This was one of the papers I submitted for completion of my Bachelor of Arts in Theology at Latimer Theological Seminary. 

Preface

Dr. Cairns makes a fascinating statement on Page 394 concerning the Oxford Movement, a remark I endeavor to explore in greater depth. He says that “the Oxford movement in the Anglican church also helped the Roman Catholic church both directly and indirectly. In 1845 Henry Edward Manning and John Henry Newman, leaders in the movement, joined the Roman Catholic church, and by 1862 about 625 important individuals—soldiers, professors, members of Parliament—and nearly 250 Anglican clergymen became Roman Catholics.” In my estimation this is a great disaster. Not only are Anglicans still greatly polluted by the influence of the Oxford Movement, but many thousands in the 21st century have swam the tiber thanks to the “apostolic” constitution Anglicanorum coetibus of 2009, by which our Reformed and Protestant heritage has been downtrodden and forsaken. While the Oxford Movement has many faces, I would like to strike upon two major concepts that arose from this devious course; namely, the anti-Scriptural view of apostolic succession and sacerdotal priesthood in Tracts 4 and 7 of the Tracts for our Times. These two theological concepts are deeply cherished by many Anglicans today, not considering their origin, namely, the heretical teaching of Rome, not the Scriptures. The Apostles of our Lord, nor our Biblically-grounded Anglican divines of the English Reformation taught such things, as we shall see. In working to refute and denounce these massive errors, I will also comment on the consequence of Anglicans forsaking the Reformational Protestantism of the confessional Church of England [according to her Formularies] for Rome, namely, believing another Gospel; of which Dr. Cairns makes mention of on Page 395, ie. “the declaration of papal infallibility in the decree of the Vatican Council in 1870” which, as will become clearer than day, is a damnable heresy and false gospel that accrues Divine Anathema according to Galatians 1:6-9. As Dr. Cairns rightly stated, the doctrine of Papal infallibility asserted that “the pope was now the final authority concerning faith and morals”, a doctrine that entirely usurps the authority, place and power of Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, and the sole infallible standard of His Word for both faith and practice.

Apostolic Succession and Sacerdotal Priesthood According to the Oxford Movement 

The doctrine of apostolic succession defined by the propagators of the Oxford Movement in simple terms is thus: that “the Apostles appointed successors to their ministerial office, and the latter in turn appointed others, and so on to the present day; and further, that the Apostles and their Successors have in every age committed portions of their power and authority to others, who thus become their delegates, and in a measure their representatives, and are called Priests and Deacons. The result is an Episcopal system, because of the practice of delegation…” Lest this general definition is misconstrued, it becomes clear further on that such successors of the apostolic ministerial office do not consist of priests (or presbyters) and deacons only, but bishops in their own tier, because the presbyterian system of ministerial succession is downright excluded and condemned: “It is not merely because Episcopacy is a better or more scriptural form than Presbyterianism, (true as this may be in itself,) that Episcopalians are right, and Presbyterians are wrong; but because the Presbyterian Ministers have assumed a power, which was never intrusted to them. They have presumed to exercise the power of ordination, and to perpetuate a succession of ministers, without having received a commission to do so. This is the plain fact that condemns them; and is a standing condemnation from which they cannot escape, except by artifices of argument which will serve equally to protect the self-authorized teacher of religion. If they may ordain without being set to do so, others may teach and preach without being sent. They hold a middle position, which is untenable as destroying itself; for if Christians do without Bishops (i. e. Commissioned Ordainers), they may do without Commissioned Ministers (i. e. the Priests and Deacons). If an imposition of hands is necessary to convey our gift, why should it not be to convey another?” 

Further, the Bishops are the primary successors to the Apostles, and, without them and the apostolic commission they have thus received, priests and deacons simply cannot be, as is made evident in the first argument or proof provided for this Tractarian doctrine: “As to the fact of the Apostolical Succession, i. e. that our present Bishops are the heirs and representatives of the Apostles by successive transmission of the prerogative of being so, this is too notorious to require proof. Every link in the chain is known from St. Peter to our present Metropolitans. Here then I only ask, looking at this plain fact by itself, is there not something of a divine providence in it? can we conceive that this Succession has been preserved, all over the world, amid many revolutions, through many centuries, for nothing? Is it wise or pious to despise or neglect a gift thus transmitted to us in matter of fact, even if Scripture did not touch upon the subject?” 

