argument against the validity of the doctrine.

Herman Bavinck:

The truth is, there is not a word in Scripture about such an apostolic succession. Even as such it is no more a guarantee of purity of doctrine than the hereditary high-priestly office of Caiaphas validated the justice of his pronouncements and actions. For that reason Protestants were right in saying that not “the succession of places and persons” (successio locorum et personarum) but “the succession of doctrine” (successio doctrinae) is a distinguishing feature of the true church. If the latter is missing, the former can make no church into a true church; and if it is present, the former is of very minor significance.

[Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), § 496, p. 323.]

Leon Morris:

The apostolic commission. There is no commission to provide for a succession of ministers either in Mark 3: 14 f. or elsewhere. J. W. C. Wand admits that, ‘If you say that the only necessary thing the Apostles had to do was to provide for a succession then you can be met immediately by the argument that that is one thing which does not appear at all in the terms of their original commission.’

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 122.]

Cf. Leon Morris:

The power of ordination. The theory is weakest at what ought to be its strongest point, namely the connection between the apostles and their immediate successors. If there were but one channel for valid ordinations, if all those outside the succession have no certain orders, then it is not unreasonable to expect that the apostles (who should have known the truth if anyone did) would have taken the greatest care about their ordinations and also have left clear instructions as to how the ministry was to be carried on. To say anything else is to accuse them of gross carelessness in a matter of cardinal importance. But, as we have seen in Chapter III, it cannot be proved that any apostle did actually ordain. And there is not one scintilla of evidence that any apostle ever transmitted to anyone the power to ordain. This is a most serious weakness in the theory and it is surprising that its advocates do not give more serious attention to this point.

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 122–123.]

Cf. Leon Morris:

The case of St. Paul calls for comment. It is clear that he was never ordained by any of the Twelve, but received his commission direct from Jesus Christ. Now if this took place in the case of this apostle, who is to say that it is impossible in the case of others, for example those responsible for the institution of non-episcopal ministries?

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 123.]

Cf. Leon Morris:

Old Testament analogy is against it. The divine society of the Old Testament had a divinely ordered ministry. But here the command to establish and continue the ministry is explicit. There is no New Testament equivalent. While the New Testament says nothing which forbids episcopacy it never says anything which could be taken as an instruction to establish or preserve this form of government. In view of the far-reaching claims made by upholders of the theory we are justified in looking for some indication in Scripture that it is required. But there is nothing.

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 123.]

Note: Luke is demonstrably familiar with the technical terminology of succession. He employs διαδεξάμενοι (“having received by succession”) in Acts 7:45 of the fathers who successively received the tabernacle and brought it in under Joshua, and διάδοχος (“successor”) in Acts 24:27 of Porcius Festus as the successor of Felix. Yet he nowhere applies this language—or any equivalent concept of office-transmission—to Christian leaders, the apostolic college, or the transfer of ecclesiastical authority. This silence is particularly telling within a narrative that records the death of an apostle (James, Acts 12:2), the appointment of elders, and the extension of the church’s leadership, yet consistently refrains from framing any such transition in the vocabulary of succession that Luke himself deploys in both Israelite and Roman contexts. Cf. Robert Lee Williams, Bishop Lists: Formation of Apostolic Succession of Bishops in Ecclesiastical Crises, Gorgias Studies in Early Christianity and Patristics 16 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2005), 61.

5. An Argument from the Office of Presbyter/Overseer Return to Outline

Note: The terms presbyter/elder (πρεσβύτερος) and overseer/bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) were used interchangeably by the earliest Christian writers and were synonymous in meaning—that is, there were not two distinct offices, but only one; the presbyter/elder was an overseer/bishop and vice versa. Given the fairly overwhelming nature of the evidence—e.g., Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1–2; Philippians 1:1, cf. 1 Timothy 3:1, 8, 5:17; Titus 1:5–7; 1 Clement, 44.1–6; Didache, 15.1, cf. 1 Clement, 42.4–5; Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 5.3; The Shepherd of Hermas, vision 2.4.3 [8.3], cf. 3.5.1 [13.1]; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 4.26.2, cf. Eusebius, Church History, 5.24.14; Clement, Stromata, 7.1; Cyprian, Epistle 5.4 and 40.1 (Oxford ed. Ep. 14 and 44)—this has been generally acknowledged by the vast majority of academic historians, irrespective of denominational affiliation. It has also been acknowledged by the vast majority of learned men throughout the history of the Church—e.g., Ambrosiaster, In epistolam b. Pauli ad Ephesios (4:11–12); John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians, 1 (1:1–2); Pelagius, In epistolam ad Philippenses (1:1–2); Jerome, Letter 69.3, 146.1–2, and Commentary on Titus, 1.5b; Theodore of Mopsuestia, In epistolas b. Pauli commentarii (Phil. 1:1–2); Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio epistolæ ad Philippenses (2:25); Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum, 7.12.20; Bernold of Constance, De presbyterorum officio tractatus, 4; Peter Lombard, Sentences, 4.24.11 (4.24.9 in Migne).

Given that the earliest evidence shows presbyters and overseers/bishops constituting a single, undifferentiated office, the monarchical episcopate—that is, the modern episcopal form of government found in Rome and the Eastern Churches—cannot be the office through which apostolic succession is transmitted, since no office distinct from and superior to the presbyterate existed at the time when the succession is said to begin, that is, with the apostles themselves. Rather, what later evolved into a threefold hierarchy (bishops, presbyters, and deacons) appears to have been a development of ecclesiastical custom arising after the apostolic age rather than a structure originating in it.

Note: See further: No Single Bishop of Rome Until the Middle of the Second Century.

5.1. Succession of Presbyters Return to Outline

James Bannerman:

The first remark to be made is, that the doctrine of apostolical succession, as essential to the validity of the ministerial title, is not necessarily connected with the Popish or Prelatic form of Church government, but may be maintained along with a Presbyterian creed. In point of fact, indeed, the theory of apostolical succession has seldom or with but one or two singular and outré exceptions—never been held by Presbyterians in connection with the ministerial title, but has been almost exclusively maintained by High Churchmen, either Popish or Prelatic. But there is nothing in the nature of the doctrine to render this absolutely necessary. An ecclesiastical descent through the channel of presbyters is quite as possible a thing as an ecclesiastical succession through popes and prelates; although, practically, few or no Presbyterians have ever asserted such a claim.

[James Bannerman, The Church Of Christ: A Treatise on the Nature, Powers, Ordinances, Discipline, and Government of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868), 438–439.]

Cf. William Whitaker:

[William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1849), 510.]

Cf. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274 A.D.):

…we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.

Note: The absence of any episcopal office distinct from the presbyterate in the apostolic Church is not, in itself, an argument against the general concept of ecclesiastical apostolic succession; however, it does constitute a substantive refutation of the mode of succession claimed by the modern Roman and Eastern Churches.

The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 2nd Century A.D.):

Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders [πρεσβυτέρων, presbyters] who preside [προϊσταμένων] over the church.

[The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4.3 [8.3], in AF, 469. Cf. ANF, 2:12.]

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.): (Quoted by Eusebius)

Among these were the presbyters [πρεσβύτεροι] before Soter, who presided over [προστάντες] the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus.

[Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 5.24.14, in NPNF2, 1:243; PG, 20:505.]

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters [successiones presbyterorum] in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.2.2; trans. ANF, 1:415; PG, 7:847.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

…the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops [successiones episcoporum].

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.3.2, in ANF, 1:415; PG, 7:848.]

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters [presbyteris] who are in the Church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles [successionem habent ab apostolis]; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.26.2; trans. ANF, 1:497; PG, 7:1053–1054.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

…the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops… For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? …All alike are successors of the apostles.

[Jerome of Stridon, Letter 146.1 (To Evangelus), in NPNF2, 6:288–289; PL, 22:1193–1194.]

5.2. The New Testament Return to Outline

J. B. Lightfoot:

It is a fact now generally recognised by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in the Church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘elder’ or ‘presbyter’ (πρεσβύτερος).

[...]

Episcopus, ‘bishop,’ ‘overseer,’ was an official title among the Greeks. In Athenian language it was used especially to designate commissioners appointed to regulate a new colony or acquisition, so that the Attic ‘bishop’ corresponded to the Spartan ‘harmost.’ Thus the impostor, who intrudes upon the colonists in Aristophanes (Av. 1022), says ἐπίσκοπος ἥκω δεῦρο τῷ κυάμῳ λαχών [i.e., I come here as a bishop, having been chosen by lot]. These officers are mentioned also in an inscription, Boeckh no. 73. The title however is not confined to Attic usage; it is the designation for instance of the inspectors whose business it was to report to the Indian kings (Arrian Ind. xii. 5); of the commissioner appointed by Mithridates to settle affairs in Ephesus (Appian Mithr. 48); of magistrates who regulated the sale of provisions under the Romans (Charisius in the Dig. 1. 4. 18); and of certain officers in Rhodes whose functions are unknown (Ross. Inscr. Græc. Ined. fasc. III. nos. 275, 276).

In the LXX the word is common. In some places it signifies ‘inspectors, superintendents, taskmasters,’ as 2 Kings xi. 19, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12, 17, Is. lx. 17; in others it is a higher title. ‘captains’ or ‘presidents,’ Neh. xi. 9, 14, 22. Of Antiochus Epiphanes we are told that when he determined to overthrow the worship of the one true God, he ‘appointed commissioners (ἐπισκόπους, bishops) over all the people,’ to see that his orders were obeyed (1 Macc. i. 51: comp. Joseph. Ant. xii. 5. 4; in 2 Macc. v. 22 the word is ἐπιστάτας). The feminine ἐπισκοπή, which is not a classical word, occurs very frequently in the LXX, denoting sometimes the work, sometimes the office, of an ἐπίσκοπος. Hence it passed into the language of the New Testament and of the Christian Church.

Thus beyond the fundamental idea of inspection, which lies at the root of the word ‘bishop,’ its usage suggests two subsidiary notions also; (1) Responsibility to a superior power; (2) The introduction of a new order of things.

The earlier history of the word presbyterus (elder, presbyter, or priest) is much more closely connected with its Christian sense. If the analogies of the ‘bishop’ are to be sought chiefly among heathen nations, the name and office of the ‘presbyter’ are essentially Jewish. Illustrations indeed might be found in almost all nations ancient or modern, in the γερουσία of Sparta for instance, in the ‘senatus’ of Rome, in the ‘signoria’ of Florence, or in the ‘aldermen’ of our own country and time, where the deliberative body originally took its name from the advanced age of its members. But among the chosen people we meet at every turn with presbyters or elders in Church and State from the earliest to the latest times. In the lifetime of the lawgiver, in the days of the judges, throughout the monarchy, during the captivity, after the return, and under the Roman domination, the ‘elders’ appear as an integral part of the governing body of the country. But it is rather in a special religious development of the office, than in these national and civil presbyteries, that we are to look for the prototype of the Christian minister. Over every Jewish synagogue, whether at home or abroad, a council of ‘elders’ presided. It was not unnatural therefore that, when the Christian synagogue took its place by the side of the Jewish, a similar organization should be adopted with such modifications as circumstances required; and thus the name familiar under the old dispensation was retained under the new.

Of the identity of the ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ in the language of the apostolic age, the following evidence seems conclusive.

(1) In the opening of this epistle [i.e., to the Philippians] St Paul salutes the ‘bishops’ and ‘deacons.’ Now it is incredible that he should recognise only the first and third order and pass over the second, though the second was absolutely essential to the existence of a church and formed the staple of its ministry. It seems therefore to follow of necessity that the ‘bishops’ are identical with the ‘presbyters.’

[...]

(2) In the Acts (xx. 17) St Paul is represented as summoning to Miletus the ‘elders’ or ‘presbyters’ of the Church of Ephesus. Yet in addressing them immediately after he appeals to them as ‘bishops’ or ‘overseers’ of the church (xx. 28).

(3) Similarly St Peter, appealing to the ‘presbyters’ of the churches addressed by him, in the same breath urges them to ‘fulfil the office of bishops’ (ἐπισκοποῦντες) with disinterested zeal (1 Pet. v. 1, 2).

(4) Again in the First Epistle to Timothy St Paul, after describing the qualifications for the office of a ‘bishop’ (iii. 1–7), goes on at once to say what is required of ‘deacons’ (iii. 8–13). He makes no mention of presbyters. The term ‘presbyter’ however is not unknown to him; for having occasion in a later passage to speak of Christian ministers he calls these officers no longer ‘bishops,’ but ‘presbyters’ (v. 17–19).

(5) The same identification appears still more plainly from the Apostle’s directions to Titus (i. 5–7); ‘That thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed thee; if any one be blameless, the husband of one wife, having believing children who are not charged with riotousness or unruly; for a bishop (τὸν ἐπίσκοπον) must be blameless etc.’

[J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1908), 95–97.]

Gregg R. Allison:

To some degree, the early church’s office of elder was influenced by the similar office within Jewish synagogues. As Ben Witherington notes, “Elders were of course both well known and well respected in the Jewish community as the leaders of the community itself, and later when there came to be synagogues, leaders within the synagogue. They were the guardians of the ethic of the community, and they were held responsible for maintaining good moral order and exercising good moral judgment. Suffice it to say that the notion of Christian elders owes something to Judaism.”[16 Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy, and 1–3 John (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 108. For a brief history of the Jewish eldership, see Roger Beckwith, Elders in Every City: The Origin and Role of the Ordained Ministry (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK; and Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2003), 28–41; James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 228–233. Speaking of the church and the synagogue, Burtchaell summarizes, “Both had presbyteroi = elders. But that was an institution and a title so ancient and so culturally universal that it could carry no suspicion of Jewish copyright. In general, the churches were so thorough in avoiding mainstream Jewish terminology that one might see an intended break with the past.” Still, he maintains some overlap between the Jewish eldership and the office of elder in the early church: “thus more of a junction than a break with the past” (ibid., 344).] Whatever the extent of this influence, the New Testament provides plenty of material concerning the church office of elder.

The New Testament uses several words to refer to this office. Most commonly, ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) and πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros) are used; these words are usually translated, respectively, bishop or overseer, and elder or presbyter. Another word, ποιμήν (poimēn), is found less frequently even though its translation, pastor, is a common English word used in churches to refer to this office. Importantly for our discussion, the New Testament uses these words interchangeably; this is specifically the case with bishop or overseer (ἐπίσκοπος; episkopos) and elder or presbyter (πρεσβύτερος; presbuteros).[17 Benjamin L. Merkle, The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church, Studies in Biblical Literature (New York: Peter Lang, 2003). Merkle’s excellent work is a defense of the synonymy of the terms elder and overseer in the New Testament; thus, the two interchangeable words refer to one and not two offices.] For example, convening together the elders of the church of Ephesus (πρεσβύτεροι; presbuteroi; Acts 20:17), Paul charges them to shepherd well the church in which the Spirit has established them as overseers (ἐπίσκοποι; episkopoi; v. 28). Similarly, after addressing the office of and qualifications for overseer (ἐπίσκοπος; episkopos; 1 Tim. 3:1, 2), Paul provides some specific instructions about the men who “rule well” and “labor in preaching and teaching”—two responsibilities of this office-calling—these church officers elders (πρεσβύτεροι; presbuteroi; 5:17; cf. Titus 1:5, 7).[18 This same interchangeability of the two terms continued in the early church’s use of elders and bishops (Clement of Rome, The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians 44 [ANF 1:17], in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. Michael W. Holmes [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999], 76–79; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.2 and 3.2 [ANF 1:415]; and Cyprian, Letter 40.1 [ANF 5:319] and Letter 5.4 [ANF 5:283]). As late as the end of the fourth century, Jerome argued for the equivalency of the terms: Jerome, Letter 146 To Evangelus 1-2 (NPNF 6:289); and Letter 69 To Oceanus 3 (NPNF 6:143).] The case for the interchangeability of pastor with these other two words is less direct but can still be made. Peter exhorts the elders (πρεσβύτεροι; presbuteroi) to “shepherd” (ποιμαίνω; poimainō, the verbal form of ποιμήν, poimen, or pastor; 1 Pet. 5:1–2) the flock. Also, as just noted, one of the important responsibilities of this office is associated with the word ποιμήν (poimēn) in Paul’s reference to “pastor-teachers” (Eph. 4:11).[19 As Beckwith notes, “the pastor-teachers are hard to distinguish from the ordained presbyter-bishops, who have precisely those two functions, of pastoral rule and teaching, assigned to them in the Pastoral Epistles” (Beckwith, Elders in Every City, 16; cf. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church, 296–297).]

[Gregg R. Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 211–212.]

Herman Bavinck:

But though the monarchical episcopate was a very early development in the church, we must in any case view it as clearly a deviation from the ordinations of the apostles. The New Testament, after all, does not yet know of any official distinction between overseer (ἐπισκοπος, episkopos) and elder (πρεσβύτερος, presbyteros). Although in the beginning the term πρεσβυτεροι (presbyteroi) probably had a broader meaning and sometimes denoted the senior, venerable members of the congregation, as the term for an office it was nevertheless identical with that of the ἐπισκοποι (episkopoi). In the churches, we know that there were many έπισκοποι (Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1), and this work of overseeing was specifically charged to the πρεσβύτεροι (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; 5:17; Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1–3). In line with this, Peter also calls himself an elder (πρεσβύτερος, 1 Pet. 5:1). Of a special institution of the episcopate alongside the presbyterate, accordingly, the New Testament knows nothing. Aside from the extraordinary offices of apostle, prophet, and evangelist, there are only two ordinary offices, that of deacons and that of πρεσβύτεροι (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1, 8): pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 5:17), those with gifts of administration (1 Cor. 12:28), those in positions of authority (Rom. 12:8; 1 Thess. 5:12), and leaders (Heb. 13:7, 17).

These testimonies of Scripture are so strong that not just Arius in the fourth century, the Waldensians, Wycliffe, the Reformers, and so forth called the presbyterial and episcopal office identical, but also many church fathers such as Theodoret, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and others saw themselves forced to acknowledge that in the New Testament the terms “presbyter” and “episcopus” are used interchangeably. Jerome even says that originally the presbyters and overseers were identical, but that later one of them was put over the others “as a remedy against schism.” Roman Catholics cannot come to terms with Scripture on this point. According to Acts 20:17, 28 and Phil. 1:1 there undoubtedly were several episcopi in one church.

[Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), § 502, p. 360.]

Cf. Herman Bavinck:

Also these things are completely inconsistent with Scripture. There is no hierarchy in the church of Christ (Luke 22:25–26; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 Pet. 5:3). There is no such thing as a diocesan, cathedral, patriarchal, or metropolitan church, for in the New Testament all churches are equal and all have their own ἐπισκοποι; and believers are nowhere instructed to inquire into the legitimate succession of their ministers, but rather to examine the Scriptures and to remain in the teaching [handed down to them] (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 Tim. 4:13–16; 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 3:14–17). Neither does legitimate succession guarantee purity of doctrine (John 8:39; Rom. 2:28; 9:6). [Such succession] would sooner make salvation dependent on certain specific persons and on impracticable, fallible, and often even impossible historical research.

[Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), § 502, p. 361.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops, must not a mere server of tables and of widows[Acts vi. 1, 2.] be insane to set himself up arrogantly over men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced? Do you ask for proof of what I say? Listen to this passage: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.”[Ph. i. 1.] Do you wish for another instance? In the Acts of the Apostles Paul thus speaks to the priests of a single church: “Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”[Acts xx. 28.] And lest any should in a spirit of contention argue that there must then have been more bishops than one in a single church, there is the following passage which clearly proves a bishop and a presbyter to be the same. Writing to Titus the apostle says: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God.”[Tit. i. 5–7.] And to Timothy he says: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.”[1 Tim. iv. 14.] Peter also says in his first epistle: “The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am your fellow-presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of Christ …taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, according unto God.”[1 Pet. v. 1, 2.] In the Greek the meaning is still plainer, for the word used is επισκοποῦντες, that is to say, overseeing, and this is the origin of the name overseer or bishop. But perhaps the testimony of these great men seems to you insufficient. If so, then listen to the blast of the gospel trumpet, that son of thunder,[Mark iii. 17.] the disciple whom Jesus loved[Joh. xiii. 23.] and who reclining on the Saviour’s breast drank in the waters of sound doctrine. One of his letters begins thus: “The presbyter unto the elect lady and her children whom I love in the truth;”[2 Joh. 1.] and another thus: “The presbyter unto the well-beloved Gaius whom I love in the truth.”[3 Joh. 1.] When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.

[Jerome of Stridon, Letter 146.1 (To Evangelus), in NPNF2, 6:288–289; PL, 22:1193–1194.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

Let us attend carefully, to the words of the Apostle, that thou shouldst ordain presbyters in every city, as I have appointed thee. Pointing out afterwards what sort of presbyters should be ordained, he says, if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c.; after which he adds, for a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God. A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop [Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus]; and before, through the instigation of the devil, there were different parties in religion, and it was said among different people (or states,) I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common council of presbyters [communi presbyterorum consilio, Ecclesiæ gubernantur]. But afterwards, when every one thought that those whom he had baptized belonged to himself, and not to Christ, it was determined throughout the whole world, that one chosen from the presbyters should be placed over the rest, to whom the care of the whole Church should belong, and the seeds of schisms should be taken away.

If any one should think that this is merely my opinion, and not the doctrine of the Scriptures, let him read again the words of the Apostles to the Philippians, ‘Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, grace to you and peace,’ &c. Philippi is a single city of Macedonia; and certainly in one city there could not be several bishops, as they are now denominated, or of the kind that now exist. But because at that time they called the same persons bishops who were presbyters, he has spoken indifferently of bishops as of presbyters.

If this should still appear doubtful to any one, unless it be confirmed by another testimony, it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the Apostle had come to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of the same Church, to whom afterwards he said among other things, Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath placed you bishops, to feed the Church of God, which he has purchased with his blood. Observe carefully, that when calling the presbyters of that one city Ephesus, he afterwards denominated the same persons bishops [Et hic diligentius observate, quomodo unius civitatis Ephesi presbyteros vocans, postea eosdem episcopos dixerit]. If any one is willing to receive that Epistle to the Hebrews, which is ascribed to Paul, there also the care of the Church is divided among a plurality of rulers; for says he, Obey them who have the rule over you, and be subject to them, for they watch for your souls, as those who must give an account, &c. And the Apostle Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, speaks in the same way in his Epistle, saying, the presbyters who are among you, I beseech, who am your fellow presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, &c. The object for which we state these things, is to show that among the ancients, presbyters and bishops were the same; but that by little and little, that the plants of dissensions might be plucked up, the whole care of the Church was committed to one [Hæc propterea, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse presbyteros quos et episcopos: paulatim vero ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem sollicitudinem esse delatam]. As the presbyters, therefore, know that they are subject by the custom [consuetudine] of the Church to him who is placed over them, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters, more by custom than by any real appointment of the Lord [ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicæ veritate, presbyteris esse majores]; and that they ought to govern the Church along with the presbyters, imitating Moses, who, when he alone was to preside over the people of Israel, chose seventy, with whom he might judge the people.

[S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in epistolam ad Titum, liber unus, cap. I, vers. 5, in John Brown, The Exclusive Claims of Puseyite Episcopalians to the Christian Ministry: Indefensible: With an Inquiry Into the Divine Right of Episcopacy and the Apostolic Succession: In a Series of Letters to the Rev. Dr. Pusey (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1844), 346–348; PL, 26:562–563.]

Note: Cf. John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867), 487–488.

Alt. Trans. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

Let us pay careful attention to the words of the apostle who says, “that you should appoint priests in every city, just as I arranged for you.” He discusses what sort of priest ought to be ordained in what follows when he says, “If anyone is without fault, a husband of one wife,” and so on. Later he added, “For a bishop must be without fault, as a steward of God.” It is therefore the very same priest, who is a bishop, and before there existed men who are slanderers by instinct, [before] factions in the religion, and [before] it was said to the people, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, but I am of Cephas,” the churches were governed by a common council of the priests. But after each one began to think that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed for the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to preside over the others, to whom the entire care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of schism would be removed.”

