By The Rev. Toby Karlowicz, Ph.D.

One of the more debated doctrines within Anglicanism is that of the Apostolic Succession—the idea that our bishops have received their office in a continuous line extending back to the apostles. Most Anglicans, I think, would agree that we have the succession; the point of disagreement concerns the importance placed on it. On this point, it serves as a line of division. Some define the Church Catholic in terms of that succession: for them, it is the defining feature of a true church, and the vital link that relates our tradition to the wider church. Others, however, define the Church Catholic by faith in Jesus Christ: for them it is an obnoxious snub to Christians who do not share that lineage or polity. Resolving this divide is somewhat beyond the scope of a Chapter post; rather, the aim here is to point out the doctrine’s practical bearing, which is sometimes overlooked. This (I hope) might shed new light on the doctrine itself, if not on the debate around it.

Validity and the Apostolic Succession

Discussion of the apostolic succession typically revolves around questions of “validity.” This is perhaps the principle reason that some will object to the doctrine: validity is often understood (on both sides of the discussion) in terms of veracity or effect. This stems, in all likelihood, from colloquial usage of the term; however, just as a matter of language, it actually describes the strength or internal integrity of what it describes, rather than its truth or effect. So, a “valid argument,” colloquially, is one which is true; technically, however, the term describes an argument which is structured correctly, regardless of whether its assumptions or conclusions actually are the case. In sacramental theology, validity concerns not a sacrament’s efficacy, but the fulfilment of certain formal criteria (form, matter, intent, minister, and subject) which are thought to guarantee it. Assurance in our sacramental acts is, of course, profoundly important, and continuity of office stretching back to Jesus himself is clearly something that can contribute to such assurance. Viewed from this angle, it is entirely possible, as John Keble (1792-1866) argued, to value the apostolic succession’s place in our own tradition, without passing judgment on others. (1) But it is equally the case that regardless of how one defines “validity,” the doctrine of the apostolic succession can nonetheless slip too easily into a puerile “my church is better than your church” attitude. And this, we might suspect, is what critics of the doctrine too often see.

The Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Tradition

The idea of the apostolic succession was first used polemically by St. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 202) as a guarantee of church tradition, against the teaching of the Gnostics. (2) It has, however, taken on distinct characteristics within Anglicanism, stemming from its use in the controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. At stake was the question of restoring the church to its New Testament precedents. While conformists (including most Puritans) continued to support episcopal order, some Puritan groups thought it incompatible with the paradigms of the New Testament. The obvious rebuttal was to argue that episcopacy was the order established in Scripture and handed down (with various developments) over the intervening centuries. This argument, however, was concerned not with teaching, but with authority. As Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) argued with regard to absolution, only God can forgive sin; but the Father sent the Son with his authority, who sent his apostles, who then sent others to continue their mission. (3) The apostolic succession conveyed, therefore, a kind of delegated authority, much like a power of attorney or an ambassadorship, by which divine authority could continue to be exercised in the church.

This view shaped the older “high church” view of the episcopate as pertaining to the well being (bene esse) of the church. This is sometimes cast as being more ecumenically friendly than the esse position adopted by Anglo-Catholics after the Oxford Movement. And it did allow high churchmen to make excuses for continental Protestants, who through no fault of their own (so the argument went) had been deprived of the apostolic succession at the Reformation. Non-episcopal polity, however, was still seen as defective. (4) Moreover, where a Protestant episcopate existed, legitimate church authority still depended on the apostolic succession. Within England, therefore, non-episcopalians were regularly charged with the “gainsaying of Korah” (Jude 11; cf. Num. 16), and consigned to the same fate. This discussion shifted after the Oxford Movement: the Tractarians, and Anglo-Catholics after them, were (and are) certainly firm about church order. But as they increasingly connected episcopacy—and with it, the apostolic succession—with the nature rather than the legitimacy of the church, arguments about the “gainsaying of Korah” disappeared: episcopacy remained essential, but English non-episcopalians were at least no longer being damned to hell.

