mission. This would be alone sufficient to prove its continuity did the New Testament give us no other facts. But in truth the whole work presupposes Apostolic authority. And continuance in the unity of the Apostles was from the first a proof of orthodoxy (Acts ii. 42; 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 4-9; 1 Cor. iv. 16-21; xi.; Gal. i.; Phil. iii. 17; 1 John i. 3; ii. 19; Rev. ii. 2, 3). In fact, Apostolic authority is so constantly presupposed that to quote any texts in proof is needless. All commands and directions are founded upon it. Now, the Apostolic office was to give real and true spiritual gifts, and to be the only appointed channel by which they were conveyed. Prophets and Teachers might be multipled, but since Baptism and Absolution, and the Confirmation, and the LORD's Supper, and the Blessing of Peace are real and true gifts to be received and lived in, and are not conferred by merely preaching which opens the mind, or teaching which trains the disciples to receive; and since these gifts are only to be received by these officers, the Apostolic office must be perpetual. It was and it must continue to be the witness of the Incarnation and Resurrection (1 John throughout), and it is a sad fact, but one which follows from the principles inherent in the commission, that wherever it has been dropped by any sect, and there has been no continuing Apostolic Church near it to enforce these doctrines, the body so rejecting the Apostolic office has also rejected the Divinity of CHRIST.

Apostolic Fathers. Clement, the companion of St. Paul, and later Bishop of Rome (97 A.D.), Ignatius (116 A.D.), and Polycarp (167 A.D.), companions of St. John, wrote certain letters which have come down to us, and are of great value. Clement's letter to the Corinthians is valuable not only for its own merits, but chiefly for its quotations from the New Testament, being an unconscious witness of the authenticity and general reception of the books he cites. Ignatius wrote six Epistles to the Churches of Ephesus, Tralles, Rome, Magnesia, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, and one to Polycarp, which give incidental but positive information on Episcopacy, and upon Church government, and which quote the New Testament very freely, enabling us to establish the early circulation of parts of the New Testament. There is also a cotemporary account of his martyrdom. Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philadelphians, and there is also a cotemporary narrative of his martyrdom. These are most valuable records from those who were trained by the Apostles. There are, besides, the Shepherd of Hermas (identified by some with the Hermas of Rom. xvi. 14, but very doubtful), which was at one time very popular, the very doubtful (but very early written) Épistle of St. Barnabas, and some fragments of the works of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and a disciple of St. John. These had been taught by the Apostles St. John and St. Paul; and their writings, especially since their tes

timony cannot be doubted as true, are valuable not so much on the subjects they discussed as upon the facts of Church government they assumed or alluded to, and of the genuineness of such of the New Testament Scriptures as they quoted incidentally, doing so without hesitation, as if appealing to an inspired authority equal to the Old Testament Scripture.

men.

Apostolic Succession. The real meaning of this term is but little appreciated even by many otherwise well-informed ChurchIt is supposed to be, as it really is, a consecration of a person to Episcopal authority and office by those who have themselves received it from others tracing their authority by successive ascent back to some one of the Apostles. But harsh deductions are drawn from it, and the Church is accused of judging and "unchurching" those who from some prejudice or other reject it. She does not do this. She has a duty to do in asserting her right to be a part of the Holy Catholic Church, and this is one of the visible elements of her divine organization. She judges none. That is GOD's prerogative. If they reject her claims to their fealty, it is not her fault. If there is any unchurching, they do it themselves. But this Law of Apostolic Succession in the Church is only what she must have as a self-perpetuating Body. Its principle underlies all acknowledged government. Unless the exercise of supreme authority be received from some acknowledged and revered source, this authority is but usurpation. And the formal admission to wield this authority by the proper persons thereto appointed constitutes the person so admitted an officer clothed with this authority. The President of the United States is elected, but he is not President and cannot assume the authority of his office till the oath of office is administered to him by the officer appointed by the Constitution. It must be so in every organization. The Church is CHRIST'S organized kingdom. It cannot break a law which He has put as fundamental to all government. It must derive its authority from Him. Spiritually He is present. The HOLY GHOST abides in it, and it is sustained and fed by Him. As He withdraws His visible Presence it must have a self-perpetuating government. As it is divine and miraculous it must be founded in miracles. Our LORD took not His office upon Himself, but was sent (Apostleized), even as Aaron was called of GOD. It was founded in miracles. In fact, it is a proper law in GOD's dealings with men, that every dispensation or covenant He makes is founded in miracles, rests upon them. For the Patriarchs, the miracles to Abraham were vouchers. For the Jew, from Moses' time forth, the wonders in the land of Ham, in the field of Zoan, at the Red Sea, and in the Wilderness were enough. And the authority of the High-Priest rested upon the miraculous call and the wonderful power given to Aaron. So our LORD had a public com