If someone thinks that this is our opinion, but not that of the Scriptures—that bishop and priest are one, and that one is the title of age, the other of his duty—let him reread the apostle’s words to the Philippians when he says, “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, grace to you and peace,” and so on. Philippi is a single city in Macedonia, and at least in one city several were not able to be bishops, as they are now thought.” But because at that time they called the same men bishops whom they also called priests, therefore he has spoken indifferently of bishops as if of priests.

This may still seem doubtful to someone unless it is proven by another testimony. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written that when the apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and summoned the priests of that church to whom later he said among other things, “Watch yourselves, and the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit appointed you bishops to feed the church of God, which he acquired through his own blood.” And observe here very carefully how, by summoning the priests of the single city of Ephesus, later he has spoken of the same men as bishops.

If anyone wants to receive that epistle which is written in Paul’s name to the Hebrews, even there care for the church is shared equally by many. For indeed he writes to the people, “Obey your leaders, and be in subjection; for they are the ones who watch over your souls, as those who will give a reckoning. Let them not do this with sighing; for indeed this is advantageous to you.” And Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, speaks in his own epistle and says, “As a fellow priest, then, I plead with the priests among you, and as a witness of Christ’s sufferings, I who am a companion also of his glory that is to be revealed in the future, tend the Lord’s flock that is among you, not as though by compulsion but voluntarily.”

These things [have been said] in order to show that to the men of old the same men who were the priests were also the bishops; but gradually, as the seed beds of dissensions were eradicated, all solicitude was conferred on one man. Therefore, just as the priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who was previously appointed over them, so the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, are greater than the priests. And they ought to rule the Church commonly, in imitation of Moses who, when he had under his authority to preside alone over the people of Israel, he chose the seventy by whom he could judge the people. Therefore let us see what sort of priest, or bishop, ought to be ordained.

[Jerome of Stridon, Commentary on Titus, 1.5b, in St. Jerome’s Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 288–290; PL, 26:562–563.]

Cf. Titus 1:5–7:

I left you behind in Crete for this reason, that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders [πρεσβυτέρους, presbyters] in every town, as I directed you: someone who is blameless [ἀνέγκλητος], married only once, whose children are believers, not accused of debauchery and not rebellious. For a bishop [ἐπίσκοπον, overseer], as God’s steward, must be blameless [ἀνέγκλητον]; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or violent or greedy for gain;

[Titus 1:5–7, in NRSVA, NT:326.]

Cf. Msgr. Jerome D. Quinn (Roman Catholic Theologian):

The repeated Pauline “unimpeachable” of vv 6-7 suggests that the PE have combined two previously existing lists of qualifications for ecclesial ministers, the former titled “presbyters,” the latter, “a bishop.” For the purposes of the author at this point they were practically synonymous…

[Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary and an Introduction to Titus, I and II Timothy, the Pastoral Epistles, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2010), 85.]

Cf. The New American Bible:

This instruction on the selection and appointment of presbyters, substantially identical with that in 1 Tm 3, 1–7 on a bishop (see the note there), was aimed at strengthening the authority of Titus by apostolic mandate; cf 2, 15. In vv 5.7 and Acts 20, 17.28, the terms episkopos and presbyteros (“bishop” and “presbyter”) refer to the same persons. Deacons are not mentioned in Titus. See also the note on Phil 1, 1.

[Note on Titus 1:5–9, in The New American Bible (Nashville: Catholic Bible Press, 1987), 1372.]

Note: These notes are also found on the official Vatican website: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P11B.HTM#$4S3.

5.3. The Early Church Return to Outline

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

The fact that Presbyters and Bishops were one and the same is the ruling factor in the early years of the second century. According to Jerome this was the case in the Apostles’ time, and Jerome’s position has never been seriously assailed. Then to prevent schism the usage gradually grew up which made the chief care of the Church devolve upon one person, who was called a Bishop or an Overseer. This gradual development was partly natural and legitimate, and partly a declension from New Testament standards. (1) It indicated a lack of spirituality, as the consciousness of Christ’s presence faded; (2) It was due to political circumstances, the Church being largely fashioned on the State. (3) It expressed a natural tendency towards the present life and progress of the Church. (4) It was largely the result of the personal character of particular men. (5) It was also explicable by circumstances calling for unity. Error seems to have arisen by confusing between superintendency or overseership and a Bishop jure divino. The fact of superintendency is no proof of a superior order, and when the Fathers mentioned Bishops it only proves the fact of superintendence, not superiority of order. This is clear in Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and even Irenæus.

Reviewing the second century, we see the gradual and natural growth and differentiation of the ministry. There is no trace whatever of anything answering to an absolute and assured transmission of Divine powers from the Apostles. Continuity and commission are seen everywhere, but the ministry throughout is evangelistic and pastoral, and with practically nothing sacerdotal in it. It is not generally known how and when the sacerdotal idea became associated with the Christian ministry, but certainly the idea finds no warrant either in the New Testament or in the writers of the second century. Bishop Lightfoot remarks that “the progress of the sacerdotal view of the ministry is one of the most striking and important phenomena in the history of the Church.” But it is not until we come to Tertullian that we find any sacerdotal language, and even he is strong on the universal priesthood of all believers. Bishop Lightfoot traces what he calls “the gradual departure from the Apostolic teaching in the encroachment of the sacerdotal on the pastoral and ministerial view of the clergy” until it culminated in Cyprian, to whom we owe the full, clear teaching which regards the ministry as essentially sacerdotal.

It is not necessary to follow the history of the ministry further than Cyprian, except to say that the sacerdotal idea gradually grew stronger until it dominated the entire Church and came to a climax in the West in the Papacy. It was in connection with the sacerdotal aspect of the ministry that the doctrines of Transubstantiation and Auricular Confession became imposed upon the Church.

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963), 326–327.]

W. Sanday:

We know that during a period covered by St. Paul’s speech at Miletus, the Epistle to the Philippians, the Pastoral Epistles, the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and probably the Shepherd of Hermas, there was a plurality of ἐπίσκοποι in each Church. In other words the terms ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτεροι were applied to the same persons. …It is well known how many attempts have been made in recent times to solve this problem. None of them admit of absolute verification. But I confess that to me the most probable theory appears to be that advocated by Dr. Hort, and substantially before him by that most scientific of German scholars, Dr. Loofs, of Halle the theory, namely, that ἐπίσκοπος was in the first instance not so much the name of an office as a descriptive term, bringing out its characteristic functions. …On this view πρεσβύτερος is the name of the office, and ἐπίσκοπος tells us further that the duty of the presbyter was to exercise over-sight. It is an additional argument in favour of the theory that it is entirely in harmony with the usage of the word up to that date, the end of the first century, both in literature and in inscriptions. ἐπισκοπεῖν, ἐπίσκοπος, ἐπισκοπή are far more common in a general sense than as designating a particular office.

[W. Sanday, The Conception of Priesthood in the Early Church and in the Church of England, 2nd edition (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1899), 61–62.]

Cf. Friedrich Loofs:

It seems to me that a “first lie” (πρῶτον ψεῦδος) of many more recent constructions lies in the hasty assumption that “overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος) was formerly an official title or designation of office. I by no means regard the older view as outdated; “overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος) is a functional designation, and traces of this persist into the close of the second century, showing that there remained an awareness that “overseer” (ἐπίσκοπος) was less an official title than a description of the office. [Mir scheint in der vorschnellen Annahme, ἐπίσκοπος sei früher Amtsname, Titel gewesen, ein πρῶτον ψεῦδος vieler neuerer Konstruktionen zu liegen; die ältere Anschauung halte ich durchaus nicht für veraltet; ἐπίσκοπος ist eine Funktionsbezeichnung und bis ins endende zweite Jahrhundert hinein gehen die Spuren davon, daß man ein Bewußtsein davon hat, daß ἐπίσκοπος weniger Amtsname als Amtsbeschreibung ist.]

[Friedrich Loofs, “Die urchristliche Gemeindeverfassung mit spezieller Beziehung auf Loening und Harnack,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 63 (1890): 628.]

Leon Morris:

The obscurity of early Church history. The many gaps in our knowledge of the early history of the ministry must be kept in mind. A. E. J. Rawlinson reminds us that ‘the precise stages by which, in the end, there emerged everywhere the historic Threefold Ministry such as we know it to-day, are admittedly obscure.’ If we are to draw the far-reaching conclusions this theory demands we must be absolutely sure of our ground. But in the light of this obscurity (admitted even by staunch upholders of the theory) can we be so sure?

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 125–126.]

Cf. Leon Morris:

The late date of the evidence. So slight is the evidence before Irenaeus that Gore starts with that Father and then tries to trace the idea backwards. Dix has statements like, ‘The idea as it finally took root in the Church is not found before c. A.D. 175–200.’ Even then he finds ‘no emphasis whatever on the sacramental “succession” of a bishop to those bishops from other Churches who had consecrated him to the episcopate by the laying on of hands’. Turner in his essay quoted above shows that this idea does not appear until the time of Augustine.

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 126.]

Cf. Leon Morris:

The rights of presbyters. Jerome has a statement that the episcopate was not original but was founded ‘to cure schism’. He goes on: ‘For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist right up to the time of bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always used to choose one of their number, install him in a higher grade and call him Bishop: just as if an army were making a general (Imperatorem) or deacons were choosing from their number one whom they knew to be industrious and calling him Archdeacon. For what does a bishop do, ordination apart, which a presbyter does not do?’ There are many statements in early writers which equate bishop and presbyter. N. Sykes draws attention to evidence that Irenaeus was consecrated by fellow-presbyters, and that similar procedures operated in Antioch and Rome as well. And even in later times there have been papal licences to men in priest’s orders to ordain. Advocates of the theory we are considering usually retort that they are not committed to any particular form of episcopacy, and that all that they are contending for is the regular transmission of orders in due succession. The presbyters of Alexandria may have had authority to ordain their bishop, but later presbyters were not given this authority and now such authority resides only in the episcopate.

But this is not taking seriously the idea that the ministerial commission is ‘from above’. If it really comes from Christ then men are not at liberty to modify it. The more strongly we insist that orders are of divine origin the more we are bound to affirm that the original rights remain. No man may take away a divinely-given authority. This has important implications (e.g. for Wesley’s ordinations). In the light of the evidence available this point deserves more serious consideration than it has usually received.

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 126–127.]

J. B. Lightfoot:

Nor is it only in the apostolic writings that this identity is found. St Clement of Rome wrote probably in the last decade of the first century and in his language the terms are still convertible. Speaking of the Apostles he says that ‘preaching in every country and city (κατὰ χώρας καὶ κατὰ πόλεις) they appointed their first-fruits, having tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of them that should believe (μελλόντων πιστεύειν)’ § 42. A little later, referring to the disorganised state of the Corinthian Church, he adds, ‘Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife concerning the authority (ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος) of the bishopric’...‘We shall incur no slight guilt if we eject from the bishopric those who have presented the offerings (δώρα) unblameably and holily. Blessed are the presbyters who have gone before, whose departure was crowned with fruit and mature (οἵτινες ἔγκαρπον καὶ τελείαν ἔσχον τὴν ἀνάλυσιν)᾽ § 44.

This is the last instance of identification. With the opening of a second century a new phraseology begins. In the epistles of Ignatius the terms are used in their more modern sense. In his letter to Polycarp (§ 6) he writes: ‘Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted (ἀντίψυχον ἐγώ) to those who are obedient to the bishop, to presbyters, to deacons (τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, πρεσβυτέροις, διακόνοις). The bishop is always singled out by this writer, as the chief officer of the Church. So about the same time Polycarp, writing to the Philippians, gives directions to the deacons (§ 5) and the presbyters (§ 6). He also begins his letter, ‘Polycarp and the presbyters that are with him.’ With this form of address may be coupled the fact that the writer is distinctly called ‘bishop of Smyrna’ by Ignatius (Polyc. init.).

Towards the close of the second century the original application of the term ‘bishop’ seems to have passed not only out of use, but almost out of memory. So perhaps we may account for the explanation which Irenæus gives of the incident at Miletus (Acts xx. 17, 28). ‘Having called together the bishops and presbyters who were from Ephesus and the other neighbouring cities.’ But in the fourth century, when the fathers of the Church began to examine the apostolic records with a more critical eye, they at once detected the fact. No one states it more clearly than Jerome. ‘Among the ancients,’ he says, ‘bishops and presbyters are the same, for the one is a term of dignity, the other of age.’ ‘The Apostle plainly shows,’ he writes in another place, ‘that presbyters are the same as bishops…It is proved most clearly that bishops and presbyters are the same.’ Again in a third passage he says ‘If any one thinks the opinion that the bishops and presbyters are the same, to be not the view of the Scriptures but my own, let him study the words of the apostle to the Philippians,’ and in support of his view he alleges the scriptural proofs at great length. But, though more full than other writers, he is hardly more explicit. Of his predecessors the Ambrosian Hilary had discerned the same truth. Of his contemporaries and successors, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, all acknowledge it. Thus in every one of the extant commentaries on the epistles containing the crucial passages, whether Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity is affirmed. In the succeeding ages bishops and popes accept the verdict of St Jerome without question. Even late in the mediæval period, and at the era of the reformation, the justice of his criticism or the sanction of his name carries the general suffrages of theologians.

[J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1908), 97–99.]

Note: For an in-depth examination of the early Church, see: Lyman Coleman, The Apostolical and Primitive Church (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co., 1853), 124–245.

5.3.1. Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” Return to Outline

Clement of Rome (c. 35–99 A.D.):

Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s [ἐπισκοπῆς, plural] office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the leaders mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. These, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well-spoken of by all—these we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry. For it will be no small sin for us if we depose from the bishop’s [ἐπισκοπῆς, plural] office those who have offered the gifts blamelessly and in holiness. Blessed are those presbyters [πρεσβύτεροι, plural] who have gone on ahead, who took their departure at a mature and fruitful age, for they need no longer fear that someone may remove them from their established place. For we see that you have removed certain people, their good conduct notwithstanding, from the ministry that had been held in honor by them blamelessly.

[Clement of Rome, 1 Clement, 44.1–6, in AF, 103, 105.]

Note: Here, as in Scripture (cf. Titus 1:5–7), Clement uses the terms interchangeably.

Note: Cf. Clement of Rome, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 44, in The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Introductions and English Translations, trans. J. B. Lightfoot, ed. J. R. Harmer (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912), 76.

Clement of Rome (c. 35–99 A.D.):

So, preaching both in the country and in the towns, they appointed their first fruits, when they had tested them by the Spirit, to be bishops [ἐπισκόπους, plural] and deacons [διακόνους, plural] for the future believers. And this was no new thing they did, for indeed something had been written about bishops [ἐπισκόπων, plural] and deacons [διακόνων, plural] many years ago; for somewhere thus says the scripture: “I will appoint their bishops [ἐπισκόπους, plural] in righteousness and their deacons [διακόνους, plural] in faith.”

[Clement of Rome, 1 Clement, 42.4–5, in AF, 101.]

Note: Observe that there are only two offices—“bishops” and “deacons”—because bishops and presbyters were synonymous (cf. Didache, 15).

Michael W. Holmes:

The unity of style suggests that the letter is the work of a single author. While the letter, which was sent οn behalf of the whole church (see the subscription), does not name its writer, well-attested ancient tradition and most manuscripts identify it as the work of Clement—whose precise identity, however, is not clear. Tradition identifιes him as the third bishop of Rome after Peter, but this is unlikely because the offιce of monarchical bishop, in the sense intended by this later tradition, does not appear to have existed in Rome at this time. Leadership seems to have been entrusted to a group of presbyters or bishops (the two appear to be synonymous in 1 Clement; see 44.1–6), among whom Clement almost certainly was a (if not the) leading fιgure.

[Michael W. Holmes, “First Clement, Introduction,” in AF, 34–35.]

Cf. J. N. D. Kelly:

After setting out the principle on which the orderly succession of bishops and deacons rests and tracing it back to Jesus Christ, it called for the reinstatement of the extruded presbyters. The letter is the earliest example of the intervention, fraternal but authoritative, of the Roman church, though not of the pope personally, in the affairs of another church. Widely read in Christian antiquity, it was sometimes treated as part of the NT canon.

While Clement’s position as a leading presbyter and spokesman of the Christian community at Rome is assured, his letter suggests that the monarchial episcopate had not yet emerged there, and it is therefore impossible to form any precise conception of his constitutional role.

[J. N. D. Kelly, “Clement I, St,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 8.]

Cf. William L. Lane:

Christians in Rome during this formative period appear to have met as “household” groups in privately owned locations scattered around the capital city. They constituted a loose network of house churches, without any central facility for worship. The absence of central coordination matches the profile of the separated synagogues in Rome during this period.

[William L. Lane, “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), 208.]

Cf. Peter Lampe:

The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189–99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175–89), Soter (c. 166–75), and Anicetus (c. 155–66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship.

[Peter Lampe, Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, trans. Michael Steinhauser, ed. Marshall D. Johnson (London: Continuum, 2003), 397.]

Robert B. Eno, S.S. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

…neither Clement nor anyone else appears in a position anything like that of the bishop as described by Ignatius.

Not surprisingly, given the purpose of the letter (to rebuke the Corinthian Christians for rebelling against their presbyters), there are several references to the leaders of the Church in Corinth, the presbyters. No indication is given of any different leadership pattern in the Roman church itself. The abstract term episkope is used in conjunction with the presbyters (44.5). Once again the picture given seems to point to the leadership being exercised by a collectivity.

[Robert B. Eno, S.S., The Rise Of The Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1990), 28.]

Cf. Eamon Duffy (Roman Catholic Historian and Former Member of the Pontifical Historical Commission):

Ten years or so before Ignatius’ arrival in Rome, the Roman church wrote to the church at Corinth, in an attempt to quieten disputes and disorders which had broken out there. The letter is unsigned, but has always been attributed to the Roman presbyter Clement, generally counted in the ancient lists as the third Pope after St Peter. Legends would later accumulate round his name, and he was to be venerated as a martyr, exiled to the Crimea and killed by being tied to an anchor and dropped into the sea. In fact, however, Clement made no claim to write as bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person, and we know nothing at all about him. The letter itself makes no distinction between presbyters and bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth as at Rome the church at this time was organised under a group of bishops or presbyters, rather than a single ruling bishop.

[Eamon Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), 10–11.]

Cf. John P. Meier, S.S.D. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

In striking contrast to 1 and 2 Peter, where individual teachers speak not only in the name of Peter but as Peter, the anonymous author of I Clement speaks as “we,” as the whole church of Rome, which presumably, like Corinth, is led by a group of presbyter-bishops assisted by deacons. There is no sign of the monepiscopate soon to be championed by Ignatius. It is rather “the church of God sojourning in Rome” as such, and not Peter, and not some individual claiming to be the successor of Peter, that implicitly exercises authority over a distinguished Pauline church in Greece. Indeed, the final blessing of the epistle is extended not only to the Corinthians but also “to all those called by God everywhere” (1 Clement 65.2).

[John P. Meier, S.S.D., “Petrine Ministry in the New Testament and in the Early Patristic Traditions,” in m How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? ed. James Puglisi, S.A. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010), 25.]

Cf. Allen Brent (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Where we do have concrete information, as in the case of Clement in the third place after St Peter according to Irenaeus, the notion of the office of a single bishop in succession to a predecessor seems lacking.

In his genuine letter to the Corinthians (c. AD 95), Clement does not write in his own name but in the name of the ‘church of God whose pilgrim residence is at Rome to the church of God residing similarly at Corinth’. There is no ‘Clement bishop, servant of the servants of God’ claiming apostolic authority for his office as successor to St Peter. He is writing, as has been pointed out, not as a single monarch-bishop but as the secretary of the Roman presbyterate.

[Allen Brent, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (London: Continuum, 2007), 125.]

Cf. Allen Brent (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

…Clement clearly believes that there is a succession from the apostles. But that succession is not one single individual as a monarch-bishop following the other in a chain, but a group of presbyters (which he also calls ‘bishops’): he does not refer to any particular one of them. Indeed, Ignatius in his letter to the Romans . . . does not name a single bishop in Rome…

[Allen Brent, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (London: Continuum, 2007), 126.]

Cf. Klaus Schatz, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

…he is not named as the author of the letter; instead, the true sender is the Roman community. We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome at that time. It seems likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters…

[Klaus Schatz, S.J., Papal Primary: From its Origins to the Present, trans. John A. Otto and Linda M. Maloney (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 4.]

5.3.2. The “Didache” Return to Outline

Didache (c. 1st Century A.D.):

Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops [ἐπισκόπους, plural] and deacons [διακόνους, plural] worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for they too carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.

[Didache, 15.1, in AF, 367.]

Note: Notice the lack of presbyters, since the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” were still synonymous.

Note: Cf. Didache, 15, in The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Introductions and English Translations, trans. J. B. Lightfoot, ed. J. R. Harmer (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912), 234.

Cf. Clement of Rome (c. 35–99 A.D.):

[Clement of Rome, 1 Clement, 42.4–5, in AF, 101.]

Note: Note the parallel between 1 Clement and the Didache (cf. 1 Clement, 44.1–6).

Note: Cf. Clement of Rome, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, in The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Introductions and English Translations, trans. J. B. Lightfoot, ed. J. R. Harmer (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912), 75.

Kurt Niederwimmer:

Χειροτονεῖν here means “choose” or “elect,” not “appoint.” Those who are chosen bear the titles ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι; this is most probably to be understood to mean that a number of ἐπίσκοποι and/or διάκονοι are to work in each community. Therefore, in the region from which the tradition of the Didache comes, (1) there is not yet a monepiscopate. (2) The community officers do not include the group called πρεσβύτεροι. The phrase in the Didache that mentions bishops and deacons recalls Phil 1:1 (σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις), and given that this parallel is not accidental we would have to recognize the retarded nature of the development of canon law in the Didache’s milieu (Philippians would have to be about a half century earlier than the redactional level of the Didache). The absence of presbyters apparently indicates that the development of the “local clergy” perceptible in the Didache’s milieu was not specifically Jewish-Christian in its influences.

[Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Linda M. Maloney, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 200.]

Note: Niederwimmer asserts that there can be no parallel between 1 Clement 42.4–5 and Didache 15.1 (cf. Idem, p. 200 fn. 7), although he provides no argument to substantiate this claim. However, even if Niederwimmer is correct and there is no connection, the context still rules out the existence of a monepiscopate, a point Niederwimmer himself notes.

5.3.3. Polycarp of Smyrna, “The Letter to the Philippians” Return to Outline

Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69–155 A.D.):

Similarly, the younger men must be blameless in all things; they should be concerned about purity above all, reining themselves away from all evil. For it is good to be cut off from the sinful desires in the world, because every sinful desire wages war against the spirit, and neither fornicators nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals will inherit the kingdom of God, nor those who do perverse things. Therefore one must keep away from all these things and be obedient to the presbyters [πρεσβυτέροις] and deacons as to God and Christ. The young women must maintain a pure and blameless conscience.

[Polycarp of Smyrna, The Letter to the Philippians, 5.3, in AF, 287.]

Note: Cf. Polycarp of Smyrna, The Epistle to the Philippians, 5, in The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Introductions and English Translations, trans. J. B. Lightfoot, ed. J. R. Harmer (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912), 179.

Note: Only two offices are mentioned—presbyters and deacons—as the terms “presbyter” and “bishop” were still synonymous.

J. B. Lightfoot:

ὡς Θεῷ κ.τ.λ.] See the note on Ign. Magn. 6. The contrast to the language of Ignatius is not less significant than the resemblance. It is the ‘bishops,’ not the presbyters, who stand in God’s place in Ignatius. Either therefore there was no bishop at Philippi when Polycarp wrote, or Polycarp did not think fit to separate his claims to allegiance from those of the presbyters.

[J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part 2, S. Ignativs. S. Polycarp. Revised Texts with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations, 2nd edition, vol. 3 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1889), 190.]

Peter Oakes:

The fact of appeal to Polycarp for advice suggests that there was no ἐπίσκοπος, in the second-century sense, at Philippi at the time of Polycarp’s letter. . . . In a context where Ignatius is a key figure, a letter from a bishop to a church without a bishop, especially when the letter is in response to a request for advice, must involve the issue of the extent to which the bishop is accepting some sort of episcopal responsibility for the recipients. Polycarp’s response to this issue seems to me to be a very careful one. He gives advice, as requested, but he minimizes the exercise of episcopal authority in doing so. Moreover, this response does not seem to be designed to avoid ‘treading on the toes’ of some other bishop. Polycarp seems to downplay the need for episcopal authority for the Philippians at all.