The Apostolic Commission

However, while the Tractarians shifted in their understanding of the apostolic succession’s connection to polity, they retained the older tradition’s view of how it informed priestly ministry. (5) This draws, again, on the core concept of delegated authority. Ambassadorship or power of attorney (to go back to Andrewes’s examples cited above) both imply that one who has received authority has a duty to the one who gave it, to use it in their interest and according to their will. In this light, the apostolic succession is more about the apostolic commission—and fidelity to it—than it is about pedigree: Jesus was sent, and the apostles were sent, and those today who are ordained are still sent, to carry out God’s purposes in redeeming the world. That is indeed a privilege; it is also a weighty responsibility.

But what does fidelity require? This, I think, can be summed up under three heads. The first requirement is holiness, because those who have been sent to represent Christ can do so only if they are daily being transformed more and more into his image. The disciplines of repentance and self-denial, as the foundations of Christian love and humility, are indispensable - not just to the fidelity of the Christian, but to the fidelity of Christ’s ministers. The second is ministerial diligence: those who have been sent to represent Christ can do so only if they give themselves to the work of administering God’s grace in the midst of his people. There are many other concerns—administrative, strategic, liturgical, and so on—for which the clergy are responsible, but these are secondary to the primary duty of the apostolic commission. The most important, however—because it shapes and informs the other two—is fidelity to the tradition. Those who have been sent to represent Christ cannot do so if they depart from the faith as it has been handed down through history: the apostolic succession, in fact, embodies this reality. Keeping the tradition for the sake of fidelity to Christ requires that even criticism (to distinguish the transmitted faith from historical distortion) and adaptation (to apply it in the present) proceed from a desire to learn and keep the tradition, rather than to discard or supersede it.

If the point of the apostolic succession, however, is that the “mark” of Holy Orders conveys a commission to which we must be faithful, it shifts the conversation: we are no longer in the realm of “my church is better than your church!” Indeed, we might fairly say that no church is better than any other church, except insofar as it is faithful to Christ’s commission. It may be that a church which does not have the apostolic succession may yet be more faithful to what that commission requires, and receive the greater blessing, than those who take their own apostolic descent as cause for self-satisfaction rather than deepened obedience: the Kingdom of God, after all, will be “given to a people producing its fruits” (Matt. 21:43). But at least, if the apostolic succession is what Anglo-Catholics have made of it, may we also become what it would make of us—more faithful servants of Christ.

The Rev. Tobias A. Karlowicz holds a Ph.D. (2013) from the University of St Andrews, where he studied the theology of the Tractarian leader E. B. Pusey under the supervision of David Brown. He is Canon Theologian of the Diocese of Quincy, assisting priest at St Michael and All Angels Anglican Church in Peoria, Illinois, and has taught Anglican Church History at Nashotah House. From 2012-2017 he contributed to the writing and revision of To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, and from 2013-2017 he served on the Theological Task Force on Holy Orders of the Anglican Church in North America. His current research focuses on the theology of the Anglican high church tradition, especially the Oxford Movement.

__

(1)  John Keble, ‘Adherence to the Apostolic Succession the Safest Course,’ Tracts for the Times no. 4. http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract4.html.

(2)  Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm.

(3)  Lancelot Andrewes, ‘A Sermon Preached at Whitehall, upon the Sunday after Easter,’ in Works, vol. 5, http://anglicanhistory.org/lact/andrewes/v5/misc4.html. The argument draws on Mark 2:5-11 and John 20:21-23; the latter verses are the basis for the ordination formula for priests in the older Prayer Books.

(4)  The defect could be ontological (as in William Laud, ‘An Answer … Touching the Liturgy,’ in Works, vol. 6, p. 134, https://archive.org/details/theworksofthemo106lauduoft/page/n145/mode/2up?q=134) or more pragmatic (as in H. J. Rose, The State of the Protestant Religion in Germany, which makes lack of episcopacy a primary cause of errors in 18th c. German theology).

(5)  See, for instance, Benjamin Harrison, ‘The Ministerial Commission: A Trust From Christ for the Benefitof his People,’ Tract 17, http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract17.html.