To end an argument with “even if Scripture did not touch upon the subject” should cause great alarm to any devout Christian compelled by the Spirit to be chiefly dedicated to the ultimate authority of God’s Word. But, I regress. From these extracts we assemble the following. Bishops, who have had hands laid on them by their predecessor bishops [in mechanistic and tactile succession] are absolutely necessary for a true apostolic commission and ministerial continuation for Word and Sacrament, and, such Bishops must have descended from an unbroken chain deriving from St. Peter himself [a clear Papist intimation]. Such Bishops are claimed to be the current successors of the Apostles of Christ, who must be treated as such: “Lastly, the argument from Scripture is surely quite clear… CHRIST promised He would be with His Apostles always, as ministers of His religion, even unto the end of the world.” Aside from the fact that the claim of unbroken succession is historically untenable, their entire concept in and of itself is totally anti-Scriptural. There is no evidence in Scripture that our Lord Jesus Christ gave to anyone but His twelve disciples, Judas being excluded as replaced by Matthias, and the Apostle Paul, apostolic authority or office in the same way. The wall of the city of the New Jerusalem has twelve foundation stones with the names of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb written upon them, and there are 12 thrones reserved in the regeneration of all things for the Apostles of our Lord (cf. Revelation 21:14; Matthew 19:28). The Apostles, Paul included, saw the risen Lord with their own eyes, and were personally commissioned by Him. The necessity of knowing Him in the flesh was paramount to the Apostolic office. Matthias replaced Judas as one who witnessed Jesus during His whole ministry: “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection” (Acts 1:22-23). 

 It is granted that in Scripture there are other “apostles” such as Barnabas and Silas, but such men were not personally chosen or commissioned by our Lord Himself; they were converts after our Lord’s ascension who shared in an apostolic ministry of evangelizing uncharted territories and planting churches alongside the Apostle Paul. They did not have the same authority as the inspired Apostle who was chosen by God to write Scripture and command the law of Christ in the Church [which is found entirely in Scripture, not man-made tradition]. The only Scripturally-founded notion of apostolic succession must then consist in the succession of apostolic doctrine and practice. Mechanistic laying on of hands in no way guarantees these two true marks of apostolicity. A brief glance at the “female bishops” who have been consecrated by men who condone same-sex unions in such a system of “apostolic succession” inarguably proves the point. If a Presbyterian, Baptist or Congregational church rejects female ordination and same-sex unions, they would immediately be more apostolic than the Church of England in her apostasy; regardless of their polity. The concept of tactile apostolic succession is obviously proven false by it’s complete failure to ensure apostolic doctrine or morality – there are simply too many examples to adduce, yet two will suffice: the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Rome “blessing” same-sex unions. Any type of ministerial succession, regardless of [the polity in which such ministers come into being] must be apostolic in doctrine and practice, or, in other words, conforming without subtraction or addition to the Word of God, and thus actually stemming from the will of Christ and the Holy Ghost. 

Any honest person would admit that in Scripture the terms presbyter (elder) and overseer (bishop) describe two functions of the same office, as is telling from various passages including Philipians 1:1, Acts 20:17, 28-30 and 1 Peter 5:1-3. In the First Epistle of Clement (67-70 AD) we find the terms used interchangeably, as well as in Jerome’s Letter 146 nearing the end of the fourth century. Sir Peter King (1669-1734) in his “An Inquiry Into the Discipline, Constitution, Unity, and Worship of the Primitive Church” went to great, tedious lengths to prove that, in the early Church (circa 150-450 AD), while bishops were different in degree, they were exactly the same with presbyters in order, so that the Bishop was the chief pastor of his congregation, presiding yet having the same ecclesiastical functions as his fellow-workmen. The Roman-Civil-Pagan governmental diocesan and monarchical structure invaded the Church and grew over time, turning bishops into petty rulers of spiritual fiefdoms wielding enormous and outrageous power and “lording it over” the flock as gentile kings rather than under-shepherds of Christ. Chapter IV of Sir Peter’s work proves without a doubt that presbyters fulfilled all the same functions as bishops in preaching, baptizing, and confirming; excommunicating, absolving and ordaining; albeit for the sake of unity and order, each congregation (and later on each diocese – which can become very institutionalized, bureaucratic and thus severely problematic) had a chief pastor, who was the bishop, whose authority was paramount in his own congregation (his fellow clergy submitted to him as a godly father with all reverence, yet without their counsel and fellowship the bishop could not arbitrarily act). The ministers in Christ’s Church governed with the consent and election of the people (according to the will, grace and appointment of Christ) and were honored and obeyed as long as they continued in sound Biblical doctrine and practice. Synods, and the local Church herself, would have the ability to remove bishops/presbyters who departed from the apostolic deposit of faith, lest presbyters or bishops became mini-popes of their own congregations. Having one man solely endued with the power to arbitrarily excommunicate or ordain is completely foreign to the communal, familial and shared polity that Christ established for His Church (cf. Matthew 18). 