Polycarp gives himself no title or epithet (Ignatius uses the latter, e.g., Eph. heading). Polycarp makes no reference to his episcopal role in Smyrna. He associates the πρεσβύτεροι at Smyrna, as a body, with him in the writing of the letter (1. 1). The simplicity and the collegiality of the opening take away from the impression of the letter being an episcopal pronouncement. Added to this are Polycarp’s expressions of diffidence, both in expressing his opinions to the Philippians at all (3. 1) and, curiously, in his scriptural knowledge (12. 1, see below), He is more inclined to send his hearers to the letters of Paul (3. 2) or Ignatius (13. 2) than to assert any authority of his own. Polycarp’s protestations of diffidence seem to be carried much more fully into the tone of the letter than are those of Ignatius (such as Eph. 3. 1).

The contrast between Polycarp and Ignatius in their calls for submission to church leaders is very striking. Ignatius repeatedly calls for submission to the bishop (e.g., Trall. 2), often to the bishop and the presbytery (e.g., Eph. 2. 2), and sometimes to bishop, presbytery, and deacons (Phld. 7. 1). Ignatius regards submission to the bishop as a defining characteristic of a Christian (Magn. 4). Calls for such submission are the most common refrain in Ignatius’ letters. Polycarp, on the other hand, despite the literary opportunity presented by his use of a ‘household code’ form, calls the ‘young men’ to submission only to church leaders, in this case πρεσβύτεροις (as 1 Pet. 5. 5) and διακόνοις. No mention is made of submission to an episcopal figure, an omission that Ignatius would surely not have contemplated, whatever the current pattern of leadership at Philippi. Moreover, when Polycarp calls all to submission, it is to one another (10. 2).

[Peter Oakes, “Leadership and Suffering in the Letters of Polycarp and Paul to the Philippians,” in Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 359–360.]

Cf. Peter Oakes:

The closest that Polycarp comes to talking about an ἐπίσκοπος is in using the cognate verb in his instructions to the elders. However, his use of it there is to encourage them to be ἐπισκεπτόμενοι πάντας ἀσθενεῖς (6. 1). The use of the verb in such a specific sense suggests that Polycarp possibly does not commonly use the word-group in its more broad-ranging episcopal sense. The instructions to the presbyters overall seem to be aimed at controlling the use of authority rather than sustaining it (6. 1-2). The emphasis is on mercy. The same comes out in the instructions about Valens and his wife (esp. 11. 4), the implementation of which was presumably mainly in the hands of the presbyters. It is notable that the advice to presbyters does not include activities such as teaching.

The placing of the instructions to deacons is unexpected. They seem to be categorized among the congregation (between widows and young men) rather than with the elders. Moreover, the instructions to them seem not to relate particularly to leadership. The overlap between the lists for deacons and for widows is striking.

Polycarp greatly respects Ignatius, as do the Philippians. Polycarp acts on Ignatius’ wishes about envoys going to Syria (Pol. Phil. 13. 1; Ign. Pol. 7). However, Polycarp’s letter appears to encourage the Philippians to views on church leadership that differ somewhat from those of Ignatius. The first-century Philippian ἐπίσκοποι have probably become πρεσβύτεροι. Polycarp does not lead them in the direction of seeking an ἐπίσκοπος. And if the Philippians’ letter to him was effectively a call for him to take up episcopal oversight at a distance, he seems effectively to have declined the request.

5.3.4. Ignatius of Antioch, “Epistle to the Romans” (Indirect Evidence) Return to Outline

Eamon Duffy (Roman Catholic Historian and Former Member of the Pontifical Historical Commission):

A key figure in this development was Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop from Asia Minor arrested and brought to Rome to be executed around the year 107. En route he wrote a series of letters to other churches, largely consisting of appeals to them to unite round their bishops. His letter to the Roman church, however, says nothing whatever about bishops, a strong indication that the office had not yet emerged at Rome.

[Eamon Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), 10.]

Cf. Robert B. Eno, S.S. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Ignatius wrote his letters ostensibly to thank the local communities in Asia Minor for their kind assistance to him as a prisoner for Christ but more precisely to warn them against dangers to unity and, as we have seen, to urge the importance of a single strong authoritative leader of the local community. Throughout these six letters, he broadcasts his theological views of the central importance of the bishop. But he also wrote one letter ahead, to a place which he had never visited personally but where he was to end his life as a martyr—Rome. His purpose here was quite different—to ask the Roman Christians not to interfere on his behalf to try to stop his trial and suffering. The letter is interesting because, unlike all the other letters, it contains no ecclesiological doctrine about the importance of the bishop. Of course, as he himself says, he did not presume to give the Roman Christians instructions as the Apostles had. Nevertheless it is strange that while the other letters all make frequent mention of the bishop of the community being addressed, he does not greet a bishop in Rome nor does he ever mention such a person in this letter. One might object that since Ignatius had never been in Rome, he did not know the bishop’s name. He could have spoken to or of a bishop even if he had not known his name. More importantly, if one should presume from his other letters that a strong individual bishop-leader existed everywhere in the Church of his time, then he would have known that there was such a leader in the Roman community. But we have only silence, which leads many to conclude that Ignatius did not address such a person because the Roman community of the time had no such leader.

[Robert B. Eno, S.S., The Rise Of The Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1990), 26–27.]

Note: See further: No Single Bishop of Rome Until the Middle of the Second Century.

5.3.5. Excursus: Ignatius of Antioch and the Development of the Episcopacy Return to Outline

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

The witness of Ignatius is, of course, of great importance, but it is essential to be careful not to misconstrue it and to derive from it what it does not convey. The following points seem clear:—

(a) The fact of episcopacy in Asia Minor by the time of Ignatius, 120.

(b) And yet it is purely congregational. Ignatius is attacking separatists who disobeyed an existing order, and is not referring to other Churches which may have had another order. This congregational aspect is now admitted by scholars. Ignatius bases episcopacy on two grounds: (1) Fitness. It is in harmony with the teaching of the Gospels, being regarded as analogous to Christ, while the Presbyters correspond to the Apostles. (2) Direct revelation to himself. “The Spirit said.” This argument is often overlooked, for, of course, it proves too much to claim direct Divine authority in this way.

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press, Ltd., 1963), 325–326.]

Cf. Henry Melvill Gwatkin:

In the first place, Ignatius is attacking separatists, not presbyterians—individuals who disobeyed an existing order, not churches which deliberately preferred another order. After all, nothing he says of episcopacy is different in kind from what the apostles say of the Empire: Honour the emperor, The powers that be are ordained of God. As the apostles command obedience to the emperor as the de facto ruler of the world, so Ignatius preaches obedience to the bishop as the de facto ruler of the church to which he is writing. We cannot take for granted that he would have counted the Corinthians rebels against Christ because they had no bishop, though any man might have been inclined to think that a bishop would be the most convenient remedy for their disorders. But there is more than this in Ignatius. Time after time he insists, Obey the bishop, and presses it in every way he can. His urgency has not been exaggerated; and indeed it hardly can be exaggerated. So much the more significant is the absence of the one decisive argument which would have made all the rest superfluous. With all his urgency, he never says, Obey the bishop as the Lord ordained, or as the apostles gave command. Even if this is not always the first argument of a man who believes it, he cannot get far without using it. The continued silence of so earnest an advocate as Ignatius is a plain confession that he knew of no such command: and the ignorance of one who must have known the truth of the matter would seem decisive that no such command was given.

[Henry Melvill Gwatkin, Early Church History: To A.D. 313, vol. 1 (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1909), 293–294.]

G. B. Caird:

The . . . theory, that episcopacy arose spontaneously out of the pressure of pastoral necessity, has the combined support of Clement and Ignatius. For Clement tells us that the apostles appointed presbyter-bishops in every church and left instructions that the office should be perpetuated; he knows nothing of the single bishop, and clearly regards the eldership as the universal apostolic ministry. Ignatius, who must have lived through the inauguration of episcopacy in his own church, sponsors it not on grounds of apostolic command or precedent, but simply because the bishop constitutes a necessary centre of unity for the church. …What Gwatkin has said about an apostolic command applies with equal force to an apostolic precedent. The obvious inference from Ignatius’ arguments is that episcopacy was first introduced for purely practical reasons as a safeguard against the danger of internal dissension or schism.

[G. B. Caird, The Apostolic Age (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1966), 153–154.]

Darwell Stone:

The letters of St. Ignatius place the presbyters in very close relation to the bishop. Only one part of his teaching is seen in his strong emphasis on the authority of the bishop. Many times, in his seven short letters, he links together bishop and presbyters, or bishop and presbyters and deacons. To select a few instances, he writes, “That ye may obey the bishop and the presbyters;” “Be ye zealous to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God, and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also, who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ;” “Neither do ye anything without the bishop and the presbyters;” “Let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of the Apostles” (St. Ignatius, Eph., 20; Magn., 6, 7; Tral., 3).

[Darwell Stone, The Christian Church (New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1906), 335.]

Cf. William R. Schoedel:

A more fundamental question is what kind of legitimation of the authority of the ministry Ignatius has in mind when he says that bishop and elders stand “in the place” of God and the apostles. Does this passage determine the meaning of the many parallels in which a comparison involving the particle ὡς “as” is made? Or is it just the reverse, that the expression before us is merely a more elaborate version of a simple comparison? A study of the relevant passages suggests the following classification: (1) direct comparisons—for example, obey the bishop as Jesus Christ (such comparisons sometimes involve all three orders: Tr. 2.1—2; 3.1; Sm. 8.1; sometimes bishops and presbyters: Mag. 2; Tr. 13.2; cf. Phd. 5.1); (2) comparison of pairs (a) in which the pairs stand apart—for example, be united with your bishop as Jesus Christ is united with the Father (Eph. 5.1; Mag. 13.2; Sm. 8.1; Pol. 1.2; cf. Mag. 7.1); (b) in which the pairs are interconnected in step-wise progression—for example, Jesus Christ is the purpose of God as the bishops are in the purpose of Jesus Christ; or, you received them as the Lord received you (Eph. 3.2; Phd. 11.1; Pol. 1.2; cf. Eph. 2.1); (c) in which the pairs are interconnected in step-wise progression in such a way that they are virtually resolved into a direct comparison—receive the one sent as the one who sent him (Eph. 6.1). These types seem to be complexly interrelated. Especially interesting is Sm. 8.1, which begins with a comparison of type (2a)—follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father—but goes on with comparisons of type (1)—follow the presbytery as the apostles and respect the deacons as God’s commandment. Evidently the two types of comparison are to be regarded as fundamentally the same. Since type (2a) comparisons call for the imitation of exemplary relations in the sphere of the divine or of the idealized past (the Father and Christ, Christ and the church, Christ and the apostles), it seems unlikely that in type (1) comparisons Ignatius meant to present God, Christ, or the apostles as mystically present in the ministry itself. Or if we interpret type (2a) comparisons in light of type (1) comparisons in such a way that the relation between people and bishop is thought to embody the relation between the Father and Christ, then the divine must be thought of as present just as much in the community as in the bishop (see on Mag. 7.1). Some of the topics to which the comparisons are applied also suggest that Ignatius does not sharply distinguish the ministry from other Christians in terms of a special indwelling of the divine: thus the Magnesians are to obey the bishop and one another as Christ obeys the Father (Mag. 13.2); husbands are to love their wives as the Lord loves the church (Pol. 5.1); the Philadelphians received the messengers as the Lord received them (Phd. 11.1); Polycarp is to endure all people as the Lord endured him (Pol. 1.2). The last two examples (type 2b), in turn, seem to overlap with Eph. 6.1 (type 2c); and in the latter passage Ignatius not only states that we must receive the one sent as the one who sent him, but also goes on to draw the conclusion that we must view the bishop as the Lord himself. Here we apparently have an illustration of how a complex comparison is reduced to a direct one. The latter serves to dramatize the former, and such dramatization probably accounts for other direct comparisons in Ignatius’ treatment of the ministry. It would be idle to deny that episcopal authority thereby receives sharper definition in Ignatius, but the comparisons apparently remain true comparisons in spite of the strong formulation of the idea in our passage.

[William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 113–114.]

Paul Foster:

What is to be made of the repeated, highly laudatory and theologically significant comments about bishops? First, the fact that Ignatius has to insist on the primacy of the episcopacy and its authority suggests that this was not a universally held view even in the cities where the various named bishops held office. In fact the epistles bear witness to opposition to the authority of the bishop. Grant notes that the clear implication of Smyr. 8.1-2 is ‘that the heterodox had their own Eucharist’. The response Ignatius presents to those who refuse the authority of Polycarp in Smyrna is to reject the validity of the opponents’ cultic rituals. As Schoedel states, ‘Ignatius wishes to make it doubly clear that only the bishop can give approval to such meals.’ Thus, Ignatius seeks to impose a standardization of structure upon the various churches he comes across during his journey. Sociologically, the epistles may be reflecting the transition of early Christian communities from a pattern of charismatic leadership to a more structured and clearly defined system of authority, and the tension resulting from this. Such routinization of the charisma is a common phenomenon in later generations of new religious movements.

[Paul Foster, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch,” in The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Paul Foster (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 95.]

Leon Morris:

8. The testimony of Ignatius should not be misconstrued. He writes extravagantly about the episcopate, but as C. H. Turner says, ‘he has no thought of “succession” at all’. H. M. Gwatkin emphasizes his failure to appeal to our Lord’s teaching: ‘Time after time he insists, Obey the bishop, and presses it in every way he can. His urgency has not been exaggerated; and indeed it hardly can be exaggerated. So much the more significant is the absence of the one decisive argument which would have made all the rest superfluous. With all his urgency, he never says, Obey the bishop as the Lord ordained, or as the apostles gave command. Even if this is not always the first argument of a man who believes it, he cannot get far without using it. The continued silence of so earnest an advocate as Ignatius is a plain confession that he knew of no such command: and the ignorance of one who must have known the truth of the matter would seem decisive that no such command was given.’

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 124–125.]

Cf. Burnett Hillman Streeter:

Six of the seven letters are filled with exaggerated and passionate exaltation of the authority and importance of the bishop’s office. What nobody questions, nobody defends; over-enthusiastic defence implies the existence of strong opposition. The principle which Ignatius is so concerned to uphold is evidently one by no means universally recognised. More than that, we cannot but suspect that it is one for which he himself has had to fight long and hard. The language and tone of Ignatius on the subject of the episcopate is that of a man who had become Bishop of Antioch at a time when the monarchical status and authority of that office was as yet not sufficiently ancient to be secure. He is fighting a battle which is not yet won.

[Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Primitive Church: Studied With Special Reference to the Origins of the Christian Ministry (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929), 169–170.]

Note: While the episcopacy is unknown elsewhere in the empire, even here in Syria it is clearly not yet well established.

Note: See further: No Single Bishop of Rome Until the Middle of the Second Century.

5.3.6. “The Shepherd of Hermas” Return to Outline

The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 2nd Century A.D.):

Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders [πρεσβυτέρων] who preside [προϊσταμένων] over the church.

[The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4.3 [8.3], in AF, 469.]

Note: Cf. The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 2.4, in The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Introductions and English Translations, trans. J. B. Lightfoot, ed. J. R. Harmer (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912), 409.

Cf. The Shepherd of Hermas (c. 2nd Century A.D.):

“Now hear about the stones that go into the building. The stones that are square and white and fit at their joints, these are the apostles and bishops [ἐπίσκοποι, plural] and teachers and deacons who have walked according to the holiness of God and have ministered to the elect of God as bishops [ἐπισκοπήσαντες, plural] and teachers and deacons with purity and reverence; some have fallen asleep, while others are still living.

[The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3.5.1 [13.1], AF, 479.]

Note: Cf. The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3.5, in The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Introductions and English Translations, trans. J. B. Lightfoot, ed. J. R. Harmer (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1912), 413.

Note: “Bishops,” plural—note also that the terms “elders” and “bishops” are used interchangeably.

Cf. Clayton N. Jefford:

…the author does not clearly distinguish among the rulers of the church, calling them both “presbyters” and “bishops.” The evidence indicates that there is no firm understanding of two distinct offices. This suggests that the leadership of the community consisted of several individuals and did not depend on a single bishop (see 8.3; 13.1).

[Clayton N. Jefford, Reading the Apostolic Fathers, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 147.]

Cf. Carolyn Osiek:

The debate has raged among scholars about this Clement: is he or is he not Clement of Rome, author of 1 Clement? Even if the two figures are identical, that does nothing to establish a monarchical episcopate at Rome at this early date; the end of v. 3 is very clear about church government. Even if there were a single bishop in Rome at this time—though all evidence is to the contrary—sending someone else’s letter to other churches would hardly be his task. The reference is more likely to the church secretary, perhaps a deacon.

[Carolyn Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 59.]

Note: The Shepherd of Hermas was living in, and writing from, the city of Rome.

Eamon Duffy (Roman Catholic Historian and Former Member of the Pontifical Historical Commission):

The visionary treatise The Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome early in the second century, speaks always collectively of the ‘rulers of the Church’, or the ‘elders that preside over the Church’, and once again the author makes no attempt to distinguish between bishops and elders. Clement is indeed mentioned (if Hermas’ Clement is the same man as the author of the letter written at least a generation before, which we cannot assume) but not as presiding bishop. Instead, we are told that he was the elder responsible for writing ‘to the foreign cities’ — in effect the corresponding secretary of the Roman church.

Everything we know about the church in Rome during its first hundred years confirms this general picture.

[Eamon Duffy, Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), 10–11.]

Cf. Robert B. Eno, S.S. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Hermas was a farmer, an ex-slave who was a member of the Roman community who received what we would call visions and private revelations, most of which concern the problem of sin in the Church and the issue of public penance. What is of interest here are the incidental remarks which mention the leaders of the Christian community in Rome. These leaders are usually referred to by such vague titles as “the leaders” (e.g., Vision II.2.6; III.9.7). Sometimes they are called elders as “the elders who are in charge of the Church” (Vis. II.4.3). It is significant to note that these references are all in the plural. In other places, bishops are mentioned (again in the plural); they are usually linked with others, e.g., bishops, teachers and deacons (Vis. III.5.1)...

[Robert B. Eno, S.S., The Rise Of The Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1990), 27–28.]

Cf. Allen Brent (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Here, then, in the Rome of the mid-second century we have not a monarch-bishop but ‘the presbyters who preside over the church’, though individually each may have presided over a single house-church in a fractionalized Roman community.

But in addition we have the figure of Clement, who has an entrusted ministry or ‘commission’ to write to external churches. This seems clearly to describe the Clement of Corinthians, who wrote anonymously in the name of the church of Rome: he is a kind of ‘foreign secretary’ to the Roman community. His letter to the Corinthians in fact supports the presbyteral model of church government at Rome…

[Allen Brent, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (London: Continuum, 2007), 125–126.]

5.3.7. Irenaeus of Lyon Return to Outline

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.): (Quoted by Eusebius)

[Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 5.24.14, in NPNF2, 1:243; PG, 20:505.]

Cf. Michael J. Kruger:

Although Irenaeus’ high view of the office of bishop is not in doubt, it is important again that it be tempered by other considerations. Even Irenaeus recognizes that the office of bishop is, in some sense, an extension of the office of presbyter. Thus, he can refer to the succession of bishops as really a succession of presbyters…

[Michael J. Kruger, Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2018), 84.]

Cf. Odd Magne Bakke:

We should however note that Irenaeus does not reserve this function exclusively to the bishop. He speaks not only of a succession of bishops, but also of a succession of presbyters who have handed on the apostolic doctrine. In Adv. Haer. 3.2.2, he refers to the tradition “which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches” (traditionem, quae est ab apostolis, quae per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur). He exhorts his readers: “it is incumbent to obey the presbyters (presbyteris) who are in the Church – those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles (qui successionem habent ab apostolis); those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth” (qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, Adv. Haer. 4.26.2).

This shows that although Irenaeus assumes that every community within a given area has a bishop as its principal leader, so that it is appropriate to speak of a monarchical episcopate, the structure headed by a bishop with a college of presbyters under him is not so definitely established as in Ignatius. In Irenaeus, bishops seem not to be a clearly demarcated “order” within the ministry, as in Ignatius: rather, they are to be seen as leaders of the presbyters.

[Odd Magne Bakke, “The Episcopal Ministry and the Unity of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers to Cyprian,” in The Formation of the Early Church, ed. Jostein Ådna, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 183, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 390.]

Cf. Everett Ferguson:

The Ignatian pattern of one bishop and a plurality of elders and deacons spread over the churches and became the normal church order by the later second century. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria (XIV.11, 13, 14, 15) recognize the sole bishop in a church; nevertheless they continue to call the bishop an elder. Evidently the bishop was still a “chief elder” or “president of the presbytery” and not in a wholly distinct order. This usage occurs in crucial passages. Thus, when Irenaeus is tracing the “apostolic succession” in the churches as an argument against the new doctrines of the Gnostics, he speaks of the “succession of the presbyters” (XIV.10). Irenaeus certainly knew the bishop as holding a distinct office from that of the presbyters. He interprets Acts 20:17, 28 as meaning that bishops from other churches in Asia besides Ephesus were present inasmuch as Paul addressed “bishops” in the plural. Apparently bishops could still be called elders in his time, but elders could not be called bishops. Hence, it is probably the “episcopal” member of the presbytery which Irenaeus has in mind and not all presbyters when he speaks of a succession from the apostles. With the “succession to the episcopate” a person received “the gift of the truth” (XIV.12). Some have thought of this as a gift conferred at ordination; on the other hand, the general argument of Irenaeus requires that truth itself be the gift. Apostolic succession for Irenaeus was from one holder of the teaching chair to the next, and with the position came the heritage or tradition of Christian doctrine from apostolic days which it was the new incumbent’s duty to proclaim and pass on.

[Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Austin: Sweet Publishing Company, 1971), 175–176.]

Cf. J. B. Lightfoot:

The original relation of the bishop to the presbyter, which this investigation reveals, was not forgotten even after the lapse of centuries. Though set over the presbyters, he was still regarded as in some sense one of them. Irenæus indicates this position of the episcopate very clearly. In his language a presbyter is never designated a bishop, while on the other hand he very frequently speaks of a bishop as a presbyter. In other words, though he views the episcopate as a distinct office from the presbytery, he does not regard it as a distinct order in the same sense in which the diaconate is a distinct order. Thus, arguing against the heretics he says, ‘But when again we appeal against them to that tradition which is derived from the Apostles, which is preserved in the churches by successions of presbyters, they place themselves in opposition to it, saying that they, being wiser not only than the presbyters but even than the Apostles, have discovered the genuine truth.’[Iren. iii. 2.2.] Yet just below, after again mentioning the apostolic tradition, he adds, ‘We are able to enumerate those who have been appointed by the Apostles bishops in the churches and their successors down to our own time’;[Iren. iii. 3.1.] and still further, after saying that it would take up too much space if he were to trace the succession in all the churches, he declares that he will confound his opponents by singling out the ancient and renowned Church of Rome founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul and will point out the tradition handed down to his own time ‘by the succession of bishops,’ after which he gives a list from Linus to Eleutherus.[Iren. iii. 8.2, 3.] So again in another passage he writes, ‘Therefore obedience ought to be rendered to the presbyters who are in the churches, who have the succession from the Apostles as we have shown, who with the succession of the episcopate have also received the sure grace of truth according to the pleasure of the Father’; after which he mentions some ‘who are believed by many to be presbyters, but serve their own lusts and are elated with the pomp of the chief seat,’ and bids his readers shun these and seek such as ‘together with the rank of the presbytery show their speech sound and their conversation void of offence,’ adding of these latter, ‘Such presbyters the Church nurtures and rears, concerning whom also the prophet saith, “I will give thy rulers in peace and thy bishops in righteousness”’.[Iren. iv. 26. 2, 3, 4, 5.] Thus also writing to Victor of Rome in the name of the Gallican churches, he says, ‘It was not so observed by the presbyters before Soter, who ruled the Church which thou now guidest, we mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus and Xystus.’[In Euseb. H. E. v. 24.] And the same estimate of the office appears in Clement of Alexandria: for, while he speaks elsewhere of the three offices in the ministry, mentioning them by name, he in one passage puts forward a twofold division, the presbyters whose duty it is to improve, and the deacons whose duty it is to serve, the Church.[Strom. vii. 1] The functions of the bishop and presbyter are thus regarded as substantially the same in kind, though different in degree, while the functions of the diaconate are separate from both. More than a century and a half later, this view is put forward with the greatest distinctness by the most learned and most illustrious of the Latin fathers.