mission given Him, and was endowed by His FATHER (as well as by inherent right as GOD'S SON) to prove His doctrine by His miracles. And He sent His officers forth with that power. It was superadded, not essential. It was for proof, not for authority. The last High-Priest that entered within the veil was as much a High-Priest as was Aaron. But our LORD was sent, was His FATHER'S "APOSTLE" (Heb. iii. 1). He chose twelve, whom He called Apostles (St. Luke vi. 13), and when He commissioned them anew after His Resurrection He admitted them to His own rank. "As my FATHER has made me an apostle, even so I send you" (St. John xx. 21). For this reason the distinction between the Apostolate and the Presbyterate is clearly preserved throughout the New Testament. Again, as this office involves our LORD's own office, He has promised an abiding perpetuating presence in it to the end of the world (St. Matt. xxviii. 20). He has Himself made unity with Him and His FATHER depend upon it. (I.) It is noticeable that He does not pray for unity till interceding first for the Apostles. He pleads, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also that believe on me through their word; that they all may be one, as Thou, FATHER, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us" (St. John xvii. 20, 21). When we remember the time of this prayer, the High-Priest sanctifying Himself as the one perfect victim, the unutterably solemn power of it will be felt. (II.) The Apostles claimed that fellowship with themselves was essential to the continuance of the members in the Church (Acts ii. 42; 1 John i. 1-7; ii. 19; 2 Thess. iii. 6, as in other like places). This authority resided in them to admit to their own rank upon the LORD's own commission. Indeed, they admitted several,-St. Matthias, St. Barnabas, St. Paul. We know that St. Paul numbered with himself in rank St. Timothy, and Titus, and Silvanus (vide 1 Thess. i.; comp. with ii. 6). Indeed, if these steps of the transmission can be proven it is useless to deny the fact or to explain away the principle. But we see our LORD, our Apostle, from His Father; the Twelve, the Apostles, from our LORD; St. Matthias, and Barnabas, and Paul (Acts xiii. 1, 2) from the Twelve; St. Timothy, and Titus, and Silvanus from St. Paul. The question of the Angels of the Churches (Rev. ii. and iii.) needs no discussion here, since the acceptance of the principle in the New Testament is sufficiently established. It is absurd to suppose that St. Timothy or St. Titus would break the commandment they had received so solemnly from St. Paul. The question is authoritatively decided by the Ignatian Epistles, since they accept and carry forward this line of succession.

It is absurd to claim that the line has been broken. For (a) the earliest Canon of postApostolic times orders that the consecrators shall be three. The purpose being that the consecration shall be most public and notor

ious. (b) The intercommunion of the different Churches kept any one Church from being imposed upon. It is significant that this was tried in the times of the Apostles. False Apostles, cried St. Paul. Our LORD commends the Angel of the Church in Ephesus, "and hast tried them which say they are Apostles and are not, and hast found them liars" (Rev. ii. 2). The chain can no more be broken than the descents of an ever-increasing family be denied. We ask no Jew to prove his descent from Abraham. The principle of the succession is well shown by the following occurrence. which shall be set down in the words of the venerated narrator:

"A doctrine is sometimes better illustrated by a story than by a dogmatic treatise. The character of true repentance, and the possibility of free pardon for transgressions against Heaven, are better exhibited by the parable of the Prodigal Son than they would be by a homiletical treatise. Bearing this in mind, we are inclined to believe that an anecdote of parochial experience will satisfy, if not convince, multitudes, better than more formal statements respecting Apostolical successions.