When the Apostle Paul instructed Titus to “ordain elders in every city” (Titus 1:5) in effect he was ordaining bishops/presbyters in every city, because, again, the two terms describe functions of the same office. No, I haven’t forgotten about Ignatius, but his writings [or the writings attributed to him] are spurious to say the least; and, regardless of the rise of monarchical episcopacy, the succession of ministerial commission in Scripture itself demolishes the idea of the esse view of episcopacy held by the Tractarians [which is likewise held by many Anglicans in our day, both in the mainstream Anglican Communion, Reformed Continuing churches, and in more pronounced Anglo-Catholic circles]. Timothy and Titus, far from becoming Apostles [of the Lamb] themselves, were given functional rather than sacerdotal charges for their ministry, such as preaching the Word, rebuking and exhorting the faithful, confuting heretics, giving themselves to the public reading of Scripture, laboring in prayer and sound doctrine, and being an example to the saints. Concerning ministerial succession, or who they would choose to succeed them, the commandment from the Apostle is very simple and clear: “The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). The qualifications for such faithful men are given by the Apostle in his letters to both Timothy and Titus, in chapters three and one respectively. Being thus qualified, and recognized by the saints [that they personally knew and served – cf. Acts 20:28] because of Christ’s calling, gifting and consecration for their ministry in His body as the Head (cf. Ephesians 4:11] they would become a “bishop” or “presbyter” in the Church of God by the laying on of hands of the presbytery (which comprised a plurality of men holding the office of both overseer and elder – cf. 1 Timothy 4:14). 

There are millions of men today who have absolutely no commission from Christ Himself. They are recognized as bishops or priests simply because of tactile, mechanistic succession within their ecclesiastical institution or church. They are “voted in” by other ungodly men by “two thirds majority”. They could care less about the Gospel, the call and gifting of God, having a good report amongst the brethren (cf. Acts 16:2), or being “an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Timothy 4:12). Instead of Apostolic doctrine and practice according to the ultimate and infallible standard of God’s Word, they love position, power, status and wealth. They are respected simply because of their episcopal ecclesiastical office [which for most is prelatial and thus completely foreign and repugnant to God’s will] rather than their manner of life and doctrine. They serve themselves, rather than Jesus Christ, and love to be revered as lords and princes, rather than meek and lowly slaves of Christ (cf. Matthew 20:26). 

It is very telling that certain Tractarians converted to the Vatican Church which declared Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void”. They obviously regarded as deficient the Anglican definition of a functional ecclesiastical institution of holy orders rather than the Romish doctrine of tactile conferral of sacerdotal grace that creates a “priestly character” in the ordinand through the hands of the Bishop. A very large group of Anglicans in our day uphold the latter Tridentine and Popish notion of apostolic succession. But our forefathers most certainly didn’t. A quote from Ashley Null is pertinent: “Cranmer did not believe that the apostles passed down the Holy Spirit through an unbroken line of holy bishops like a pipeline. No, for Cranmer, the author of the founding formularies of Anglicanism, apostolic succession meant the passing down of apostolic teaching . . . each generation of the church is to receive, witness to and pass on the Bible and its message of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.” This is apparent in the rite of consecration of a Bishop, for he receives the Bible alone; the medieval, a-historical and ultimately princely episcopal items such as the crosier, ring, pectoral cross and mitre were no longer received. All such items are seen as marks of the sacerdotal character and power of a bishop, that bishops were the “font of the Holy Spirit” and by them alone could the grace of God be received. Those whom the bishops ordained had the singular right and authority to interpret and teach the Scriptures and “holy” Tradition; for only through their ministration could the grace of the Holy Spirit be conveyed [and thus eternal salvation]. The English Reformers cast off such a devilish understanding of the grace of God and ecclesiology. Instead of teaching that both the grace and Word sprang from the bishops of the Church, they taught that the Gospel created the Church and sprang from the Bible and the love of God in Christ. “The Greek word for “sacrificial priest”… does not correspond with “elder,” the term from which derives the English word “priest.” … In the Reformed English Church’s 1552 Ordinal, “which is in all essentials the same as that of 1662 in the present Prayer Book,” the Church discontinued handing the paten and chalice to the ordinand. This removed “any possible excuse for misconstruction or misrepresentation” [of sacerdotal, sacrificial, priesthood].