[J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (London: Macmillan and Co., 1892), 191–192. Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations (London: Macmillan and Co., 1898), 228–229.]

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.2.2; trans. ANF, 1:415; PG, 7:847.]

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

…the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops [successiones episcoporum].

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3.3.2, in ANF, 1:415; PG, 7:848.]

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130–202 A.D.):

[Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 4.26.2; trans. ANF, 1:497; PG, 7:1053–1054.]

5.3.8. Clement of Alexandria Return to Outline

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

Similarly, also, in the Church, the elders [πρεσβύτεροι, presbyters] attend to the department which has improvement for its object; and the deacons to the ministerial.

[Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 7.1, in ANF, 2:523; PG, 9:405.]

J. B. Lightfoot:

The language of Clement is significant; he speaks sometimes of two orders of the ministry, the presbyters and deacons;[Strom. vii. 1] sometimes of three, the bishops, presbyters, and deacons.[Strom. vi. 13] Thus it would appear that even as late as the close of the second century the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as distinct and yet not distinct from the presbytery. And the language of Clement is further illustrated by the fact, which will have to be considered at length presently, that at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently ordained by the twelve presbyters out of their own number. The episcopal office in this Church during the second century gives no presage of the world-wide influence to which under the prouder name of patriarchate it was destined in later ages to attain.

[J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age (London: Macmillan and Co., 1892), 189. Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations (London: Macmillan and Co., 1898), 226.]

5.3.9. Cyprian of Carthage Return to Outline

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200–258 A.D.):

In respect of that which our fellow-presbyters, Donatus and Fortunatus, Novatus and Gordius, wrote to me, I have not been able to reply by myself, since, from the first commencement of my episcopacy, I made up my mind to do nothing on my own private opinion, without your advice and without the consent of the people.

[Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 5.4 (To the Presbyters and Deacons), trans. ANF, 5:283;

PL, 4:234 (Oxford ed. Ep. XIV).]

Cf. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200–258 A.D.):

…you shall hear everything most fully from Primitivus our co-presbyter, when he shall come to you.

[Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 40.1 (To Cornelius), trans. ANF, 5:319; PL, 3:701 (Oxford ed. Ep. XLIV). Cf. CSEL, 3/2:598.]

Note: For Cyprian all bishops are presbyters, even if all presbyters are not bishops. The difference is one of degree and function within a singular order.

5.4. The Church Fathers Return to Outline

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366–384 A.D.):

Therefore the writings of the Apostle do not in all respects correspond to the order that is now in the Church, because they were written in those very first beginnings. For he also calls Timothy, whom he had made a presbyter, a bishop; because in the beginning the first presbyters were called bishops. [Ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli ordinationi, quæ nunc in Ecclesia est; quia hæc inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta. Nam et Timotheum presbyterum a se creatum episcopum vocat; quia primi presbyteri episcopi appellabantur]

[Ambrosii, In epistolam b. Pauli ad Ephesios, caput IV, vers. 11, 12, in PL, 17:388.]

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347–407 A.D.):

So then, as I said, both the Presbyters were of old called Bishops and Deacons of Christ, and the Bishops Presbyters; and hence even now many Bishops write, “To my fellow-Presbyter,” and, “To my fellow-Deacon.”

[John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians, 1 (on Philippians i. 1, 2), in, NPNF1, 13:184; PG, 62:183.]

Pelagius (fl. c. 354–418 A.D.):

With the bishops and deacons. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We understand these “bishops” to be presbyters; for there could not have been several bishops in one city, but this is also found in the Acts of the Apostles. [Cum episcopis et diaconibus. Gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Jesu Christo. Hіс еріscopos presbyteros intelligimus: non enim in una urbe plures episcopi esse potuissent, sed etiam hoc in apostolorum Actibus habetur.]

[Pelagius, In epistolam ad Philippenses, caput primum, in PL, 30:841.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

…In writing both to Titus and to Timothy the apostle speaks of the ordination of bishops and of deacons, but says not a word of the ordination of presbyters; for the fact is that the word bishops includes presbyters also.

[Jerome of Stridon, Letter 146.2 (To Evangelus), in NPNF2, 6:289; PL, 22:1195.]

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7–420 A.D.):

In both epistles commandment is given that only monogamists should be chosen for the clerical office whether as bishops or as presbyters. Indeed with the ancients these names were synonymous, one alluding to the office, the other to the age of the clergy.

[Jerome of Stridon, Letter 69.3 (To Oceanus), in NPNF2, 6:143; PL, 22:656.]

Note: See further: Jerome of Stridon, Letter 146.1 (To Evangelus); NPNF2, 6:288–289; PL, 22:1193–1194.

Cf. George Edward Dolan, S.T.L. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

In order to restore to the presbyterate its rightful place and authority Jerome pointed out that in the very early days of the Church the terms episcopus and presbyter signified the same individuals. In other words, as we interpret Jerome all were bishops in the sense in which this word is understood today, with full powers to confirm and ordain. But when the universal monarchical episcopate was introduced into the government of the Church only the chief priest (ie., the bishop) was given the full powers of confirming and ordaining, while all other priests who were subjected to him (in other words, the presbyters) were given only a limited or restricted share in the powers of the priesthood.

[George Edward Dolan, S.T.L., The Distinction between the Episcopate and the Presbyterate according to the Thomistic Opinion, The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology (2nd series) 36 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1950), 11.]

Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428 A.D.):

Moreover, it must be noted that he said that those now called presbyters were bishops, giving them that name. For it was not part of the church order that there should be in a single city many of those who now have the title of bishop, even if we grant that in early times there were people in particular cities who used to fulfill this function. And when he said to the bishops, he immediately mentioned the deacons as well. He would certainly not have called the deacons next in rank to them if the presbyters had been left out. But anyone may better recognize the point by what was written to Titus, where Paul says (Titus 1:5, 7): that you may appoint throughout the cities presbyters, as I have instructed you; and adding of what sort they were, a bishop (he says) ought to be above reproach, clearly naming bishops “presbyters.”

[Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Philippians, on Phil. 1:1–2, in Theodore of Mopsuestia: The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul, trans. Rowan A. Greer (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), 293. Cf. Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, vol. 1, ed. H. B. Swete (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1880), 199–200.]

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393–458/66 A.D.):

Thus it is evident that those called bishops in the preface (Phil. 1:1) were under this man [i.e., Epaphroditus], namely filling the rank of presbyter. [Ὡς εἶναι δῆλον ὅτι ὑπὸ τοῦτον ἐτέλουν οἱ ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ κληθέντες ἐπίσκοποι, τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου δηλονότι τὴν τάξιν πληροῦντες·]

[Theodoreti episcopi Cyrensis, Interpretatio epistolæ ad Philippenses, cap. II, vers. 25, in PG, 82:576.]

Isidore, Archbishop of Seville (c. 560–636 A.D.):

Among the ancients, bishops and presbyters were the same [apud veteres idem episcopi et presbyteri fuerunt].

[S. Isidori Hispalensis, Etymologiarum, lib. VII, caput XII, § 20, in PL, 82:292.]

Bernold of Constance (c. 1050–1100 A.D.):

Since, then, presbyters and bishops are read to have been the same in ancient times, there is no doubt that they also had the same power of binding and loosing, and other things now special to bishops. [Cum igitur presbyteri et episcopi antiquitus idem fuisse legantur, etiam eamdem ligandi atque solvendi potestatem, et alia nunc episcopis specialia habuisse non dubitantur.]

[Bernaldi, De presbyterorum officio tractatus, § IV, in PL, 148:1246.]

Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris (c. 1096–1160 A.D.):

…among men of ancient times, bishops and presbyters were the same…

[Peter Lombard, The Sentences, vol. 4, trans. Giulio Silano, Medieval Sources in Translation 48 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2010), 4.24.11 [141.2], p. 146; PL, 192:904 (4.24.9 in Migne).]

Note: Lombard is here affirmatively quoting Isidore of Seville.

5.5. Modern Theologians Return to Outline

J. B. Lightfoot:

[J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1908), 95.]

Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

The question whether the episcopate is of divine institution continues to divide the churches, even though Christian scholars from both sides agree that one does not find the threefold structure of ministry, with a bishop in each local church assisted by presbyters and deacons, in the New Testament. They agree, rather, that the historic episcopate was the result of a development in the post-New Testament period, from the local leadership of a college of presbyters, who were sometimes also called bishops (episkopoi), to the leadership of a single bishop. They also agree that this development took place earlier in the churches of Syria and western Asia Minor, than it did in those of Philippi, Corinth and Rome. Scholars differ on details, such as how soon the church of Rome was led by a single bishop, but hardly any doubt that the church of Rome was still led by a group of presbyters for at least a part of the second century.

The question that divides Catholics and Protestants is not whether, or how rapidly, the development from the local leadership of a college of presbyters to that of a single bishop took place, but whether the result of that development is rightly judged an element of the divinely willed structure of the church.

[Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church (New York/Mahwah: The Newman Press, 2001), viii.]

Note: Cf. Idem, 217–218.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:

To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest (επίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος) are synonymous. …In each community the authority may originally have belonged to a college of presbyter-bishops. …In other communities, it is true, no mention is made of a monarchic episcopate until the middle of the second century.

[A. Van Hove, D.C.L., “Bishop,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, special edition, vol. 2 (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), 582.]

Note: πρεσβύτερος, presbyter (elder).

J. Michael Miller, C.S.B. (Roman Catholic Theologian, Historian and Archbishop of Vancouver):

While admitting that the monarchical episcopate came about as the result of historical choices, Catholic doctrine holds that its emergence was guided by the Spirit. …the monarchical episcopacy was not a universal and normative ecclesial structure before the mid-second century.

[J. Michael Miller, C.S.B., The Shepherd And The Rock (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1995), 60–61.]

William J. La Due, J.C.D. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

The notion of apostolic succession . . . was clearly shifting from emphasis on the authentic teaching, which was handed down from generation to generation, to the list of teachers—one succeeding the other in an unbroken chain. The names prior to Anicetus that Hegesippus enumerated—people such as Linus, Clement, Evaristus, Telesphorus, etc.—were in all probability historical figures who were in one way or another prominent presbyters or presbyter-bishops in the Roman congregation. However, to position them in a continuous line of monarchical heads from Peter to Anicetus is not historically justifiable.

[William J. La Due, J.C.D., The Chair Of Saint Peter (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), 26.]

Raymond E. Brown, S.S. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

The presbyter-bishops described in the NT were not in any traceable way the successors of the Twelve apostles. …The affirmation that the episcopate was divinely established or established by Christ himself can be defended in the nuanced sense that the episcopate gradually emerged in a Church that stemmed from Christ and that this emergence was (in the eyes of faith) guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections (Paramus: Paulist Press, 1970), 72–73.]

Note: See further: No Single Bishop of Rome Until the Middle of the Second Century.

6. An Argument from the Congregational Nature of the Episcopacy/Presbytery Return to Outline

Note: For at least the first five centuries of the Church, bishops and presbyters were appointed by the local congregation, not by other bishops or presbyters—e.g., Didache, 15.1; Canons of the Church of Alexandria (wrongly ascribed to Hippolytus), canon 2 (of bishops); Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.4; Cyprian, Epistle 5.4, 54.6, and 67.3–5 (Oxford ed. Ep. 14, 59, and 67); Eusebius, Church History, 6.29.3–4; Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 21.8; Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 22; Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians, 1.2.30; Priscillian of Ávila, Tractatus undecim, tractatus II (CSEL, 18:40); Leo the Great, Letter 10.6, 13.3, 14.6, and 167.3.

Note: See further: No Single Bishop of Rome Until the Middle of the Second Century.

6.1. The New Testament Return to Outline

Francis Turretin:

The primitive apostolic church observed this order of calling so that it was not done without the consent of the church (Acts 1:23). The whole church selects two who cast lots for the apostleship and, the lot having fallen to Matthias, he was added to the number of the apostles by common consent. The whole multitude of the pious select seven deacons, who are confirmed by the apostles by the imposition of hands (6:3, 5, 6). The apostles in every city ordain presbyters by the cheirotonian of the people (14:23) or by their free suffrages (the word being derived from the Greek custom of those who voted with stretched out and extended hands; hence transferred to any elections, sacred as well as political, it signifies to appoint by vote). And although the verb cheirotonein is sometimes taken more broadly for any creation and election (as with Hesychius cheirotonein means psēphizein; Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon [1862], 4:279); still it cannot be used in that sense here, but it must be understood properly of a creation by suffrage. (a) Cheirotonia must be distinguished from cheirothesia or ordination, which is made by the laying on of hands. The former is done by the people; the latter by the pastors. (b) Ordination is treated in the following words when it is added, “They commended them with prayer to God.” This was not usually done without the imposition of hands (Acts 6:6; 13:3). Nor can it be said that only the votes of Paul and Barnabas are meant, because the circumstances of the text imply that the church concurred in that call and similar examples prove it: “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men” (Acts 15:22); “It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you” (v. 25); “When I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send” (1 Cor. 16:3). In 2 Cor. 8:19, Luke is said to be cheirotonētheis hypo tōn Ekklēsiōn to travel with Paul (i.e., elected by the votes of the churches). Chrysostom (Homily 18, Homilies on Second Corinthians [NPNF1, 12:364; PG 61.524]), Theophylact (Exposito in Epistola II ad Corinthios [PG 124.888] on 2 Cor. 8:19), Oecumenius (Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios posterior epistola [PG 118.1017–18]) and Estius (In Omnes Pauli Epistolas [1859], 2:144 on 2 Cor. 8:19) understand an election in this passage. If in electing those who were to bear extraordinary messages to the churches, the vote of the church was employed, how much more in electing those who were to perform the ordinary work of teaching? And if to the service (diakonian) of tables, how much more to the service (diakonian) of the word? Cotton therefore jeers falsely at our French version, which understands cheirotonian of a creation by votes or election. The force of the word denotes this, as Salmeron observes (Commentarii in evangeliam historiam et in Acta Apostolorum, Tract. 41 on Acts 14 [1602-04], 12:269-70) and Estius (ibid.). Nor if among the ancient writers and in the canons cheirotonia and cheirothesia are sometimes confounded and put promiscuously for the election or ordination of pastors synecdochically (because both concur to their constitution and call), does it follow that it holds the same signification in the Scriptures or is retained everywhere in the fathers. Zonaras observes, “Now indeed cheirotonia is called the office of consecration because the archbishop extends his hand in blessing the candidate; but formerly the vote itself (hē autē psēphos) was called cheirotonia. For when the people were admitted to the election of archbishops, being congregated, they voted by extending their hands" (cf. Canon 1, Canones Sanctorum Apostolorum [PG 137.38]). This is confirmed by Canon 5 of the Council of Laodicea, which commands that the cheirotonias should not take place before the audience, in the number of which were the catechumens (Hefele, 2:301). This could not be said of the imposition of hands, which was done before the whole assembly.

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.24.13, pp. 229–230.]

Everett Ferguson:

Magistrates in Greece were elected by the citizens. The vote was taken by a show of hands, which was the original meaning of cheirotonia, the word for ordination in later Christian usage. Republican Rome and the Romanized towns under the early empire chose their magistrates by election, the outcome of which was determined by the majority in the various voting divisions. The imperial system reduced the role of popular elections in Rome, but elsewhere political offices on the local level continued to be filled by this method. Both Greek and Roman private associations chose their officers by election, and some civic priesthoods in Greece were filled in this manner.

The evidence for election among the Jews is not so extensive, but there are indications that Hellenistic Jews followed Greek precedents in electing their community officers. At least some leaders of the Qumran community (Essenes?) were chosen by the congregation (1QSA 1.13–17; CD 10.4–6).

The Book of Acts gives considerable emphasis to community choice among the early Christians: the choice of two candidates to succeed Judas as an apostle (Acts 1:23), the selection of seven ministers of benevolence in Jerusalem (6:3–5), the approval of the Holy Spirit’s call of Paul and Barnabas to mission work (13:2f.), the deliberations over circumcision and choice of delegates by the Jerusalem church (15:22; cf. 2 Cor. 8:19).

[Everett Ferguson, “Election to Church Office,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd edition, vol. 1, A–K, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997), 366.]

6.2. Church History Return to Outline

Leon Morris:

The evidence of early Church orders. I give this objection in the words of W. H. Griffith Thomas: ‘The Didache is clearly congregational, the local Church being addressed. So also are the Canons of Hippolytus and the Apostolic Constitutions of the third century. Each local community was as yet unconnected by any permanent organisation with other Churches, though, nevertheless, all felt that they were one Church, the unity being spiritual, not ecclesiastical.’

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 125.]

Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas:

Primitive Christianity was undoubtedly congregational, each local Church being autonomous, though with a definite consciousness of real spiritual unity with other Churches under Christ the Head. Then came what may be called a Presbyterian form, and, lastly, an Episcopal. Wordsworth admits that in some parts, “ especially at Rome and Alexandria, there were at first only two Orders”; the governing Order acting normally as a corporate body, or College. The Didache is clearly congregational, the local Church being addressed. So also are the Canons of Hippolytus and the Apostolic Constitutions of the third century. Each local community was as yet unconnected by any permanent organisation with other Churches, though, nevertheless, all felt that they were one Church, the unity being spiritual, not ecclesiastical.

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963), 325.]

John Daillé:

It is clear that in the primitive times they depended partly on the people, and not wholly on the clergy; but every company of the faithful either chose their own pastors, or else had leave to consider and to approve of those that were proposed to them for that purpose.

[John Daillé, A Treatise on the Right Use of the Fathers in the Decision of Controversies Existing at this Day in Religion (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1842), 343.]

Note: Cf. Idem, 343ff.

John Brown:

Up to and even after the conversion of the Empire under Constantine bishops and presbyters were chosen by the whole body of the people by show of hands (χειροτονία)...

[John Brown, Apostolical Succession in the Light of History and Fact (London: Congregational Union of England and Wales, 1898), 102.]

Didache (c. 1st Century A.D.):

Therefore appoint [χειροτονήσατε] for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord…

[Didache, 15.1, in AF, 367. Cf. ANF, 7:381.]

Cf. Kurt Niederwimmer:

[Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary, trans. Linda M. Maloney, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 200.]

Canons of the Church of Alexandria (c. 4th Century A.D.):

A bishop should be elected by all the people, and he should be unimpeachable, as it is written of him in the apostle; in the week in which he is ordained, the whole people should also say, We desire him; and there should be silence in the whole hall, and they should all pray in his behalf, and say, O God, stablish him whom Thou hast prepared for us, etc.

[Canons of the Church of Alexandria (Wrongly ascribed to Hippolytus), canon, 2 (of Bishops), in ANF, 5:257; Canones S. Hippolyti, Arabice e codicibus Romanis, cum versione latina, annotationibus et prolegomenis, ed. D. B. de Haneberg (Monachii: Sumptibus Academiae Regiae Boicae, 1870), 28, 64.]

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (c. 375/80 A.D.):

…a bishop to be ordained is to be, as we have already, all of us, appointed, unblameable in all things, a select person, chosen by the whole people, who, when he is named and approved, let the people assemble, with the presbytery and bishops that are present, on the Lord’s day, and let them give their consent. And let the principal of the bishops ask the presbytery and people whether this be the person whom they desire for their ruler.

[Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.4; trans. ANF, 7:481–482; Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, vol. 1, ed. Franciscus Xaverius Funk (Paderbornae: In Libraria Ferdinandi Schoeningh, 1905), 77–78.]

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 210–258 A.D.):

[Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 5.4 (Oxford ed. Ep. xiv), in ANF, 5:283; PL, 4:234.]

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 210–258 A.D.):

…a people obedient to the Lord’s precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones.

[Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 67.3 (Oxford ed. Ep. lxvii), in ANF, 5:370; PL, 3:1025. Cf. CSEL, 3/II:737–738.]

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 210–258 A.D.):

Neither do we observe that this was regarded by the apostles only in the ordinations of bishops and priests, but also in those of deacons, of which matter itself also it is written in their Acts: “And they twelve called together,” it says, “the whole congregation of the disciples, and said to them;” which was done so diligently and carefully, with the calling together of the whole of the people, surely for this reason, that no unworthy person might creep into the ministry of the altar…

[Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 67.4 (Oxford ed. Ep. lxvii), in ANF, 5:370–371; PL, 3:1026–1027. Cf. CSEL, 3/II:738–739.]

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 210–258 A.D.):

For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides.

[Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 67.5 (Oxford ed. Ep. lxvii), in ANF, 5:371; PL, 3:1027–1028. Cf. CSEL, 3/II:739.]

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 210–258 A.D.):

…when a bishop is appointed into the place of one deceased, when he is chosen in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people…

[Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 54.6 (Oxford ed. Ep. lix), in ANF, 5:341; PL, 3:804 (Epistola XII). Cf. CSEL, 3/II:673.]

Cf. John Brown:

Against this theory that the Unity of the Church consists in the unity and authority of the bishops is the simple fact that, even according to Cyprian’s own writings, the bishop derives his authority from the people, and is very far from being an absolute autocratic official.

[John Brown, Apostolical Succession in the Light of History and Fact (London: Congregational Union of England and Wales, 1898), 257.]

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c. 260/5–339 A.D.):

3. For when all the brethren had assembled to select by vote him who should succeed to the episcopate of the church, several renowned and honorable men were in the minds of many, but Fabianus, although present, was in the mind of none. But they relate that suddenly a dove flying down lighted on his head, resembling the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Saviour in the form of a dove.

4. Thereupon all the people, as if moved by one Divine Spirit, with all eagerness and unanimity cried out that he was worthy, and without delay they took him and placed him upon the episcopal seat.

[Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 6.29.3–4, in NPNF2, 1:275; PG, 20:588.]

Gregory of Nazianzus, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329–390 A.D.):

[Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 21.8 (On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria), in NPNF2, 7:271; PG, 35:1089.]

Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8–373 A.D.):

But now I am ignorant under what colour these proceedings have been carried on. In the first place, if the truth must be spoken, it was not right, when we had written to summon a council, that any persons should anticipate its decisions: and in the next place, it was not fitting that such novel proceedings should be adopted against the Church. For what canon of the Church, or what Apostolical tradition warrants this, that when a Church was at peace, and so many Bishops were in unanimity with Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria, Gregory should be sent thither, a stranger to the city, not having been baptized there, nor known to the general body, and desired neither by Presbyters, nor Bishops, nor Laity—that he should be appointed at Antioch, and sent to Alexandria, accompanied not by presbyters, nor by deacons of the city, nor by bishops of Egypt, but by soldiers? for they who came hither complained that this was the case.

[Athanasius of Alexandria, Apologia Contra Arianos (Defence Against the Arians), 1.2.30, in NPNF2, 4:115–116; PG, 25:297.]

Priscillian, Bishop of Ávila (c. 340–385 A.D.):

…as a bishop’s consecration lies with the bishop, so the choice of whom to ask for lies with the people [et sicut dedicationem sacerdotis in sacerdote, sic electionem consistere petitionis <in> plebe].

[Priscilliani, Tractatus undecim, tractatus II (liber ad Damasum episcopum), in Charles Gore, The Church and the Ministry, 5th edition (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902), 93; PLS, 2:1439. Cf. CSEL, 18:40.]

Third Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)

Let no cleric be ordained unless he has been approved by the examination of the bishops or the testimony of the people. [Ut nullus ordinetur clericus nisi probatus vel episcoporum examine vel populi testimonio.]

[Third Council of Carthage, canon 22, in Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum Saeculorum IV, V, VI, VII, ed. Hermann Theodor Bruns, 2 vols. in 1 (Berolini: G. Reimer, 1839; reprint, Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1959), 1:126.]