"A rector, who had gone to a railroad depot to see a clerical brother start upon a journey, encountered a lady who, though a Presbyterian, had for years belonged to his church-choir. She was much pleased to see him, for she was going from home permanently and was glad to bid him farewell. She thanked him for his ministrations, and confessed that her mind had become softened about many Episcopal peculiarities; but one she had never been able to admit or tolerate. Of course, the natural question was, to what do you allude? Oh, to the well-known theory of an Apostolic succession in the ministry. Why, the answer was, you yourself believe in a whole family of Apostolic successions, and surely a single specimen in the ministry ought not to give you any trouble. Oh, no; she had no faith in anything of the kind. Well, let us see. Do you, or do you not, believe in the Apostolic succession of the Christian religion? Why, she had never heard of such an idea before. But, it was pressed upon her, if you do not, then you must admit the charge of infidels that Christianity is an invention or an imposture, for it must be traced to its sources to be true to its own pretensions. So she admitted the point and consented to the most comprehensive of all Apostolic successions whatever.

"Then she was asked about the Apostolic succession of the Christian Church,-the grand outward institution of Christianity. Was there ever a time, since the days of CHRIST and His Apostles, when there was not a Christian Church upon the earth? Had this Church ever died out and vanished? Oh, no; she could allow nothing of the kind. Then you believe in the Apostolic succession of the Christian Church? Rather

timorously (for she began to have an inkling of the journey she was traveling) she admitted that she did.

"Now, exclaimed her somewhat amused querist, here comes a formidable matter: Do you, or do you not, believe in the Apostolic succession of the Christian Scriptures? Remember, and remember well, here confronts us one of those awful gaps with which your friends so often threaten us. We have

no manuscripts of such Scriptures which go back of about the middle of the fourth century, that is, say 350 A.D. And the last writer of Christian Scripture may be dated at 100 A.D. Here, then, is a prodigious gap of two hundred and fifty years to be bridged over, and unless you will cross it under the guidance of history and ancient authors, unless you will take the testimony of that institution whose continuity you have acknowledged, you have no Bible. You have lost it in that dark abyss which has swallowed up (as you affirm) our pretensions to a ministry whose line has never been broken. It was an awful alternative, and she surrendered without conditions.

"Then the question was followed up by one about visible sacraments. If such things had no Apostolic succession we must abandon the celebration of old-fashioned sacraments and join the Quakers. Infant baptism came next; and if this could not be traced by its Apostolic succession, we must march for the camping-ground of Anabaptists.

"From outward institutions the questioner went on to doctrines. If the doctrine of the Trinity had no Apostolic succession, we must acknowledge this doctrine a failure or a misconception, make fellowship with actual heretics, and adopt Socinianism. If the doctrine of the fall and original sin had no Apostolic succession, we must justify Pelagianism and avow ourselves our own redeemers. She now foresaw her destiny quite plainly, and bowed to the rector's postulate, that with him she believed in a family of successions which were truly Apostolic.

"But now, said he, comes the crux of this debated matter. You believe in the Apostolic succession of a Christian ministry. Was there ever a time when there was not such a ministry upon earth? when its

continuity was broken and its existence was to be again begun? Oh, no; by no means. Then at last you believe with me in the steady existence of an Apostolic ministry, be its inward constitution what it might, and the difference between us is about the nature of an exceedingly long chain, whether it has three strands in it or only one. Take Solomon's assurance about the reliability of a threefold cord, and you will come over to my side cordially. The difference between us has dwindled down to an affair so small that for safety's sake you should capitulate without a qualm. And to help you do so gracefully, let me beg you to remember that there is almost the same unanimity in Christendom about Episcopacy which even Gibbon was constrained to admit there is about the doctrine of the Trinity, which, of course, as a governing doctrine concerning the Godhead, is the pivot on which doctrinal orthodoxy has for ages turned. 'The consubstantiality of the FATHER and the SON,' says the skeptical historian, was established by the Council of Nice, and has been unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian Faith, by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental, and the Protestant Churches.' (Dec. and Fall, ch. xvii. 12mo. ed., vol. ii. p. 317, 318; and comp. p. 312 at top.) The unanimity of Christendom about Episcopacy is nearly as complete as its unanimity about the Trinity; and with the Trinity for doctrine and Episcopacy for discipline, Christendom might begin to be, as in the primitive ages, a united whole, an unbroken communion of Saints." (Rev. T. W. Coit, D.D.)

The succession of the English Church from St. Polycarp, from the unknown founder of the Roman line, and from St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, is here given. As this must have been an inter lacing of the Churches in the East, which were founded by St. Peter at Antioch, and St. Paul at Ephesus, as well as by St. John in Asia Minor, doubtless the direct line of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem was bound up with these successions by acting upon the Canon requiring the three consecrators. the English Episcopate has probably twined into one "cord" more of the separate successions than any other communion.*

So