LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
PRIMITIVE TRADITION AND THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR." _I Sin,—In your review—to me personally, your too kindly review—of " The Church and the Ministry," you touch upon a general question of so much interest, and so much mis- understood, that I should like to ask your permission to make a few remarks upon it,—I mean the proper use as an argu- mentative weapon of Christian tradition and the authority of " the Fathers." For undeniably, tradition as to details is remarkably fallible. It idealises quickly and unconsciously the exact facts of a particular case under the impulse of strong current convictions. Thus, it cannot be depended upon through a succession of generations, especially when it is un- checked, and when it comes down only one line of descent. But none the less, the record of " tradition " at any epoch has immense importance. It represents the dominant ideas, the accepted common principles, the collective mind of any society, as opposed to the reasonings of individual thinkers. Thus, Dr. Bigg has pointed out how Origen distinguished between his own speculations and the " ecclesiastical tradition " ‘. handed down from the Apostles in the order of succession, and remaining up to the present in the Churches," which is the standard of faith. Then, again, Irennus records the tradition of the Churches, as it affects, e.g., the acceptance of the Four Gospels and them alone, or the apostolic succession ; and his record represents undoubtedly the common mind of the Church, both of Asia and of the West, during the period of his life,—i.e., A.D. 130-190. If human language can make any trustworthy impression on us at all, Irennus' language assures us that he was conscious of not being original in what he recorded, of simply handing on a tradition received. More than this (as Dr. Lightfoot points out), his language " suggests a strong negative presumption, that while every other point of doctrine or practice was eagerly canvassed, the form of Church government alone scarcely came under discussion."
But tradition is much more impressive when we have the record of it down distinct lines of descent. This was a con- sideration vividly present to the minds of early Church writers in regard of doctrine. Thus, also, in reference to the principle of the apostolic succession, we have the same insistence upon it in writings as different, though belonging to the same epoch, as the writings of Irena3us and the Syrian Clementines. Once again, the principle of the ministry—under the form of a succession to Christ, which is only a loftier expression of the same claim as is involved in the apostolic succession—is emphasised as much by Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century, as by Irenmas at the end,—and em- phasised still as a matter of tradition. Still earlier, in the first century, the Roman Clement can call to the mind of the Corinthians as an accepted principle, the perpetuation of the mission of Christ through the Apostles in the ministry of his day, and base upon this fact his claim on its behalf. This witness, taken together, covers a wide area, and goes back as far as the record outside the Canon. And there, too, it seems to us to find its confirmation.
Now, Sir, what we Churchmen feel is, that the ministerial
succession has been too fully an integral part of historical Christianity, semper et ubique, to admit of its being dispensed with. There were different " schools of thought" among the Fathers—they took, for instance, different lines as to the relation of the Church to philosophy—but we contend that these differences rested upon a basis of common truth and common organisation which was not allowed to be an open question.
Against this it is surely not enough to urge that Clement of Alexandria, while he witnesses to the existence of the threefold ministry, does not insist upon it, as Irennus does. Different theologians, ancient and modern, find their function in calling attention to different parts of the fabric of Christianity. Clement does emphasise the Church principle in general, and shows no signs of depreciating the necessity of the ministerial succession in particular. What is surely needed to set against the consensus of traditions which we can produce, is evidence that the ministerial succession could at any time be repudiated by accepted Churchmen of old, as it has been by modern Pro- testants. On the contrary, the fact is, that whenever there was any tendency to impugn it, the Church writers insist upon it as essential. Surely, then, if it be the case that a Christianity which did not involve a ministerial succession from the Apostles never existed, or if it existed, has perished so as to leave no trustworthy trace of its existence,—surely, I say, our case is a strong one.
Is there such a trace ? Montanism is put forward as repre- senting an older " unsacerdotal " Christianity. But it cannot be too clearly understood that the Montanists represented (as your review says), " the principle of government by those who had miraculous gifts,"—i.e., they claimed miraculous gifts, and the Church took up no new line whatever towards "inspired prophets," but simply affirmed that a particular group of men were not " miraculously inspired," but deluded. If Jerome had maintained in a later age that a Presbyter of his day could assume and perform functions which did not, in the mind of the Church, belong to his office, he would have been maintaining, and maintaining unassailed, a principle subversive of the succession. But, in fact, he maintained a very different principle,—viz., that the original Presbyters had had episcopal authority, and that in his own day a Presbyter could do all a Bishop did, except ordain.
Where is the accepted Christianity to be found in ancient history which, retaining the tradition of faith and the authority of Scripture, ignored or repudiated the apostolic succession P Inside the area where the principle of the apostolic succession obtains, a number of subordinate questions —as to the meaning, for instance, of that much misused word, " sacerdotalism "—may be raised ; on these I do not touch. All I ask of you, Sir, is to show the courtesy you are in the habit of showing so freely to misunderstood positions, and allow me thus to explain—it has been, I fear, at too great length—what we feel to be the strength of our appeal to " primitive tradition " on behalf of the apostolic succession.— I am, Sir, &c., [This letter should have been inserted a fortnight ago, but the return of the proof was delayed by an accident.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