Cf. Francis Turretin:

The decrees of ancient councils claim for the church the right of calling pastors. The Nicene says expressly: “If perchance any pastor of a church has died, let it be right for those received a little before, to succeed in the place of the deceased, provided they will be seen to deserve it, and the people shall have elected them” (cf. Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.8* [NPNF2, 3:46–47; PG 82.930]). The Council of Carthage III: “Let not a bishop ordain clergymen without the assent and testimony of the people” (Canon 20*, Mansi, 3:922); cf. also the Council of Carthage IV (Canon 22*, Mansi, 3:953). This canon is cited Episcopus at Nannetensis (“Decreti,” Pt. I, Dist. 24, Corpus Iuris Canonici [1959], 1:87–89), Toledo XII (Canon 6; cf. “Decreti,” Pt. I, Dist. 63.25, Corpus Iuris Canonici [1959], 1:242) and Sardis, whose sanction Gratian records (“Decreti,” Pt. I, Dist. 65.9, Corpus Iuris Canonici [1959], 1:252). Here belong the various “Rescripts of the Popes”—Nicholas, Leo, Gelasius, Stephen, Pelagius and others, which Gratian diligently inserted with their distinctions; also the “Testimonies of the Fathers,” many of which (and they plain also) might be adduced from Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Isidore, Gregory the Great and others, who are quoted by Gratian even so far that antiquity (as though with common voice) judged that all those elections were void which were made haneu laou syneseōs (i.e., as Cyprian translates it, “without the knowledge and assent of the people”) (“Decreti,” Pt. I, Dist. 23, 24, 62, 63, Corpus Iuris Canonici [1959], 1:76–89, 234–49).

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.24.14, p. 230.]

Fourth Council of Carthage (c. 5th Century A.D.)

A bishop should not ordain clerics without the counsel of his clergy, and he should seek the assent and testimony of the citizens. [Ut episcopus sine consilio clericorum suorum clericos non ordinet, ita ut civium conniventiam et testimonium quaerat.]

[Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 22, in Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum Saeculorum IV, V, VI, VII, ed. Hermann Theodor Bruns, 2 vols. in 1 (Berolini: G. Reimer, 1839; reprint, Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo, 1959), 1:143.]

Cf. Darwell Stone: (Fourth Council of Carthage, Canon 22.)

In the canons of the so-called “Fourth Council of Carthage” (see p. 331, supra), a bishop was forbidden to ordain any without the advice of his clergy, so that he might know whether the people agreed and approved (“Fourth Council of Carthage,” canon 22: see Hardouin, Concilia, i. 980), and this regulation passed into the general canon law of the Western Church (Decret., I. xxiv. 6).

[Darwell Stone, The Christian Church (New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1906), 336.]

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393–457 A.D.): (Quoting the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.))

If it should happen, that any of those now holding an office in the Church should die, then let these recently admitted be advanced to the honours of the deceased, provided only that they appear worthy, and that the people choose them, and that the election be confirmed and ratified by the catholic bishop of Alexandria.

[Theodoret of Cyrus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.8, in NPNF2, 3:46–47; PG, 82:929.]

Leo I (Leo the Great), Bishop of Rome (c. 400–461 A.D.):

In peace and quietness should they be asked for who are to be priests. The consent of the clergy, the testimony of those held in honour, the approval of the orders and the laity should be required. He who is to govern all, should be chosen by all.

[Leo the Great, Letter 10.6; trans. NPNF2, 12:11; PL, 54:634.]

Leo I (Leo the Great), Bishop of Rome (c. 400–461 A.D.):

When therefore the choice of the chief priest is taken in hand, let him be preferred before all whom the unanimous consent of clergy and people demands, but if the votes chance to be divided between two persons, the judgment of the metropolitan should prefer him who is supported by the preponderance of votes and merits: only let no one be ordained against the express wishes of the place: lest a city should either despise or hate a bishop whom they did not choose, and lamentably fall away from religion because they have not been allowed to have whom they wished.

[Leo the Great, Letter 14.6, in NPNF2, 12:18; PL, 54:673 (cap. V).]

Leo I (Leo the Great), Bishop of Rome (c. 400–461 A.D.):

No consideration permits men to be reckoned among bishops who have not been elected by the clergy, demanded by the laity, and consecrated by the bishops of the province with the assent of the metropolitan.

[Leo the Great, Letter 167.3 (q. 1, reply), in NPNF2, 12:110; PL, 54:1203.]

Leo I (Leo the Great), Bishop of Rome (c. 400–461 A.D.):

And because we have learned through the diligent report of our aforementioned brother that the metropolitan of the province of Achaea has frequently performed illicit ordinations, which are forbidden by the decrees of the Fathers and by our own authority, and that he has further added to his audacity by consecrating a bishop, unknown and never before seen, for the people of Thespiae, despite their unwillingness and opposition, we allow no metropolitan whatsoever to do this, permitting him to ordain no one solely at his own discretion, without the consent of the clergy and the people. Instead, let him appoint as leader of the Church of God the one whom the consensus of the entire city has chosen. Therefore, just as we are not negligent in admonishing what must be observed and avoided, we do not allow anyone to be negligent in carrying out and upholding these matters, for those who safeguard such things shall be accompanied by most worthy praise and, as we hope, rewarded by the Lord with greater fruits of obedience. But one who strays and forgets the apostolic constitution will be subject to both ecclesiastical and divine censure. [Et quia memorati fratris nostri sollicita relatione cognovimus Achaiæ provinciæ metropolitanum illicitas et constitutis Patrum nostrisque auctoritatibus interdictas ordinationes sæpe celebrasse, illudque suis ausibus addidisse, ut Thespiensibus invitis et repugnantibus incognitum, et ante non visum episcopum consecraret; nulli prorsus metropolitano hoc licere permittimus, ut suo tantum arbitrio, sine cleri et plebis assensu quemquam ordinet sacerdotem; sed eum Ecclesiæ Dei præficiat, quem totius civitatis consensus elegerit. Ut itaque nos desides non sumus in monendo quæ custodiri debeant quæque vitari, ita in exsequendis illis atque servandis neminem esse patimur negligentem cum custodientem talia laus dignissima comitetur, et fructus, ut speramus, a Domino uberior obsequatur; devium vero et apostolicæ constitutionis oblitum, obnoxium habitura sit et ecclesiastica et divina censura.]

[S. Leonis Magni, Epistola XIII, cap. III, in PL, 54:665.]

Charles Gore:

Quotations to this effect might be greatly multiplied, and from later sources. The Latin rites of ordination are framed in recognition of this representative system. This then was undoubtedly the ideal of the bishop’s election in the early Church. The bishop was to be really the persona of the Church he ruled.

[Charles Gore, The Church and the Ministry, 5th edition (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902), 94.]

Cf. Francis Turretin:

Let us give a few passages of the fathers out of many. Cyprian discusses it fully: “The people especially have the power either of electing worthy priests or rejecting unworthy, which also itself seems to descend from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen under the eyes of all the people being present and should be approved as worthy and suitable by the public judgment and testimony” (Letter 67 [68], “To the Clergy and People of Spain” [ANF 5:370; PL 3.1061–62]). This he proceeds to establish by various arguments and adds: “This was done in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus, so that the episcopate was given to him by the vote of the whole brotherhood and by the judgment of the bishops, who had assembled together and given a letter concerning him to them” (ibid., p. 371 [PL 3.1064]). The same thing he confirms by the example of Cornelius, the Roman bishop. “He was made a bishop,” he says, “by the judgment of God and his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the vote of the people who were then present and by the college of ancient priests and good men” (Letter 51 [52], “To Antonianus” [ANF 5:329; PL 3.796–97]). Pamelius himself (on Cyprian) cannot cover this up. “We do not deny,” says he, “the old custom of the election of bishops, who were accustomed to be elected, the people being present; nay, even by the votes of the people” (Letter 68, “Ad clerum et plebes in Hispania,” D. Caecilii Cypriani . . . Opera [adnotationes Iacobi Pamelii, 1632], p. 166). Origen: “There is required, therefore, in ordaining a priest the presence of the people also, that they may all know and be sure that he, who is the more excellent from all the people . . . is elected to the priesthood” (In Leviticam Homilia 6.3 [PG 12.469], also cited in Gratian, “Decreti,” Pt. II, Causa 8, Q. 1.15 Corpus Iuris Canonici [1959], 1:594-95). Leo I: “Let the subscription of the clergy, the testimony of the honored and the consent of order and of the people be obtained” (Letter 10 [89], “To the Bishops of Vienne” [NPNF2, 12:11; PL 54.634]). And: “He, who is to be set over all, should be elected by all” (ibid.*). Ambrose: “Deservedly so great a man has come forth, whom all the church elected; deservedly is it believed that he was elected by the divine judgment, whom all demanded” (Letter 59 [63/82], “To Ambrose” [FC 26:321; PL 16.1240–41]). Chrysostom: “All elections and calls are invalid which are made without the knowledge and assent of the people” (lib. 3 de Sacerdot.+). Isidore: “If in a congregation the archpresbyters have died . . . let the archdeacon proceed thither as quickly as possible, and with the clergy and people make an election, so that a worthy pastor of the Lord God may be constituted” (lib. 2 de offi. Eccles. cap. 5+). Gregory Nazianzus relates that he was elected “by the vote of the whole people” (psēphou tou laou pantos, On the Great Athanasius 8 [NPNF2, 7:271; PG 35.1089]). Theodoret asserts the same thing (Ecclesiastical History 4.17* [NPNF2, 3:120]); also Nicephorus (Ecclesiasticae Historiae 11.26* [PG 146.650–51]) concerning Peter, the successor of Athanasius. Socrates says the same thing concerning Ambrose: “That by the common suffrage of all and with the will and consent of the emperor himself, he was elected bishop of Milan, in the place of Auxentius” (Ecclesiastical History 4.30* [NPNF2, 2:113–14; PG 67.543]). Augustine records the same thing concerning Eraclius, appointed the successor of Augustine by the consent, votes, acclamation and subscriptions of the church at Hippo (Letter 213 [FC 32:52–57]). Moreover, Antonius de Dominis proves at large from the ancients that the election of bishops always belonged to the clergy and the people (De Republica Ecclesiastica 3.3 [1618], pp. 260–84).

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.24.15, pp. 230–231.]

Cf. Everett Ferguson:

The Didache 15 enjoined Christians to “elect for yourselves bishops and deacons,” and 1 Clement 44 referred to bishops “appointed by the apostles and afterward by other eminent men with the consent of the whole church.” Ignatius expected a congregational election of a church’s delegates (Philad. 10. 1; Smyrn. 11.2; Polyc. 7.2). Election by the people was one of the methods of appointment known to Origen (Hom. 13 in Num, 4). Cyprian described a procedure of selection involving clerical nomination, popular election, and episcopal ordination (Ep. 55.8f.; cf. 67.3f.) that became widespread in the western half of the church (cf. Hippolytus, Trad. ap. 2.1–5). The will of the populace could prevail over clerical opposition (Sulpicius Severus, V. Mart. 9).

Details of how elections were conducted are seldom provided. In the Greek east, episcopal elections seem to have followed closely what is known of procedures in Greek civil elections. There were “those presiding at the vote”; nomination was important (related in the Christian context to the expectation of divine guidance); the votes (taken down by the deacons) often resulted in a division in which there was no clear majority; but the desire was to secure as unanimous a decision as possible (V. Polyc. 22; Gregory of Nyssa, V. Gr. Thaum. [PG 46.933ff.]). Unanimity was taken as an indication of God’s choice (Ambrose, Ep. 63.2; Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. 17). Omens or signs sometimes swayed the people’s choice, as a dove settling on the head of Fabian (Eusebius, H.E. 6.29) or the child’s exclamation “Ambrose bishop!” (Paulinus, V. Amb. 3.6).

Episcopal elections could generate all the fervor of modern political campaigns: “The populace was divided into several parties, each with its own candidate, as is usual in such cases . . .; but at last the whole people came to an agreement, and with the aid of a band of soldiers . . . brought him against his will to the sanctuary, and setting him before the bishops, begged with entreaties mingled with violence that he might be consecrated” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 18.33). Such displays prompted the clergy to keep a tight hold on the process of election (Laodicea, can. 13). Even in circumstances where the choice of bishops was made by the clergy, the people gave their approbation through the acclamation that the candidate was “worthy” (Athanasius, Apol. sec. 6; Theodoret, H.E. 4.20; Theophilus of Alexandria, can. 6).

[Everett Ferguson, “Election to Church Office,” in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd edition, vol. 1, A–K, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997), 366–367.]

Note: Cf. J. Tixeront, Holy Orders and Ordination: A Study in the History of Dogma (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1928), 305–308.

7. An Argument from Historical Succession Return to Outline

Johann Gerhard:

190. First Member. Whether succession is a true and proper mark of the Church.

1. Whatever does not belong to the Church always and perpetually cannot be a true and proper mark of it. But succession does not belong to the Church always and perpetually. Therefore it is not a true and proper mark of it.

The minor premise is evident, because there was a true and apostolic Church before any such succession existed—namely, at the beginning. For the Church is not called apostolic on account of succession from the apostles, as Bellarmine supposes, but on account of apostolic doctrine; since in the Apostles’ Creed—which Bellarmine (On Justification, Bk. 1, ch. 9) holds to have been composed by the apostles themselves—the Church is called apostolic at a time when there was not yet any such succession in it, but the apostles themselves were still teaching.

That primitive Church, in which Christ and the apostles taught, was the flower of the Church, and yet it lacked that local and personal succession. For whom did Christ succeed? Whom did the apostles succeed? The Epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates that Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek; he therefore succeeded Melchizedek. True succession, then, can be interrupted, provided only that it retains the succession of doctrine joined to it. Paul says (2 Timothy 1:3) that he serves God as did his forefathers—that is, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and so forth—thereby attesting his faith by a succession interrupted through his more immediate forefathers, who had belonged to the sect of the Pharisees.

Stephen, in Acts 7, when accused of false doctrine, appeals to Abraham, and beginning from him traces the line down to the Babylonian captivity, and thence onward to the times in which he himself lived, passing through a span of some four hundred years.

Just as, then, the apostles were the true successors of the prophets, because they both received and propagated their pure doctrine, and were true successors of Aaron, because they followed his faith, although they succeeded neither the prophets nor Aaron immediately in respect of place—so too are those to be judged the true successors of the apostles who sincerely embrace the doctrine and faith of the apostles as contained in their writings, even though they lack that external, local succession.

Just as the doctrinal succession by which the apostles succeeded the prophets, Aaron, and other pious priests, by reason of ecclesiastical ministry, was in no way hindered by the fact that heretical priests gravely erring in the faith had immediately preceded them, so too the doctrinal succession by which pious and orthodox ministers of the Church, sincerely embracing the apostolic faith, succeed one another is by no means hindered by the fact that in earlier times that succession was interrupted through a corrupt ministry.

Just as the apostles appealed from the local, external succession in which Caiaphas could glory to the doctrinal, internal succession—when they publicly declared that they taught nothing beyond what Moses and the prophets had foretold (Acts 26:22), and sought no ordination from Caiaphas—so too we today, in the evangelical churches, rightly appeal from local and personal succession to doctrinal succession, seeking neither ordination nor confirmation from the Roman pontiffs, who boast of succession from the apostles while in the meantime imitating Caiaphas.

Bellarmine objects that the Aaronic priesthood was temporal, lasting only until the inception of the New Testament, after which the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, instituted by Christ, began; and since the apostles were the first-fruits of this priesthood, they ought not, on that account, to be regarded as successors of Caiaphas, but rather as the beginning of a new priesthood.

We respond:

(1.) Bellarmine himself admits (On the Church, Bk. 4, ch. 7, § “In omni”) that the Church of Christ was not a new Church, but only a certain change in the state of the Church. But if, with the change of succession, only the external state of the Church is altered, while no new Church is thereby constituted, then succession is not a true and essential mark, but only an accidental one, since it pertains not to the Church’s essence but only to its external state.

(2.) As Christ could be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek—that is, a successor of Melchizedek—even though that succession had been interrupted over the course of several centuries, so too there can be successors of the apostles among those who profess the sincere, uncorrupted doctrine of the apostles, even though some interruption intervenes in respect of time, places, and persons.

(3.) As it had been foretold in the Old Testament that the Aaronic priesthood would cease—for which reason the apostles rightly separated themselves from Caiaphas and the Levitical priesthood—so it is foretold in the New Testament that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thessalonians 2:4); that false teachers leading the Church astray would succeed the apostles and apostolic men (Acts 20:29); and that a time would come when one must go forth from mystical Babylon (Revelation 18:4).

(4.) It has not yet been established that Christ instituted, in the Roman Church, in the apostolic see of Peter, any such succession as the papists boast of, comparable to that which God instituted in the Israelite Church in the chair and see of Aaron—since in the Church of Christ no carnal, local, earthly succession ought any longer to be looked to, but rather a doctrinal and spiritual succession, for his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).

(5.) It can by no means be said that, just as Aaron’s own sons and descendants succeeded him in the Levitical priesthood, so the apostles succeeded Christ in the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. For, as the Epistle to the Hebrews (7:24) teaches, Christ holds an “unchangeable priesthood” (ἀπαράβατον ἱερωσύνην)—a priesthood of such a kind that it does not pass to others. Accordingly, Christ did not admit the apostles into the fellowship of this, his own, priesthood, but set them over his Church as teachers.

(6.) As for what Bellarmine adds—that just as from Aaron to Christ there were no true priests except those who succeeded Aaron, so from the apostles to the end of the world there will be no true priests except those who succeed the apostles—if he means this of doctrinal succession, we grant it; if of local and personal succession, we deny it. For the truth of apostolic doctrine is not bound to any external chair, or to succession within that chair; rather, whoever holds fast the doctrine of the apostles is to be judged the true successor of the apostles.

(7.) Indeed, since not even in the Old Testament was the truth and integrity of Mosaic doctrine bound to the chair of the Aaronic priesthood, how much less can it be said, under the New Testament, that the truth and integrity of apostolic doctrine depends solely upon the Roman chair and see. The antecedent is evident, since the Levitical priests on several occasions lapsed into idolatry, for which reason God also raised up prophets as restorers and reformers of divine worship—men who, though they could not boast of external, local succession in the Mosaic or Aaronic chair, were nevertheless true teachers and true successors of Moses and Aaron in the office of teaching.

(8.) We conclude, then, in the words of [Nicholas of] Lyra on Matthew 16: “the Church does not consist in men by reason of ecclesiastical or secular power or dignity, since many princes and supreme pontiffs, and others of lesser rank, have been found to have apostatized from the faith; wherefore the Church consists in those persons in whom there is true knowledge and confession of the faith and of the truth.”

191. 2. Whatever does not belong exclusively to the true Church cannot be a proper mark of it. Succession does not belong exclusively to the true Church. Therefore it is not a proper mark of it. This minor premise may be shown by various examples. The Jewish synagogue, in the time of Christ, possessed a succession of priests traceable back to Aaron himself, and yet purity and sincerity of doctrine was not perpetually joined to that succession.

[…]

What, I ask, can be shown in the succession of the Roman bishops that cannot equally be demonstrated in this succession of the Jewish high priests? Indeed, the succession of the high priests under the Old Testament rested upon a divine mandate and promise, neither of which can be shown from Scripture with respect to the Roman succession. Just as, then, notwithstanding that succession of high priests, various corruptions, superstitions, and errors crept into the public ministry of the Israelite Church, especially in later times, so too, notwithstanding the succession of pontiffs, the same evils stole into the Roman Church, especially in later times.

[…]

192. 3. Where there is no doctrinal succession, local succession is of no consequence. But there can be a local succession to which no doctrinal succession is joined. Therefore that local succession, when destitute of doctrinal succession, will then be of no consequence, and is consequently not a mark of the Church.

The first premise is demonstrated from this foundation:

The true Church cannot be one that lacks true and apostolic doctrine, since such doctrine is, as it were, the soul of the Church. Local succession, therefore, avails nothing unless true doctrine is joined to it—a point some of our very adversaries acknowledge, as will appear later.

The second premise is confirmed:

First, by apostolic predictions. In Acts 20:29 Paul addresses the elders of the Ephesian church thus: “I know this, that after my departure grievous wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (v. 30). Here it is plainly foretold that in the Ephesian church false prophets and the worst of seducers would succeed the orthodox bishops—an outcome that events afterward confirmed. In 1 Timothy 4:1: “In the latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,” (v. 2) “speaking lies in hypocrisy,” etc., (v. 3) “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods,” etc.—where the word κωλυόντων (“forbidding”) shows that these false teachers would introduce celibacy and dietary restriction into the Church with a certain authority and power, from which it is understood that their successors are those who hold authority and power in the Church. In 2 Peter 2:1: “There were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will bring in sects of perdition.” Just as, among the people of Israel, the priests who held the ordinary succession and sat in the chair of Aaron quite often degenerated into false prophets, so too the apostle foretells that the same is to be feared under the New Testament. To this especially pertains the prophecy concerning the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:4), that he would sit in the temple of God—that is, that he would arrogate to himself dominion in the Church under the pretext of succession from the apostles.

Second, by examples from history. In the church of Antioch, planted by Peter, [Paul] of Samosata, a heresiarch [i.e., the founder or leader of a heretical movement], succeeded the orthodox bishops, as did Peter Gnaphaeus (the Fuller), a Eutychian, and Macarius, a Monothelite, among others. In the Alexandrian church, planted by the apostles and, as the ancients relate, by Mark, there succeeded George and Lucius, Arians, Dioscorus, a Eutychian, and Cyrus, a Monothelite, among others. In the church of Constantinople, the heresiarchs Macedonius, Nestorius, and Eutyches succeeded Andrew. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eustathius, and other Arian bishops possessed a succession of places and sees from the apostles. What sort of bishops succeeded in the Roman church, founded by Paul and Peter, will be shown later. Vincent of Lérins (Against Heresies, ch. 34) writes that from Simon Magus that old gulf of depravities flowed, by a continuous and hidden succession, down to the most recent Priscillian. Bellarmine himself acknowledges that nearly all the heresiarchs were either bishops or presbyters (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. 1, ch. 8), where he maintains: “Now indeed there are no true bishops except those who have succession from the apostles.” Therefore, those who have succession from the apostles can become heresiarchs.

From all of which it is manifest that local succession can be separated from doctrinal succession, and accordingly that no argument whatsoever can be drawn from local succession to the truth of the Church—a truth which has no place apart from doctrinal succession.

Note: Gerhard argues against the claims of the Roman Church; however, his arguments have equal force against the assertions of the various Eastern Churches.

Cf. Johann Gerhard:

190. Membrum primum. Sitne successio vera et propria ecclesiae nota. Duplex est successio, una quidem locorum et personarum, altera doctrinae. Illam vocare possis externam, hanc vero internam. Successio locorum et personarum est accidens quoddam externum et mutabile, nec quidquam valet absque doctrinae successione, doctrinae autem successio est verae ecclesiae propria. Personae aliae in aliorum locum subeuntes non faciunt successionem, sed perpetuus doctrinae consensus, qui fidei vinculo posteriores prioribus conjungit, ut recte scribit Gelasius in comment. lib. 3. Irenaei c. 3. Sic ergo contra hanc notam argumentamur: 1. Quod ecclesiae non convenit semper ac perpetuo, non potest esse vera et propria illius nota. Atqui successio non convenit ecclesiae perpetuo ac semper. Ergo non est vera et propria illius nota. Assumtum est manifestum, quia fuit vera et apostolica ecclesia, antequam esset talis successio, scilicet in principio. Neque enim propter successionem ab apostolis ecclesia dicitur apostolica, ut Bellarminus suspicatur, sed a doctrina apostolica, siquidem in symbolo apostolico, quod ab ipsis apostolis compositum esse Bellarminus lib. 1. de justification. c. 9. statuit, ecclesia dicitur apostolica, cum nondum in ea esset talis successio, sed ipsimet apostoli adhuc docerent. Ecclesia illa primitiva, in qua Christus et apostoli docuerunt, fuit flos ecclesiae, ea tamen caruit locali et personali illa successione. Cui enim successit Christus? cui successerunt apostoli? epistola ad Hebraeos demonstrat, Christum esse sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Ergo successit Melchisedeco, ergo vera successio potest esse interrupta, si modo doctrinae successionem conjunctam habeat. Paulus dicit 2. Tim. 1, v. 3. se Deo servire a progenitoribus, hoc est ab Abrahamo, Isaaco, Jacobo etc. probat ergo fidem suam successione interrupta per progenitores, qui fuerant ex secta Pharisaeorum; Stephanus Act. 7. de falsa doctrina accusatus ad Abrahamum provocat, a quo incipiens ad tempora Babylonicae captivitatis descendit atque inde ad illa usque tempora, in quibus vixerat, 400 circiter annos praetergrediens. Quemadmodum igitur apostoli fuerunt veri prophetarum successores, quia doctrinam eorum puram et receperunt et propagarunt; fuerunt veri Aaronis successores, quia fidem illius sectati sunt, licet nec prophetis, nec Aaroni immediate ratione loci succederent; sic etiam veri apostolorum successores judicandi sunt, qui doctrinam et fidem apostolorum in scriptis ipsorum comprehensam sincere amplectuntur, licet externam et localem illam successionem non habeant. Quemadmodum doctrinali illi successioni, qua apostoli, prophetis et Aaroni aliisque piis sacerdotibus ratione ministerii ecclesiastici successerunt, nulla ex parte obstabat, quod temporibus proximis sacerdotes haeretici et graviter in fide errantes ipsos praecesserant; ita quoque doctrinali illi successioni, qua pii et orthodoxi ecclesiae ministri apostolicam fidem sincere amplectentes succedunt, nequaquam obstat, quod temporibus superioribus per corruptum ministerium successio illa fuerit interrupta. Quemadmodum apostoli a successione locali et externa, qua Caiaphas gloriari poterat, ad successionem doctrinalem et internam provocarunt, quando publice protestati sunt, quod nihil quidquam extra ea, quae Moyses et prophetae futura praedixerunt, doceant Act. 26, v. 22. nec petierunt a Caiapha ordinationem; ita quoque hodie in ecclesiis evangelicis a successione locali et personali ad successionem doctrinalem recte provocamus, nec a pontificibus Romanis de successione ab apostolis gloriantibus, interim vero Caiapham imitantibus ordinationem vel confirmationem petimus. Excipit Bellarminus, sacerdotium Aaronicum fuisse temporale et solum durasse usque ad inchoationem N. T. deinceps coepisse sacerdotium secundum ordinem Melchisedech a Christo institutum, cujus sacerdotii cum primitiae fuerint apostoli, ideo non debuisse illos Caiaphas succedere, sed esse principium novi sacerdotii. Respondemus: 1. fatetur ipse Bellarminus lib. 4. de eccles. c. 7. §. in omni, ecclesiam Christi non fuisse novam ecclesiam, sed solum mutationem quandam status ecclesiae. Quodsi mutata successione status duntaxat ecclesiae externus mutatur, non autem nova ecclesia constituitur, ergo successio non est vera et essentialis, sed tantum accidentalis ecclesiae nota, quia scilicet non ad illius essentiam, sed ad externum duntaxat statum pertinet. 2. Ut Christus potuit esse sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedeci, hoc est successor Melchisedeci, licet aliquot seculorum decursu successio illa esset interupta; sic apostolorum successores esse possunt, qui doctrinam apostolorum sinceram et incorruptam profitentur, lilicet interruptio aliqua temporis locorum et personarum ratione intercedat. 3. Ut in V. T. praedictum erat, Aaronicum sacerdotium cessaturum, propter quam causam apostoli recte faciebant & Caiapha et Levitico sacerdotio semet separantes; sic in N. T. praedictum, Antichristum in templo Dei sessurum 2. Thess. 2, v. 4. apostolis et apostolicis viris successuros esse falsos doctores ecclesiam seducentes Act. 20, v. 29. fore aliquando tempus ejusmodi, ut e mystica Babylone sit exeundum Apoc. 18, v. 4. 4. Nondum evictum est, in ecclesia Romana a Christo institutam esse talem quandam successionem in sede Petri apostolica, de qua Pontificii gloriantur, qualis fuit a Deo in ecclesia Israëlitica in cathedra et sede Aaronis instituta, siquidem in ecclesia Christi nulla amplius spectari debet carnalis, localis et terrena successio, sed successio doctrinalis et spiritualis, regnum enim ejus non est de hoc mundo Joh. 18, v. 36. 5. Nequaquam dici potest, ut Aaroni in sacerdotio Levitico successerunt ipsius filii et posteri, ita Christo in sacerdotio secundum ordinem Melchisedech successisse apostolos, quia ut docet epistola ad Hebr. 7. v. 24. Christus habet ἀπαράβατον ἱερωσύνην, tale quoddam sacerdotium, quod ad alios non transit; proinde in communionem hujus sui sacerdotii Christus non admisit apostolos, sed ecclesiae suae doctores illos praefecit. 6. Quod Bellarminus subjungit: Sicut ab Aarone usque ad Christum non fuerunt veri sacerdotes, nisi qui successerunt Aaroni; ita ab apostolis usque ad finem mundi non erunt veri sacerdotes, nisi qui apostolis succedent, id si de doctrinali successione intelligit, concedimus; si de locali et personali, negamus. Neque enim externae cuidam cathedrae et successioni in illa cathedra apostolicae doctrinae veritas est alligata, sed qui doctrinam apostolorum tenet, is verus apostolorum successor judicandus. 7. Quinimo cum ne in V. quidem T. Mosaicae doctrinae veritas et integritas Aaronici sacerdotii cathedrae fuerit alligata, quanto minus in N. T. de cathedra et sede Romana dici potest, quod apostolicae doctrinae veritas et integritas ab ea unice dependeat. Antecedens est manifestum, quia sacerdotes Levitici idololatriam aliquoties sunt sectati, unde etiam Deus excitavit prophetas divini cultus instauratores ac reformatores, qui licet de externa et locali successione in cathedra Mosaica sive Aaronica gloriari non possent, erant tamen veri doctores ac veri Moysis et Aaronis in officio docendi successores. 8. Concludimus igitur verbis Lyrae in c. 16. Matth.: Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus ratione potestatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticae vel secularis, quia multi principes et summi pontifices et alii inferiores inventi sunt apostatasse a fide, propter quod ecclesia consistit in illis personis, in quibus est notitia vera et confessio fidei et veritatis.

191. 2. Quod non convenit soli verae ecclesiae, non potest esse propria illius nota. Successio non convenit soli verae ecclesiae. Ergo non est propria illius nota. Assumtum variis exemplis demonstrari potest. Synagoga Judaica tempore Christi habebat sacerdotum successionem, quam ad ipsuın Aaronem poterat deducere, nec tamen cum illa successione puritas et sinceritas doctrinae perpetuo fuit conjuncta.

…

Quid quaeso in successione episcoporum Romanorum monstrari potest, quod in hac pontificum Judaicorum successione demonstrari nequcat? quinimo successio pontificum in V. T. divino mandato et promissione nitebatur, quorum neutrum de Romana successione ex Scripturis ostendi potest. Quemadmodum igitur non obstante illa pontificum successione variae corruptelae, superstitiones et errores in publicum ministerium ecclesiae Israëliticae, temporibus praesertim posterioribus irrepserunt; ita quoque non obstante pontificum successione in Romanam ecclesiam eadem mala temporibus praesertim posterioribus subintrarunt.

…

192. 3. Ubi non est successio doctrinalis, ibi nullius momenti est successio localis. Atqui potest esse successio localis, ut ei non sit conjuncta successio doctrinalis, Ergo localis illa successio destituta doctrinali successione nullius tunc erit momenti, et per consequens non est nota ecclesiae. Prior praemissarum demonstratur ex hoc fundamento. Vera ecclesia non potest esse ea, quae non habet doctrinam veram et apostolicam, quippe quae est quasi anima ecclesiae. Ergo nihil valet successio localis, nisi conjunctam habeat veram doctrinam. Agnoscunt hoc quidam ex ipsis adversariis, ut postea apparebit. Posterior praemissarum confirmatur 1. praedictionibus apostolicis. Act. 20, v. 29. Paulus Ephesinae ecclesiae presbyteros sic alloquitur: Ego illud scio, lupos graves non parcentes gregi ingressuros esse in vos post discessum meum; v. 30. et ex vobis ipsis exsurgent viri loquentes perversa, ut abducant discipulos post se. Hic manifeste praedicitur, in ecclesia Ephesina episcopis orthodoxis successuros esse falsos prophetas et seductores pessimos, quod ipsum eventus postmodum comprobavit. 1. Tim. 4, v. 1: Temporibus novissimis discedent quidam a fide, attendentes spiritibus erroris et doctrinis daemoniorum, v. 2. in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium etc. v. 3: prohibentium nubere, abstinere a cibis etc. ubi vox κωλυόντων ostendit, pseudodoctores illos cum quadam auctoritate et potestate coelibatum et discrimen ciborum in ecclesiam introducturos, ex quo intelligitur, quod futuri sint illorum successores, qui auctoritatem et potestatem in ecclesia obtinent. 2. Petr. 2, v. 1: Fuerunt vero et pseudoprophetae in populo, sicut et in vobis erunt magistri mendaces, qui introducent sectas perditionis. Quemadmodum in populo Israëlitico sacerdotes ordinariam successionem habentes et in cathedra Aaronis sedentes saepius degeneraverunt in pseudoprophetas; ita quoque idem in N. T. metuendum esse apostolus praedicit. Cumprimis hue pertinet vaticinium de Antichristo 2. Thess. 2, v. 4. quod in templo Dei sit sessurus, hoc est dominationem in ecclesia sibi arrogaturus praetextu successionis ab apostolis. 2. Exemplis historiarum. In ecclesia Antiochena a Petro plantata episcopis orthodoxis successit Samosatenus haeresiarcha, Petrus Gnaphaeus Eutychianus, Macarius Monotheleta etc. In Alexandrina ecclesia ab apostolis et, ut veteres tradunt, a Marco plantata successerunt Georgius et Lucius Ariani, Dioscorus Eutychianus, Cyrus Monotheleta etc. In Constantinopolitana ecclesia Andreae successerunt Macedonius, Nestorius et Eutyches haeresiarchae. Eusebius Nicomediensis, Eustathius et alii Ariani episcopi locorum sediumque successionem ab apostolis habuerunt. In ecclesia Romana a Paulo et Petro fundata quales episcopi successerint, postea demonstrabitur. Vincentius Lerin, adv. haeres. c. 34: A Simone Mago vetus ille turpitudinum gurges usque in novissimum Priscillianum, continua et occulta successione manavit. Bellarminus ipse agnoscit, haeresiarchas fere omnes aut episcopos aut presbyteros fuisse, lib. 1. de Rom. pontific. c. 8: Jam vero non sunt veri episcopi, nisi qui successionem habent ab apostolis, ut in hoc capite disputat. Ergo illi, qui habent ab apostolis successionem, possunt fieri haeresiarchae. Ex quibus omnibus manifestum est, successionem localem a successione doctrinali separari posse, ac proinde a successione locali ad veritatem ecclesiae, quae sine doctrinali successione non habet locum, haudquaquam argumentum duci posse.

Francis Turretin:

The fifth mark is “the continued succession of bishops without any interruption, from the apostles even to our times.” But here (in the first place), we must distinguish succession: one is personal and local, as to persons and places; another is doctrinal, as to faith. We do not deny that the latter is a mark and thus it coincides with ours. But the former (of which we treat here) cannot be a mark. (a) It is merely contingent and aside from the nature of the church, unless it is founded on unity of sound doctrine and true faith (Eph. 4:4, 5, 11, 12). Nay, since the church is ambulatory and not tied down to this or that place, such also is its succession. (b) It is not proper because it belongs also to false teachers. Annas and Caiaphas succeeded Aaron in the priesthood; the scribes and Pharisees succeeded the fathers and the interpreters of the law; Arians succeeded the orthodox; the Greek church (which the Romanists consider schismatical and heretical) glories in an uninterrupted succession of bishops from the apostles. Bellarmine himself confesses that “the church cannot necessarily be inferred to be where a succession is” (“De Notis Ecclesiae,” 4.8 Opera [1857], 2:118). (c) A local and personal succession can be without a succession of doctrine. Therefore it cannot be a mark of the church because it cannot be a true church which does not have the apostolic doctrine. For the church is not to be sought in walls and temples, but in doctrines. The church is where true faith is.

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.13.28, p. 108.]

Cf. Francis Turretin:

Because there ought to be some method for distinguishing a true church from a false, as for distinguishing a false church from a true, and false prophets from true teachers. Now this is no other than falsity of doctrine and its disagreement with the word of God (Is. 8:20; Dt. 13:1, 2; Lk. 16:29). Hence, Christ (speaking of the false prophets) says, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Mt. 7:16); not only as to morals and life, but especially as to doctrine (as is gathered from Lk. 6:45). And John wishes the spirits (i.e., the teachers) to be tried, whether they are of God (1 Jn. 4:1). If you seek the rule of trying, he brings it forward in the following verses from the truth of doctrine: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (vv. 2, 3). And more clearly in the second epistle, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9); “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house” (2 Jn. 10). Paul confirms this when he denounces an anathema upon him who wished to preach another gospel than what had been preached: “If I, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). He not only wishes to be rejected whatever would be foreign to the gospel, but that an anathema should be denounced upon him who should dare to introduce it into the midst of them, whoever he might be, whether an apostle on earth or even an angel from heaven (by whom after Christ nothing more illustrious and more to be revered can be granted). Thus Paul excludes the most specious marks of authority and the greatest miracles which can be obtruded (such as the descent of an angel from heaven). Now if the presence of an angel or the authority of an apostle cannot secure faith from us (if it is opposed to the gospel), how much more ineffectual will that authority be which a local or personal succession can conciliate, since such successors cannot be reckoned greater than the apostles? Again, if the apostles wished the doctrine of the gospel to be the rule by which true or false teachers are known, how much more today when nothing infallible remains to us except the Scriptures?

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.12.12, p. 90.]

Note: See further: Idem, 18.12.9–14, pp. 88–91.

Charles Hodge:

The historical unity of the Church is its perpetuity; its remaining one and the same in all ages. In this sense, also, the true Church is one. It is now what it was in the days of the apostles. It has continued the same without interruption, from the beginning, and is to continue until the final consummation; for the gates of hell can never prevail against it. About this there is no dispute; all Christians admit the Church to be in this sense perpetual. In asserting the historical unity, or uninterrupted continuance of the Church, all must maintain the unbroken continuance of every thing which, according to their several theories, is essential to its existence. If the Church is a visible society, professing the true faith, and subject to lawful prelates, and especially to the Pope of Rome, then the perpetuity of the Church supposes the continued existence of such a society, thus organized, always professing the true faith, and always subject to its lawful rulers. There must, therefore, always be an external visible society; that society must profess the truth; there must always be prelates legitimately consecrated, and a lawful pope. If, according to the Anglican theory, the Church is precisely what Romanists declare it to be, except subjection to the pope, then its perpetuity involves all the particulars above mentioned, except the continued recognition of the headship of the bishop of Rome. If, on the other hand, the Church is a company of believers, if it is the communion of saints, all that is essential to its perpetuity is that there should always be believers. It is not necessary that they should be externally organized, much less is it necessary that they should be organized in any prescribed form. It is not necessary that any line of officers should be uninterruptedly continued; much less is it necessary that those officers should be prelates or popes. All that God has promised, and all that we have a right to expect, is, that the true worshippers of the Lord Jesus shall never entirely fail. They may be few and scattered; they may be even unknown to each other, and, in a great measure, to the world; they may be as the seven thousand in the days of the prophet Elijah, who had not bowed the knee unto Baal; still, so long as they exist, the Church, considered as the communion of saints, the mystical body of Christ on earth, continues to exist.

The argument from this source, in favour of the Protestant theory of the Church, is, that in no other sense is the Church perpetual. No existing external society has continued uninterruptedly to profess the true faith. Rome was at one time Arian, at another Pelagian, at another, according to the judgment of the Church of England, idolatrous. All Latin churches were subject to the instability of the Church of Rome. No existing eastern Church has continued the same in its doctrines, from the times of the apostles to the present time. That there has been an uninterrupted succession of popes and prelates, validly consecrated, is admitted to be a matter of faith, and not of sight. From the nature of the case it does not admit of historical proof. The chances, humanly speaking, are as a million to one against it. If it is assumed, it must be on the ground of the supposed necessity of such succession to the perpetuity of the Church, which is a matter of promise. But the Church can exist without a pope, without prelates, yea, without presbyters, if in its essential nature it is the communion of saints. There is, therefore, no promise of an uninterrupted succession of validly ordained church-officers, and consequently no foundation for faith in any such succession. In the absence of any such promise, the historical argument against “apostolic succession,” becomes overwhelming and unanswerable.

We must allow the attributes of the Church to determine our conception of its nature. If no external society is perpetual; if every existing visible Church has more than once apostatized from the faith, then the Church must be something which can continue in the midst of the general defection of all external societies; then external organization is not essential to the Church, much less can any particular mode of organization be essential to its existence. The only Church which is holy, which is one, which is catholic, apostolic, and perpetual, is the communion of saints, the company of faithful men, the mystical body of Christ, whose only essential bond of union is the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. That Spirit, however, always produces faith and love, so that all in whom he dwells are united in faith and Christian fellowship. And as, in virtue of the divine promise, the Spirit is to remain constantly gathering in the people of God, until Christ comes the second time, so the Church can never fail. The attributes, then, of holiness, unity, and perpetuity, do not belong to any external society, and therefore no such society can be the Church. They are all found, in their strictest sense and highest measure, in the communion of saints, and, therefore, the saints constitute the one, holy, apostolic, Catholic Church.

[Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 27–29.]

Cf. Charles Hodge:

There is another consideration which shows that the perpetuity of the Church does not depend on the regular succession of a visible society, and especially on the regular succession of the ministry, as Romanists and Anglicans assert. By the law of Moses it was expressly ordered that the office of High Priest should be confined to the family of Aaron, and descend in that family by regular descent. Even before the captivity, however, the priesthood was changed from one branch of that family to another, descending first in the line of Eleazar, (Num. iii. 32. Deut. x. 6;) from Eli to Solomon in that of Ithamar; then returning to that of Eleazar, (1 Sam. ii. 35. 1 Kings ii. 35.) From the latter passage it appears that Solomon displaced Abiathar and appointed Zadok. Under the Maccabees the office was given to the hero Jonathan, of the priestly family of Joiarib, (1 Macc. xiv. 35, 41;) after his death it was transferred to his brother Simon; and under Herod the office was sold to the highest bidder, or given at the discretion of the king. (Josh. Antiq. xx. 10.) Caiaphas was made High Priest by Valerius Gratus, the Procurator of Judea, and soon after the death of Christ he was displaced by the Proconsul Vitellius. (Joseph. xviii. 4, 3.) If then, notwithstanding the express injunction of the law, the priesthood was thus changed, men being introduced into the office and displaced from it by the ruling powers without legitimate authority, and still the office continued, and the actual incumbent was recognized as high priest even by Christ and his apostles, it cannot be supposed that the existence of the Church is suspended on the regular succession of the ministry under the New Testament, where there is no express law prescribing the mode of descent. The Old Testament history, therefore, distinctly proves that the perpetuity of the Church involves neither the perpetual existence of an organized body professing the true religion, nor the regular transmission of the ministerial office. In other words, the apostolical succession in the Church or in the ministry, which is the great Diana of the Ephesians, is a mere figment.

Another illustration on this subject may be derived from the state of the Church during the time of Christ. The Jews were then divided into three sects, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Of these the Pharisees were the most correct in doctrine, and yet they made the word of God of no effect by their traditions, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. They asserted the doctrine of justification by works in its grossest form; they attributed saving efficacy to external rites; and they were great persecutors of Christ. The people in their organized capacity, through their official organs, the priesthood and the Sanhedrim, rejected and crucified the Lord of glory. The Christian Church, as distinguished from the Jewish, was not organized until after the resurrection of our Lord. Where then, during the period referred to, was there any organized body which professed the true religion? The Protestant theory provides for this case, the Romish theory does not. The one theory is consistent with notorious historical facts; the other theory is inconsistent with them.

To all this, however, Bellarmin and others object that the privileges of the Christian Church are so much greater than those of the Jewish, that we cannot infer from the fact that the latter apostatized that the former may depart from the faith. To this we answer that the promises of God are the only foundation of the security of the Church. The promises addressed to the Jewish Church were as explicit and as comprehensive as those addressed to the Christian Church. If those promises were consistent with the apostasy of the whole organized body of the Jews, they must be consistent with a similar apostasy on the part of Christians. God promised to Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed after him; that though a woman might forsake her sucking child, he would never forsake Zion. But he did forsake Zion as an organized community; he did permit the seed of Abraham as a body to lapse into idolatry, to reject and crucify their Messiah; he permitted Jerusalem to be destroyed, and the people to whom were given the covenants, the law, and the promises, to be scattered to the ends of the earth. These promises, therefore, as Paul argues, were not intended to guaranty the continued existence of Israel as a society faithful to the truth, but simply the continued existence of true believers. As the Jews argued that the promises of God secured the continued fidelity of the external Israel; so Bellarmin and Mr. Palmer, (Rome and Oxford,) argue that his promises secure the continued fidelity of the visible Church. And as Paul teaches that the rejection of the external Israel was consistent with the fidelity of God, because the true Israel, hidden in the external body, continued faithful; so Protestants teach that the apostasy of the whole external organized Church is consistent with the promises of God, provided a remnant, however small and however scattered, adheres to the truth. The argument from the history of the Church under the old dispensation is therefore legitimate and scriptural. Nothing is promised to the Church now, that was not promised to the Church then. Whatever happened to the one, may happen to the other.

[Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 80–82.]

Cf. Charles Hodge:

The history of the Church since the advent of Christ is no less conclusive against the Romish theory. It is not necessary to assert that the whole visible Church has at any time been so far apostate, that no organized body existed professing the true faith. All that is requisite is to prove that the Church, in the sense in which Romanists and Anglicans understand the term, has at times denied the faith. By the Church they mean the multitude of professed Christians subject to Prelates or to the Pope. This body has apostatized. There have been times in which the Church has officially and by its appropriate and acknowledged organs, (as understood by Ritualists,) professed doctrines universally admitted to be heretical. Romanists and Anglicans say that this Church is represented by the chief pastors or bishops, and that the decisions of these bishops, either assembled in council, or each acting for himself, are the decisions of the Church, to which all the faithful are bound to submit. The decision of the three hundred and eighty bishops assembled at Nice, in favour of the proper divinity of the Lord Jesus, is considered as the decision of the whole Church, notwithstanding the fewness of their number, and the fact that they were not delegates or representatives, and the further fact, that they were almost entirely from the West, because that decision was ratified by the silent acquiescence of the majority of the absent bishops. The fact that a great many of the Eastern bishops dissented from that decision and sided with Arius, is not allowed to invalidate the authority of the council. By parity of reasoning, the decisions of the contemporaneous councils, that of Seleucia in the East, and of Ariminum in the West, were the decisions of the Church. Those councils together comprised eight hundred bishops; they were convened by the Emperor, their decisions were ratified by the Pope or bishop of Rome, and by the vast majority of the bishops of Christendom. Yet the decisions of these councils were heretical. They denied the proper Divinity of our Lord.

It cannot be pretended that the acquiescence in these decisions was less general than that accorded to those of the orthodox council of Nice. The reverse was notoriously the fact. Jerome in his Dialogue “Contra Luciferianos,” says: “Ingemuit orbis terrarum, et se Arianum miratus est.” In his comment on Psalm cxxxiii.—“Ecclesia non in parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate; ecclesia, ibi est, ubi fides vera est. Ceterum ante annos quindecim aut viginti parietes omnes ecclesiarum hæretici possidebant; eccclesia autem vera illic erat, ubi fides vera erat.” Athanasius himself asks: “Quæ nunc ecclesia libere Christum adorat? . . . . . Nam si alicubi sunt pii et Christi studiosi (sunt autem ubique tales permulti) illi itidem, ut magnus ille propheta Elias, absconduntur, et in speluncas et cavernas terrœ sese abstrudunt, aut in solitudine aberrantes commorantur.” Lib. ad solitar. vitam agentes. Vincentius Lirinensis says: “Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam, sed pene orbem totum contaminaverat; adeo fere cunctis Latini sermonis episcopis partim vi partim fraude deceptis caligo quœdam offunderetur.” Adv. hæres. novationes. Thus according to Jerome the heretics were in possession of all church edifices; according to Athanasius the worshippers of Christ were hidden, or wandered about in solitude; and according to Vincent, the poison of Arianism infected the world. “After the defection of Liberius,” says Dr. Jackson, “the whole Roman Empire was overspread with Arianism.” If therefore the Church was orthodox under Constantine, it was heretical under Constantius. It professed Arianism under the latter, more generally than it had professed the truth under the former. For the bishops were “forty to one against Athanasius.”

It will not avail to say that these bishops were deceived or intimidated. First, because the point is not why they apostatized, but that they did apostatize. This, the Romish and Anglican theory teaches, the representatives of the Church cannot do, without the Church perishing and the promise of God failing. And secondly, because the same objection might be made to the validity of the decisions of the council of Nice. Many bishops feigned agreement with those decisions; many signed them from fear of banishment; many because they thought they could be interpreted in a sense which suited their views. If these considerations do not invalidate the authority of the orthodox councils, they cannot be urged against the authority of those which were heterodox. Every argument which proves that the visible Church was Trinitarian at one time, proves that it was Arian at another time; and therefore the Church in the Romish and Anglican sense of that term, may apostatize.

So undeniable is the fact of the general prevalence of Arianism, that Romanists and Anglicans are forced to abandon their fundamental principles, in their attempts to elude the argument from this source. Bellarmin says, the Church was conspicuous in that time of defection in Hilary, Athanasius, Vincent, and others. And Mr. Palmer says the truth was preserved even under Arian bishops. Here they are on Protestant ground. We teach that the Church is where the truth is; that the Church may be continued in scattered individuals. They teach that the Church, as an organized body, the great multitude of professors under prelates, must always profess the truth. The facts are against them, and therefore their doctrine must be false.

[Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 82–84.]

7.1. An Argument from Prediction (Prophecy) Return to Outline

Note: This argument was made by Gerhard above, and he treats it more thoroughly. However, I have included a brief excerpt from Calvin, since I believe he draws out the implications more explicitly.

John Calvin:

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 Pet. ii. 1,) and Paul declares that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, (2 Thess. ii. 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.

[John Calvin, “On The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and Reforming the Church,” in Tracts Relating to the Reformation, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851), 264.]

Charles Hodge:

Our Lord foretold that false Christs should come and deceive many. He warned his disciples that they should be persecuted and hated of all nations; that iniquity should abound, and the love of many wax cold; that false prophets should arise and show signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they would deceive the very elect. He intimated that faith should hardly be found when he came again; that it will be then as it was in the days of Noah, or in the time of Lot, only a few here and there would be found faithful. The apostles also are frequent and explicit in their declarations that a general apostasy was to occur. The Spirit, says Paul, speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith. 1 Tim. iv. 1. In the last days, perilous times were to come (2 Tim. iii. 4); times in which men would not endure sound doctrine, (iv. 3.). The day of Christ, he says, was not to come before the rise of the man of sin, whose coming was to be attended by the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, when men (the professing Church generally) should be given up to believe a lie. Peter foretold that in the last times there should be false prophets and scorners, who would bring in damnable heresies. 2 Pet. ii. 1; iii. 3. And the apostle Jude reminds his readers of the words which were spoken by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, how they told you that in the last time there should be mockers, walking after their own lusts. Jude 18.

[Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 77.]

7.2. The Seat of Moses Return to Outline

Francis Turretin:

The seat of Moses, in which the scribes and Pharisees are said to sit (Mt. 23:2), is not a continuous personal succession to the office of Moses. For since his office was extraordinary, terminating in him, it could not have a succession; nor is it ever said that any seat was assigned to him. But we must understand it of the doctrine of Moses, which was committed to the scribes and Pharisees and which in the synagogues on every Sabbath was accustomed to be read and expounded (Acts 15:21).

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.13.29, p. 109.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354–430 A.D.):

“The scribes,” He saith, “and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: do what they say; but do not what they do.” What else said He but, Listen to the Shepherd’s voice speaking through the hirelings? For sitting in Moses’ seat, they teach the law of God; therefore God teacheth by them. But if they wish to teach their own things, hear them not, do them not [Sua vero illi si velint docere, nolite audire, nolite facere].

[Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 46.6, in NPNF1, 7:258; PL, 35:1730.]

Cf. John Jewel:

Ye see, therefore . . . we are bound to hear the pope and his cardinals and other like scribes and Pharisees, not absolutely, or without exception, whatsoever they list to say; but only so long as they teach the law of God. Further than that, St Augustine saith we may neither hear them nor follow their counsel.

[John Jewel, The Defense of the Apology, pt. 4, in The Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, vol. 4, ed. John Ayre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1850), 710.]

Cf. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274 A.D.):

…we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings.

Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLIII, ex capite xxiii, in PG, 56:876.]

Alt. Trans. Pseudo-Chrysostom [Opus Imperfectum in Matthæum] (c. 5th Century A.D.):

[Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, homilia XLIII, ex capite xxiii, in John Harrison, Whose are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1867), 536–537; PG, 56:876.]

Note: Cf. Thomas Becon, The Early Works of Thomas Becon: Being the Treatises Published by Him in the Reign of King Henry VIII, ed. John Ayre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1843), 6.

8. An Argument from Historical Uncertainty Return to Outline

Richard Whately:

[There are those who say] that the only way of affording complete satisfaction and repose to the scrupulous, and of repressing schism, is to uphold, under the title of ‘Church principles,’ the doctrine that no one is a member of Christ’s Church, and an heir of the covenanted Gospel promises, who is not under a ministry ordained by Bishops descended in an unbroken chain from the Apostles.

Now what is the degree of satisfactory assurance that is thus afforded to the scrupulous consciences of any members of an episcopal Church? If a man consider it as highly probable that the particular minister at whose hands he receives the sacred ordinances is really thus apostolically descended, this is the very utmost point to which he can, with any semblance of reason, attain and the more he reflects and inquires the more cause for hesitation he will find. There is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace up with any approach to certainty his own spiritual pedigree. The sacramental virtue (for such it is that is implied—whether the term be used or not—in the principle I have been speaking of) dependent on the imposition of hands, with a due observance of apostolical usages, by a Bishop, himself duly consecrated, after having been in like manner baptized into the Church, and ordained deacon and priest—this sacramental virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the above principles, be utterly nullified ever after, in respect of all the links that hang on that one. For if a Bishop has not been duly consecrated, or had not been previously rightly ordained, his ordinations are null; and so are the ministrations of those ordained by him, and their ordination of others (supposing any of the persons ordained by him to attain to the episcopal office); and so on, without end. The poisonous taint of informality, if it once creep in undetected, will spread the infection of nullity to an indefinite and irremediable extent.

And who can undertake to pronounce that, during that long period usually designated as the Dark Ages, no such taint ever was introduced? Irregularities could not have been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such miraculous interference existed we have even historical proof. Amidst the numerous corruptions of doctrine and of practice and gross superstitions that crept in during those Ages, we find recorded descriptions not only of the profound ignorance and profligacy of life of many of the clergy, but also of the grossest irregularities in respect of discipline and form. We read of Bishops consecrated when mere children; of men officiating who barely knew their letters; of Prelates expelled, and others put into their places, by violence; of illiterate and profligate laymen, and habitual drunkards, admitted to Holy Orders; and, in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder and reckless disregard of the decency which the Apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one even moderately acquainted with history can feel a certainty, or any approach to certainty, that, amidst all this confusion and corruption, every requisite form was, in every instance, strictly adhered to by men, many of them openly profane and secular, and unrestrained by public opinion, through the gross ignorance of the population among which they lived, and that no one not duly consecrated or ordained was admitted to their sacred offices.

[Richard Whately, Apostolical Succession Considered (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), 94–95.]

Note: The practical force of this historical difficulty is compounded by the existence of mutually exclusive claims to an unbroken personal succession. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and various Anglo-Catholic and Old Catholic bodies have each historically maintained the authenticity of their own line while frequently denying the validity of the others. If personal ecclesiastical succession were both a genuine and an exclusive mark of the Church, the criterion would prove self-defeating in practice: claims that directly contradict one another cannot all satisfy the same exclusive mark. Consequently, the question—Which of these mutually contradictory claims to succession is the true one?—remains unanswered.

Charles Hodge:

…all the difficulties, absurdities and assumptions of the doctrine of apostolical succession. Every Church would have to prove that its ministry had been regularly ordained in a specific manner from the apostles to the present time. This, from the nature of the case, can no more be done, than a man can prove that all his ancestors were regularly married from the time of Adam. It may be assumed, but it cannot by possibility be proved. And since there is in Scripture no promise of any such unbroken succession of ordinations, to assume it, is gratuitous; and to make such assumption the basis of ecclesiastical claims, or of religious hopes, is absurd and ruinous.

[Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 202.]

8.1. Sequence and Transmission Return to Outline

Leon Morris:

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 127–128.]

9. An Argument from Ontology (the Nature of Being) Return to Outline

P. T. Forsyth:

The Church of the ages was not founded by the Church of the first century, but by the apostles as the organs of Christ. We are in the apostolic succession rather than in the ecclesiastic. It is not the first Church that is canonical . . . but the apostolic New Testament.

[P. T. Forsyth, The Principle of Authority: In Relation to Certainty, Sanctity and Society (New York and London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1913]), 142.]

Cf. P. T. Forsyth:

Our authority is not the Church of the first century, but the Apostles who were its authority. The Church does not rest on its inchoate stages (which would poise it on its apex) but on its eternal foundation—a Christ Who, in His apostolic Self-revelation, is the same deep Redeemer always.

[P. T. Forsyth, The Principle of Authority: In Relation to Certainty, Sanctity and Society (New York and London: Hodder and Stoughton, [1913]), 96–97.]

Note: The Church’s authority and validity rest not on its own primitive form or subsequent development, but on the solid, unchanging foundation of Christ, attested by the apostles in the sacred Scriptures (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 3:11; Heb. 13:8). The apostles were sent by Christ as His authorized witnesses and organs (John 20:21; Acts 1:8), and the faith they delivered was once for all (Jude 3), to be transmitted through faithful teaching (2 Tim. 2:2) and preserved in the canonical apostolic writings (2 Tim. 3:16–17). To invert this order—that is, to derive the Church’s validity from the ecclesiastical body itself rather than from Christ—is akin to attempting to support a great building by balancing it upon its own highest point rather than upon its proper foundation, an inversion that is not only structurally untenable but also fundamentally impossible, for it mistakes the Church’s derived authority for its divine source and attributes to the Church’s temporal manifestations a primacy that belongs only to the eternal reality of Christ.

Henry B. Smith:

The church is made by Christ and not by man. Where Christ dwells, there and there only is the church—for it is his body.

[Henry B. Smith, System of Christian Theology, 4th edition, revised, ed. William S. Karr (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1892), 593.]

Michael F. Bird:

…the mark of the church is holding to the true and authentic teaching of the apostles about the gospel. This is what Paul meant by the gospel and the pattern of instruction that he himself received and passed on (1 Cor 11:2; 15:1–3; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6). Elsewhere in the New Testament there is a similar emphasis on receiving and transmitting apostolic tradition about Jesus (Luke 1:1–4; Rom 6:17; Phil 4:9; 2 Tim 1:13–14; Heb 10:32; Rev 3:3). The most lucid expression of this comes from Jude, where we hear about “the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3). Apostolicity entails that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), maintains the apostolic faith by guarding the good deposit of the gospel (2 Tim 1:14), and is constantly sending messengers to declare the good news of God (Matt 28:19–20; Luke 24:47–48; Acts 1:8).

[Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 8.4.4, pp. 837–838.]

10. An Argument from Christology (the Nature of Christ) and Pneumatology (the Nature of the Holy Spirit) Return to Outline

John Webster:

Jesus Christ is himself the minister of the church. He is himself prophet, priest and king; the ministry of revelation, reconciliation and rule by which the church is brought into being, restored to fellowship with God, and kept under God’s governance, is the action of Christ himself, the risen and ascended one who is now present and active, outgoing and communicative.

Taking this point with full seriousness will entail wresting ourselves free from the notion (which very deeply affects much ecclesiology and theology of ministry) that at his ascension Jesus Christ as it were resigns his office in favour of human ministers, and that henceforth the church is the real centre of ministerial agency. Without an operative theology of the present action and speech of Jesus Christ (which means also, without an operative pneumatology) human acts of ministry threaten to assume his role. The danger is present with especial acuteness in those theologies of episcopal ministry which interpret the apostolicity of the church’s ministry in terms of succession. Such accounts characteristically restrict the Christological dimension of ministry to a dominical mandate given in the past, and run the risk of converting the pneumatological dimension of ministry into a mystagogical power transmitted through historical sequence. The Christological inadequacy here is, very simply, an inoperative theology of the resurrection and the present activity of the glorified Christ; the pneumatological inadequacy is that of construing the gifts of the Spirit as manipulable possessions rather than as events of relation.

By contrast, an evangelical theology of ministry will be an ‘account of the history of Christ’s acts’. Because of this, the critical questions concern the relation of Christ’s acts to the ministerial activity of the church. Here a number of lines intersect.

First, the ministerial acts of Jesus Christ in the Spirit, by which he gathers, protects and preserves the church, are, properly speaking, incommunicable and non-representable. That is to say, if by ‘communication’ or ‘representation’ we mean the assumption of Christ’s proper work by agents other than himself, we may not make use of such concepts in a Christologically and pneumatologically structured theology of ministry. The dogmatic premisses of an evangelical ecclesiology – that, as the risen and ascended Lord, Jesus Christ is present and active – do not permit any such transference of agency. Christ distributes his own benefits through his Spirit, that is, by his own hand; they are not to be thought of as some treasure turned over to the church for it to dispense. Whatever else we may wish to say about the mediating acts of the church’s ministry, the barrier between Christ and the church must not be breached, for it is at this point that the principle of solus Christus finds its ecclesiological application.

However, it would be illegitimate to deploy that principle in a way which disqualifies the real (though limited) ministerial activity to which the church is appointed by Christ himself as the vessel of his own ministry. For although the acts of Christ are incommunicable, non-representable, Christ himself freely chooses to represent himself through human ministry. He does so sovereignly, graciously and freely, that is, he does so as Lord; he is not delivered into the hands of his servants, who remain entirely at his disposal. But in his lordly freedom, he elects that alongside his triumphant self-manifestation there should also be human service in the church.

[John Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh & New York: T & T Clark, 2001), 199–200.]

Cf. John Calvin:

Now we must speak of the order by which the Lord willed his church to be governed. He alone should rule and reign in the church as well as have authority or pre-eminence in it, and this authority should be exercised and administered by his Word alone. Nevertheless, because he does not dwell among us in visible presence [Matt. 26:11], we have said that he uses the ministry of men to declare openly his will to us by mouth, as a sort of delegated work, not by transferring to them his right and honor, but only that through their mouths he may do his own work—just as a workman uses a tool to do his work.

…“Christ ascended on high,” Paul says, “that he might fill all things.” [Eph. 4:10.] This is the manner of fulfillment: through the ministers to whom he has entrusted this office and has conferred the grace to carry it out, he dispenses and distributes his gifts to the church, and he shows himself as though present by manifesting the power of his Spirit in this his institution, that it be not vain or idle.

[John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.3.1–2, in LCC, 21:1053, 1055.]

Note: The Church’s ministry belongs to Christ Himself, not to an office He instituted and then vacated. As prophet, priest, and king (Acts 3:22; Heb. 7:17; Luke 1:32–33), Christ Himself reveals, reconciles, and rules; these acts bring the Church into being, restore it to God, and preserve it under His rule. This is a present reality, not a past achievement: the risen and ascended Christ remains actively present to His Church now (Matt. 18:20; 28:20). Taking this seriously means rejecting the assumption that Christ resigned His ministry to the Church at the ascension, leaving human ministers as its true agents. Without a living doctrine of Christ’s present action—and so of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13–14)—human ministry risks usurping His role. To ground apostolicity in ecclesiastical succession is to confine Christ’s bearing on ministry to a past commission and reduce the Holy Spirit’s role to a power mechanically passed down through ordination, rather than a gift freely and continually given (John 3:8; 1 Cor. 12:11). The failure is twofold: Christologically, neglect of the resurrection and Christ’s ongoing activity (Heb. 7:23–25); pneumatologically, treating the Holy Spirit’s gifts as fixed possessions rather than living, relational events.

Leon Morris:

The indwelling Christ is the Ruler of the Church, a fact which must be taken seriously. It means that He, and not any ecclesiastical authority, must be regarded as supreme. He is not bound to any one channel to convey His grace, and for example it is not at all impossible that He may choose to convey it through the whole congregation as well as through bishops. Continuity must be sought in the presence of the Giver, not in that of any one of His gifts. There is also the point so well made by G. S. Hendry, ‘When the episcopate (with or without the pope) is thus placed on the side of Christ over against the Church and assigned the exclusive function of re-presenting the gospel to the Church, who re-presents the gospel to the bishop? If the pope is the vicar of Christ to the world, who re-presents Christ to the pope? The singular lack of provision for these needs in both Roman Catholicism and Anglo-Catholicism must be regarded as highly significant.’

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 123–124.]

Cf. Leon Morris:

Mechanical. The grace of orders is held to depend upon the correct performance of the laying on of hands by the right people, bishops in the true succession. Bearing in mind the New Testament emphasis on the spirit rather than the letter we can hold such a theory only if it is supported by very strong evidence. On the face of it it is too mechanical to fit into the New Testament picture. But, as A. C. Headlam puts it, ‘when we ask for the authority for this theory it is difficult to discover what it is. There is certainly nothing in the New Testament or in the teaching of the Early Church to justify it.’

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 122.]

11. An Argument from Soteriology Return to Outline

Leon Morris:

Justification by faith is the central New Testament doctrine. Among other things it means that the highest of blessings is open to the appropriation of faith. This can scarcely be harmonized with the view that grace is normally available only in the channels opened to us in the succession. Dix can say, ‘it should be obvious to anyone considering the implications of the doctrine of “Justification by faith alone”, which all the Protestant leaders again and again insisted was the punctum stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae, that those who held it were bound to reject the Catholic hierarchy, at least in the Catholic understanding of it. . . . Where the doctrine of “Justification by faith alone” is held, no question of Church order can be anything but entirely secondary, even meaningless. No external institution of any kind can ever be regarded as in itself necessary for the living of the redeemed life.’ While I am not persuaded that all this is to be accepted, yet it is plain that Dix recognizes the fact that his doctrine is incompatible with that of justification by faith alone. But the position of Scripture is clear. So, incidentally, is that of the Anglican Church, for Article 11 says, ‘We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine.’

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 124.]

12. An Argument from the Priesthood of All Believers Return to Outline

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

…Apostolic Succession. If this means simply a historical succession of ministers as a fact, thereby emphasising the corporate and continuous idea as distinct from individualism and separatism, there can be no quarrel with it. But this is not generally the case. The usual meaning is that the ministry has descended from the Apostles by a continuous transmission, and that this is the guarantee of grace in the Sacraments. But the latter doctrine is so vital that nothing but a plain Divine command could justify it, since, as it is usually understood, it is foreign to the Spirit of Christ and the New Testament. …It led Bishop Creighton to quote and endorse a statement made to him that “if this view be correct . . . there has been no Church, but only two classes of men, one offering, the other accepting, grace” (Letter to Dr. W. F. Cobb).

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963), 337.]

Note: If ecclesiastical apostolic succession were required as the sole guarantee of sacramental grace, the Church would cease to function as a living, unified body of believers. It would instead be reduced to two distinct and wholly separate classes: a clergy that dispenses grace and a laity that receives it. Such a view would transform the organic, unified body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12–27) into a two-tiered caste system.

Full Text—W. H. Griffith Thomas:

Apostolic Succession. If this means simply a historical succession of ministers as a fact, thereby emphasising the corporate and continuous idea as distinct from individualism and separatism, there can be no quarrel with it. But this is not generally the case. The usual meaning is that the ministry has descended from the Apostles by a continuous transmission, and that this is the guarantee of grace in the Sacraments. But the latter doctrine is so vital that nothing but a plain Divine command could justify it, since, as it is usually understood, it is foreign to the Spirit of Christ and the New Testament. It took shape in the second and third centuries when the world believed in the Divine right of kings. Authority was supposed to be mediated through the monarchs, and in them through the people, and this civil doctrine passed into the Church and soon took form in the idea of a line from the Apostles. But these times and ideas have passed. Authority is no longer a matter of Divine right either in King or in Bishop. The authority from Christ comes to the whole Church and not through any corporation of officials. If one Order endeavours to subject the whole Church to itself, whether that Order is papal, or episcopal, or presbyterian, the result will be spiritual disaster. The best way of meeting Apostolic Succession is a high doctrine of the Church. It is only by ignoring the Divine position of the Church that we can at all obtain a sacerdotal view of the ministry. There must be no isolation of any order of the ministry, as if this were the sole custodian of revelation. The Apostles were unique and the New Testament ministry was not originated by devolution from them. It was determined by spiritual gifts through the Spirit of God in the Church, so that the foundation of ministry is a gift, and both the call and the recognition of the gift were really spiritual, and together formed the authority for exercise. We find this in St. Paul’s Epistles, and there is no trace of a man of gifts ever ordained to the ministry of them. But as spiritual gifts decreased and the stated ministry became more prominent, so there came a transition from the ministry of gifts to the ministry of the pastoral office. Yet there is nothing in the New Testament higher than Elders, and the New Testament Episcopus is a man with the function of the Elder. The Apostles were not officers, or rulers of the Church, and although at the end of the second century the Church was centralised in its chief Pastor, yet it was impossible to claim Apostolic Succession in the modern sense, Clement of Rome does not prove any transmission of the grace of Orders, and even Ignatius, while strong for episcopacy, nowhere connects the claim with any devolution from the Apostles. He is only urgent against disunion. Hence, primitive Christianity favours the Evangelical view of the Church and ministry. If episcopacy was for the purpose of unity, only under particular circumstances, then departure from it would not destroy essential unity, e.g. Sweden and Germany are both Lutheran and yet one is episcopal. The fact is that there is absolutely no proof of any such transmission as is involved in the use of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. The first link is wanting, and there was no devolution. The earliest Bishops were regarded as the representatives of Christ, and the Presbyters as the representatives of the Apostles, according to Ignatius, and it is now generally admitted that episcopacy was a gradual evolution of the second century arising out of the needs of the Church. This process of development naturally raises the question whether episcopacy can possibly be regarded as an eternal institution, or whether it may not be treated as amenable to the Church that created or evolved it.

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963), 337–338.]

Martin Luther:

It is pure invention that pope, bishop, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers are called the temporal estate. This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. Yet no one need be intimidated by it, and for this reason: all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office. Paul says in I Corinthians 12 [:12–13] that we are all one body, yet every member has its own work by which it serves the others. This is because we all have one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, gospel, and faith alone make us spiritual and a Christian people.

The pope or bishop anoints, shaves heads, ordains, consecrates, and prescribes garb different from that of the laity, but he can never make a man into a Christian or into a spiritual man by so doing. He might well make a man into a hypocrite or a humbug and blockhead, but never a Christian or a spiritual man. As far as that goes, we are all consecrated priests through baptism, as St. Peter says in I Peter 2 [:9], “You are a royal priesthood and a priestly realm.” The Apocalypse says, “Thou hast made us to be priests and kings by thy blood” [Rev. 5:9–10]. The consecration by pope or bishop would never make a priest, and if we had no higher consecration than that which pope or bishop gives, no one could say mass or preach a sermon or give absolution.

Therefore, when a bishop consecrates it is nothing else than that in the place and stead of the whole community, all of whom have like power, he takes a person and charges him to exercise this power on behalf of the others. It is like ten brothers, all king’s sons and equal heirs, choosing one of themselves to rule the inheritance in the interests of all. In one sense they are all kings and of equal power, and yet one of them is charged with the responsibility of ruling. To put it still more clearly: suppose a group of earnest Christian laymen were taken prisoner and set down in a desert without an episcopally ordained priest among them. And suppose they were to come to a common mind there and then in the desert and elect one of their number, whether he were married or not, and charge him to baptize, say mass, pronounce absolution, and preach the gospel. Such a man would be as truly a priest as though he had been ordained by all the bishops and popes in the world. That is why in cases of necessity anyone can baptize and give absolution. This would be impossible if we were not all priests. Through canon law the Romanists have almost destroyed and made unknown the wondrous grace and authority of baptism and justification. In times gone by Christians used to choose their bishops and priests in this way from among their own number, and they were confirmed in their office by the other bishops without all the fuss that goes on nowadays. St. Augustine, Ambrose, and Cyprian each became [a bishop in this way].

Since those who exercise secular authority have been baptized with the same baptism, and have the same faith and the same gospel as the rest of us, we must admit that they are priests and bishops and we must regard their office as one which has a proper and useful place in the Christian community. For whoever comes out of the water of baptism can boast that he is already a consecrated priest, bishop, and pope, although of course it is not seemly that just anybody should exercise such office. Because we are all priests of equal standing, no one must push himself forward and take it upon himself, without our consent and election, to do that for which we all have equal authority. For no one dare take upon himself what is common to all without the authority and consent of the community. And should it happen that a person chosen for such office were deposed for abuse of trust, he would then be exactly what he was before. Therefore, a priest in Christendom is nothing else but an officeholder. As long as he holds office he takes precedence; where he is deposed, he is a peasant or a townsman like anybody else. Indeed, a priest is never a priest when he is deposed. But now the Romanists have invented characteres indelebiles and say that a deposed priest is nevertheless something different from a mere layman. They hold the illusion that a priest can never be anything other than a priest, or ever become a layman. All this is just contrived talk, and human regulation.

It follows from this argument that there is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, between religious and secular, except for the sake of office and work, but not for the sake of status. They are all of the spiritual estate, all are truly priests, bishops, and popes. But they do not all have the same work to do. Just as all priests and monks do not have the same work. This is the teaching of St. Paul in Romans 12 [:4–5] and I Corinthians 12 [:12] and in I Peter 2 [:9], as I have said above, namely, that we are all one body of Christ the Head, and all members one of another. Christ does not have two different bodies, one temporal, the other spiritual. There is but one Head and one body.

[Martin Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate,” in Luther’s Works, Vol. 44, The Christian in Society I, ed. James Atkinson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 127–130.]

Cf. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 160–220 A.D.):

[Tertullian of Carthage, On Exhortation to Chastity, 7, in ANF, 4:54; PL, 2:922.]

Note: Scripture attributes the royal priesthood to the whole body of the faithful, not to a caste set apart within it (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10). The ministerial office is therefore not a rival priesthood, wielding exclusive mediatorial powers by personal succession, but an ordered function within that one priesthood, instituted for the public ministry of the Word and sacraments. To make the validity of ministry or the efficacy of the sacraments depend upon an unbroken ecclesiastical chain is, in effect, to reinstate a mediating priesthood set apart from the common priesthood of believers—an arrangement foreign to the New Testament and contrary to the unity of Christ’s body.

Note: See further: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016), 147–177.

A. A. Hodge:

The Protestant holds that the church is composed of a company of men united to one another in virtue of the immediate union of each with Christ the head. The Romanist holds, on the contrary, that each individual member is united immediately to the church, and through the church to Christ. Their priests, therefore, of the true apostolic succession, subject to apostolic bishops, being the only authorized dispensers of the sacraments, and through them of Christ’s grace…

[Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879), 393.]

Herman Bavinck:

In the first place, the distinction between “clergy” and “laity” that underlies this hierarchy is nowhere taught in the New Testament and is flatly contradicted by the organization of the first-century church. Aside from the argument of agreement (convenientia), Rome indeed appeals to the Old Testament priesthood, the offices that Christ instituted in his church, and the power that Christ entrusted to them. But this does not prove what needs to be proved. Scripture most certainly makes a distinction between shepherds and flock, builders and temple, planters and fieldwork, teachers and disciples, leaders and followers (and so forth). If the words “clergy” and “laity” only referred to this distinction, they could be used without doing any harm. But usage has attached a very different meaning to them. In the Roman Catholic Church “clergy” has become the word for a special class of ecclesiastical persons who by being tonsured and consecrated have been separated from all others, constitute a unique class of “clerics,” are in a very special sense the Lord’s possession, are equipped with absolutely sovereign power over the people, and serve the laity as necessary, even indispensable, mediators of salvation. Now Scripture knows nothing of such a class of people. Even in the Old Testament the contrast between “clergy” and “laity” is not applicable. The people as a whole were the κληρος (klēros), the possession and inheritance of the Lord, a priestly kingdom, a holy nation (Exod. 19:5–6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18-19; 32:9; 1 Kings 8:51, 53; Ps. 135:4; Isa. 19:25; 41:8; Jer. 12:7–8; Joel 2:17; etc.). The priesthood, which was not appointed but called to this ministry by virtue of Aaronic descent, was nevertheless most rigorously bound to the law of God (Lev. 10:11) and subject to the judgment of the prophets (Isa. 28:7; Jer. 1:18; 2:26; 6:13; Ezek. 22:26; Hos. 4:9; etc.). Though Israel was a theocracy, it was not a hierarchy. There is even much less reason to speak of a clerical class in the New Testament: the Holy Spirit was poured out upon all (Acts 2:17–18), and now all are led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14; 1 Cor. 2:15; 3:1; Gal. 5:25; 6:1), share in his anointing (1 John 2:27), are a royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:5, 9), a church of people called to be saints (Rom. 1:7), and a people and possession of God (2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 12:22–24; 1 Pet. 2:10). The New Testament nowhere makes mention of a special priestly office to be carried out by the ministers of the church or of a special sacrifice to be offered up by them. Office in the church of Christ is not a magisterium but a ministerium, not a hierarchy but a hierodulia, a ministry (διακονια, diakonia) or stewardship (οἰκονομια, oikonomia), which utterly rules out any domination over the inheritance of the Lord (των κληρων, tōn klērōn; 1 Pet. 5:3; i.e., the churches entrusted to the care of the presbyters: Matt. 20:25–26; 1 Cor. 3:5; 4:1; 2 Cor. 4:1–2; Eph. 4:12).

[Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), § 502, pp. 358–359.]

Note: The same argument from silence, which applies to apostolic succession, also applies here.

Cf. J. B. Lightfoot:

It has been pointed out already that the sacerdotal functions and privileges, which alone are mentioned in the apostolic writings, pertain to all believers alike and do not refer solely or specially to the ministerial office. If to this statement it be objected that the inference is built upon the silence of the Apostles and Evangelists, and that such reasoning is always precarious, the reply is that an exclusive sacerdotalism (as the word is commonly understood) contradicts the general tenour of the Gospel. But indeed the strength or weakness of an argument drawn from silence depends wholly on the circumstance under which the silence is maintained. And in this case it cannot be considered devoid of weight. In the Pastoral Epistles for instance, which are largely occupied with questions relating to the Christian ministry, it seems scarcely possible that this aspect should have been overlooked, if it had any place in St Paul’s teaching. The Apostle discusses at length the requirements, the responsibilities, the sanctions, of the ministerial office: he regards the presbyter as an example, as a teacher, as a philanthropist, as a ruler. How then, it may well be asked, are the sacerdotal functions, the sacerdotal privileges, of the office wholly set aside? If these claims were recog-nised by him at all, they must necessarily have taken a foremost place.

[J. B. Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1901), 99–100.]

Herman Bavinck:

[Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 4, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), § 502, p. 361.]

Charles Hodge:

The unity of the Church, according to this theory, is no longer a spiritual union; not a unity of faith and love, but a union of association, a union of connection with the authorized dispensers of saving grace.

[Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 49.]

Edward Arthur Litton:

The point in debate is not concerning an Apostolic succession of doctrine, which, as our article declares, is the test of the legitimacy of a visible Church. ‘The pure Word of God preached’ in any Christian society, whatever may be its history or its constitution, connects that society with the Apostolic Church. That is to say, the claim of that society to be a true portion of the visible Church depends not on episcopal succession, but on the correspondence of its professed doctrine with that of the Apostles, as found in Holy Scripture.

[...]

It is with the inner constitution and origin of the ministry that we are at present concerned; and as against the Romish doctrine of a transmission of certain gifts and powers, mystical but nor moral, with its indelible character (this too mystical, nor moral), we gather from the New Testament that the Christian ministry is primarily a gift from above, not tied to any official act, but proceeding directly from the Holy Spirit, and only secondarily an office. It is founded on the spiritual priesthood of all Christians, as that principle was recovered and enunciated at the Reformation. Each Christian, and the whole Church, is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16); each Christian is empowered and exhorted to exercise priestly functions, to offer up spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, and of the willing devotion of the heart. Invested with this privilege, he needs no earthly priesthood to intervene between himself and God; through the one incommunicable priesthood of the Redeemer he draws near to the throne of grace, in the full assurance of faith.

If it be suggested that the Jewish people was also called a kingdom of priests, and yet had earthly mediators, we reply that this dignity was indeed promised to the Jews, but on a condition, which condition never was or could be fulfilled by the Jew as such. ‘If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then shall ye be unto Me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation’ (Exod. xix. 5, 6). The command stood over against the Jewish people, but it was never obeyed; and this because the law was not written on their heart. The privilege was conditional, and failed through the weakness of the flesh; and so they never collectively became a kingdom of priests. And the Divine prescience had arranged for this defect, by providing from the first an earthly priesthood to mediate between a sinful nation and a holy God. The law issued requirements which unaided human nature could never satisfy, and therefore it only convinced of sin. The Levitical institute was a standing memorial that the ideal set before the typical Church could not be reached under that dispensation, and by it there was ‘a remembrance of sins’ daily and yearly (Heb. x. 3), sins not yet taken away. But the promise of the Gospel is that the law shall be written on the hearts of believers—they shall be all taught of God; and the true Church, the mystical body of Christ, is really a holy priesthood, though not as yet perfect. Hence all priestly, all ministerial functions, reduced to their essence, belong to the whole Church, and to each member thereof. In the last resort the Christian ministry is constituted in the very being of the Church, and is no mere appendage ab extra.

Yet not every Christian is called to the exercise of special ministerial functions. For on the basis of the universal priesthood there was vouchsafed to the Church, as an essential feature of the New Dispensation, a vast variety of particular spiritual gifts, all manifestations of the same Spirit, and all intended for edification. ‘As the human body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ’ (Christ and His Church). ‘To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit; to another, faith; to another, the gifts of healing; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, discerning of spirits; to another, divers kinds of tongues; to another, the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will’ (1 Cor. xii. 8-11).

Some confusion of thought has arisen from supposing that St. Paul here intended to enumerate different orders of the ministry, but no permanent orders (the Apostolate was not such), except presbyters and deacons, appear in the New Testament. What the Apostle is speaking of is not offices, but gifts, as appears from the fact that several of the functions named might be united in one person. Thus an Apostle might be an ‘evangelist’ and a ‘teacher’; and so might a deacon, as appears from the instance of Philip (Acts viii); a ‘prophet’ might be a ‘pastor,’ and a ‘pastor’ a ‘prophet,’ and both might be ‘helpers’ and ‘governors.’ What we learn from these and similar passages is, that the ministry, as it comes directly from Christ, is a gift rather than an office; and that it is the Holy Spirit who, in the last resort, gives overseers to the Church. The natural ministry—that is, persons gifted but not yet commissioned—exists before the formal; the gift precedes the office; the office is supposed to be conferred on those who possess the inward qualification; and this latter comes from the Holy Spirit, who refuses to be tied in His operation, and distributes to every man severally as He wills.

That these miraculous gifts have long ceased is true; they were bestowed for a temporary purpose, and, having served it, gradually disappeared. The transition to the normal state is visible in St. Paul’s pastoral epistles. In place of what we see in 1 Cor. xiv. when one member had ‘a psalm,’ another ‘a tongue,’ a third ‘a revelation,’ a fourth ‘an interpretation,’ a fifth ‘a doctrine’—of none of which gifts does the Apostle discourage the exercise, only laying down the rule that ‘all things be done decently and in order’—natural aptitude, moral qualifications, the habitual graces of ‘power and love and of a sound mind,’ are what St. Paul directs Timothy to require in presbyters and deacons. The gift of discerning spirits’ gives place to examination of candidates for the sacred office; proved ability succeeds to miraculous ‘helps and governments’; natural endowments, sanctified to holy purposes, are to be employed. But though circumstances may change, the principles of the new economy remain the same in every age; and these, on the point before us, are that even the permanent ministry is not given from without, but is inherent in the spiritual constitution of the Church in its essence, or as it emanates directly from Christ, it is a gift rather than an office.

[Edward Arthur Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, ed. Philip E. Hughes (London: James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1960), 390–393.]

Note: Regarding sacramental efficacy, see: R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology, 2nd, edition (St. Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878), 748–757.

13. An Argument from the Preached Word Return to Outline

Martin Luther:

Now, wherever you hear or see this word preached, believed, professed, and lived, do not doubt that the true ecclesia sancta catholica, “a Christian holy people” must be there, even though their number is very small. For God’s word “shall not return empty,” Isaiah 55 [:11], but must have at least a fourth or a fraction of the field. And even if there were no other sign than this alone, it would still suffice to prove that a Christian, holy people must exist there, for God’s word cannot be without God’s people, and conversely, God’s people cannot be without God’s word. Otherwise, who would preach or hear it preached, if there were no people of God? And what could or would God’s people believe, if there were no word of God?

[Martin Luther, “On the Councils and the Church,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 41, Church and Ministry III, ed. Eric W. Gritsch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 150.]

Cf. John Calvin:

Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists [cf. Eph. 2:20]. For his promise cannot fail: “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” [Matt. 18:20]. …If it has the ministry of the Word and honors it, if it has the administration of the sacraments, it deserves without doubt to be held and considered a church. For it is certain that such things are not without fruit.

[John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.1.9, in LCC, 21:1023–1024.]

Cf. Francis Turretin:

That by which the visible church is constituted, congregated and conserved, so that, it being posited, the church is posited, it being removed, the church is removed, that also is its proper and essential mark. For no mark is more certain than that which is drawn from its cause and inseparable property. Now such is the preached and received word (1 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 2:19, 20; 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:23; Jam. 1:18; Mt. 28:19, 20), which constitutes, conserves and nourishes the church so that, it being posited, the church is posited, and it being removed, the church is removed. Hence the removal of the candlestick or the ministry of the word draws after it the destruction of the church (Rev. 2:5); and the ceasing of prophecy implies the scattering of the people: “Where there is no vison, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18).

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.12.14, pp. 90–91.]

Note: Wherever the Word of God is proclaimed, the genuine people of God must necessarily be present, however few in number, for the divine promise ensures that the Word does not return empty (Isa. 55:11; John 10:27; Acts 13:46–49) but always gathers and sustains some portion of what is sown (Matt. 13:3–23; Mark 4:3–20; Luke 8:4–15). Scripture and the Church stand in reciprocal dependence: the proclaimed Word cannot exist apart from a people to hear and receive it, nor can the people of God exist apart from the Word that creates, nourishes, and preserves them (Rom. 1:16; 10:13–17; Gal. 3:2, 5; 1 Thes. 2:13; 1 Cor. 1:18; 3:5–9; 4:15; Eph. 2:19–20; 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:23–25; Jam. 1:18; John 6:63; Acts 20:32). Consequently, the presence of this ministry renders the existence of the Church certain, for Christ himself promises to be present where two or three gather in his name (Matt. 18:20; 28:20); while its removal entails the church’s dissolution, as the extinction of prophetic vision scatters the people (Prov. 29:18; Amos 8:11–12; Hos. 4:6).

14. An Argument from Experience Return to Outline

W. H. Griffith Thomas:

The consideration of spiritual results.—It is impossible to avoid observing the actual facts of the present day concerning the comparative numbers and influence of various denominations. It is well known that all over the world there are non-episcopal Churches and missions in no way inferior, and sometimes superior to those connected with episcopalian Communions. …How are we to account for these facts when we consider such questions as to whether episcopacy is of the esse [being] or bene esse [well-being] of the Church? How are we to explain the marvellous development of Churches which have no episcopate, and therefore, on this view, no channel of grace? To ordinary observers it would seem to be impossible that by a theory of Apostolic Succession millions of the most intelligent and devoted followers of Christ in the world are to be cut off from any real recognition as part of the true Catholic Church. If the presence of the Holy Spirit is so manifest among these non-episcopal Christians, how can they possibly be rebellious against the will of God? When we apply the test, “By their fruits ye shall know them,” non-episcopal Christianity will often be found at least equal to that which claims to be the only true expression of the will of God. It is impossible to insist upon a precise form of Church government as the only true method unless it can justify itself by its works all over the world.

[W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles (London: Church Book Room Press Ltd., 1963), 334–335.]

Francis Turretin:

It is proved that this is a true and essential mark of the church. (1) From Scripture, which by this sign distinguishes true Christians as members of the church from false: “My sheep hear my voice and follow me” (Jn. 10:27). Here Christ proves that the unbelieving Jews are not of his fold (i.e., do not belong to the true church) because they do not hear the voice of the shepherd. “Ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you” (this reason being added), because “my sheep hear my voice” (v. 27). As therefore they who do not hear the voice of Christ are not of his fold, so on the opposite, they who hear and follow him truly belong to it and are members of him. However, what is the case with individuals, the same ought to be the case with the whole church, which is gathered together from individuals. Nor ought it to be objected here: (a) “that the mark of the sheep is set forth, not of the church, and it is taught who are the elect, and not where the church is.” Both are necessarily contained here. For the sheep of Christ cannot be known or who the elect are without the church being known from this very thing (which consists of sheep and the elect) and where it is. For if the church is a flock of sheep and the sheep are no other than they who hear the voice of Christ, wherever the voice of Christ is heard, there the sheep of Christ (and so the true church) must necessarily be. (b) “It cannot be a sensible mark because that hearing, to be true, ought to be of the heart, not of the body.” That hearing ought so to be made with the heart that it should also exert itself outwardly, both by external docility and a profession of the word and by a real obedience to a following of Christ. Now although this docility with respect to others does not produce an infallible certainty, but only a moral certainty from the judgment of charity (because it cannot make us certain of its sincerity), still it forms an indubitable argument both with respect to individuals (because he who is persuaded that he hears the voice of Christ, by that very thing knows that he is a disciple of Christ and a member of the church); and with respect to the whole assembly (because where the voice of Christ sounds and is heard, there the true church cannot but be).

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.12.9, pp. 88–89.]

Cf. Francis Turretin:

To the same belongs what Christ says, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:31, 32); “He that is of God heareth God’s words” (v. 47); “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (Jn. 14:23). Here the keeping of the word of Christ and his precepts is set forth as a mark of his true disciples and as the means of obtaining his presence in the midst of them. However, where Christ dwells with the Father, there it cannot be denied that the true church is, since it is his house and temple. This is confirmed from Mt. 18:20, where Christ promises his presence in the midst of those who are gathered together in his name. For since the saving presence of Christ has place in the true church alone and it is promised to those who are gathered together in the name of Christ (i.e., who assemble by his authority to preach and hear his word), that is undoubtedly the true church where believers come together in the name of Christ. Nor can it be said that “it is demonstrated from this passage where Christ is, but not where the church is.” Christ cannot be found without his church also being found (in which he dwells and which is his body, which cannot be separated from him).

[Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 3, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1997), 18.12.10, p. 89.]

Charles Hodge:

It is true, as Augustin says, that the good cannot divide themselves from the Church; it is true, as Irenæus says, where the Church is, there the Spirit of God is; and where the Spirit is, there the Church is. This is the favourite motto of Protestants. It is also true, as Cyprian says, that he who is separated from the Church, is separated from Christ. This brings the nature of the Church down to a palpable matter of fact. Are there any fruits of the Spirit, any repentance, faith, and holy living, among those who do not obey the Pope? If so, then the Church is not a monarchy, of which the Pope is the head. Is there any true religion, are there any of the people of God who are not subject to prelates? If so, then the Church is not a society subject to bishops having succession. These are questions which can be easily answered. It is, indeed, impossible, in every particular case, to discriminate between true and false professors of religion; but still, as a class, we can distinguish good men from bad men, the children of God from the children of this world. Men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles. By their fruit we can know them. A wolf may indeed at times appear in sheep’s clothing, nevertheless, men can distinguish sheep from wolves. We can therefore determine, with full assurance, whether it is true, as the Romish theory of the Church requires, that there is no religion among Protestants, whether all the seemingly pious men of the English Church, for example, are mere hypocrites. This is a question about which no rational man has any doubt, and, therefore, we see not how any such man can fail to see that the Romish theory of the Church is false. It is contradicted by notorious facts. With like assurance we decide against the Anglican theory, because if that theory is true, then there is no religion, and never has been any, out of the pale of the Episcopal Church. It is, however, equivalent to a confession that we ourselves are destitute of the Spirit of Christ, to refuse to recognize as his people the thousands of Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Reformed, who have lived for his service, and died to his glory. Here the ritual theory of the Church breaks down entirely. If the Church is an external society, that society must include all good men, all the children of God in the world. No such society does embrace all such men, and, therefore, the Church is not a visible society. It is a communion of saints. The very fact that a man is a saint, a child of God that is born of the Spirit, makes him a member of the Church. To say, therefore, with Augustin, that no good man can leave the Church, is only to say that the good will love and cleave to each other; to say, with Irenæus, that where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, is to say the presence of the Spirit makes the Church; and to say with Cyprian, that he who is separated from the Church, is separated from Christ, is only saying, that if a man love not his brother whom he hath seen, he cannot love God whom he hath not seen. If the Church is the communion of saints, it includes all saints; it has catholic unity because it embraces all the children of God. And to say there is no salvation out of the Church, in this sense of the word, is only saying there is no salvation for the wicked, for the unrenewed and unsanctified. But to say there is no piety and no salvation out of the papal or prelatic Church, is very much like doing despite unto the Spirit of God; it is to say of multitudes of true Christians, what the Pharisees said of our Lord; “They cast out devils by Beelzebub, the chief of devils.” That is, it is denying the well-authenticated work of the Spirit, and attributing to some other and some evil source, what is really the operation of the Holy Ghost. Wherever the Spirit of God is, there the Church is; and as the Spirit is not only within, but without all external Church organizations, so the Church itself cannot be limited to any visible society.

[Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 26–27.]

Leon Morris:

The reality of non-episcopal ministries. The work of non-episcopal ministries is evidence that the blessing of God does rest on some outside the historic ministry. Thus the Lambeth Conference of 1920 could say, ‘It is not that we call in question for a moment the spiritual reality of the ministries of those Communions which do not possess the Episcopate. On the contrary we thankfully acknowledge that these ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace.’ The facts of history and experience show that the non-episcopal communions are part of the true Church. The natural inference is that their ministries are valid ministries. To deny this is to run the risk of inferring that a valid ministry is of no great consequence.

[Leon Morris, Ministers of God (London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1964), 128.]

15. Abbreviations Return to Outline

ACCS

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998–2010).

ACW

Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation (The Newman Press, 1946– ).

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd edition, trans. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

ANF

The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1885–1896).

COC

Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877).

CSEL

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (1866– ).

The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation (The Catholic University of America Press, 1947– ).

LCC

The Library of Christian Classics (The Westminster Press, 1953–1966).

NPNF1

A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1886–1890).

NPNF2

A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (The Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890–1898; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900).

NRSVA

The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version, Anglicized Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Patrologiæ Græcæ (Parisiis: 1857–1866).

Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Patrologiæ Latinæ (Parisiis: 1841–1855).

PLS

Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Latina: Supplementum (Paris: Garnier Frères, 1958–1974).

PPS

Popular Patristics Series (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977– ).

TCF

John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church (Nashotah: The Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888).

WSA

The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 1992– ).

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Evangelical Answers

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

Apostolic Succession?

The Patristic Understanding of the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel According to John as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal

Transubstantiation Refuted From Church History (By Individual, In Chronological Order)