Bishops are charged in the Ordinal to preach and teach, banish all erroneous doctrine, and discipline the saints in godliness and holiness. All of this, most obviously, can be done without tactile apostolic succession. In England, the church continued to maintain three-fold episcopal government with the monarch as the institutional head instead of changing her polity to a congregational or presbyterian form. Yet even if they did, it cannot be argued that if such charges were fulfilled by the clergy, and both clergy and laity were faithful to Christ and His Gospel, the same fruit could spring forth, as is evident in faithful churches that do not have episcopal government. While episcopacy was maintained by the English Church, it was drastically reformed. Now, to what extent, Anglicans are in common debate, such as if bishops are bene, plene or esse. In my estimation it simply cannot be proven that the English Reformers counted bishops as esse at all. Thus, it is my contention that our most eminent [and thus evangelical and Biblical] Anglican divines [and multitudes of other Reformed and Protestant men] rightly understood [during the Reformation] that episcopal polity [or three-fold order] is neither instituted by Divine command, nor necessary for the consideration of a true Christian church, nor necessary for salvation, nor for the right administration of the Sacraments or Means of Grace, nor to receive the grace of God by the same, regardless of how useful and beneficial it may or may not be [even with major historical precedent]. A few examples supporting these assertions are as follows. Bishop John Jewel, in his defense of his work The Apology of the Church of England, with his opponent Harding, stated: “Succession, you say, is the chief way for any Christian man to avoid antichrist. I grant you, if you mean the succession of doctrine!” Bishop John Hooper in 1550 wrote: “As concerning the ministers of the Church, I believe that the Church is bound to no sort of people or any ordinary succession of bishops, but to the only Word of God. Although there be diversity of gifts and knowledge among men: Some know more, and some know less; and if he that knoweth least teach Christ after the Holy Scriptures, he is to be accepted, and [he who] teacheth Christ contrary or any other ways than the Holy Scriptures, is to be refused.” Richard Hooker in Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book VII, “argues that the rank” [of Bishop] “originated with the Apostles, enjoyed divine approval, and flourished throughout Christendom” yet he rejected “the view inherent in the Catholic position that the office is divinely commanded or is a result of divine law. His strongest rhetoric supports the historicity of the office, its long continuance, and its universal acceptance while his rational and analytical voice supports the rank on pragmatic grounds.”

It is helpful to know the end of the Tractarian belief, that is, what holding to such a belief [in their impious opinion] amounts to, and what it means to reject it. The end of their belief is thus: if there is no apostolic succession [according to their definition] the true body and blood of Christ cannot be received by the faithful. Their doctrine of “priests commissioned, successively, from heaven” [priests sacerdotal] through the laying on of hands by the episcopacy [in mechanistic succession] guarantees that the Blessed Sacrament of the precious body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ “which is generally necessary to salvation” is received by the faithful, as it was “intended by Him to be constantly conveyed through the hands of commission persons. Except therefore we can show such a warrant, we cannot be sure that our hands convey the SACRIFICE; we cannot be sure that souls worthily prepared, receiving the bread which we break, and the cup of blessing which we bless, are partakers of the Body and Blood of CHRIST” (emphasis mine). We must understand then, that their doctrine of apostolic succession ipso facto denies the life-giving Body and Blood of our Lord in the Sacrament to those outside of their self-inspired (rather than Scripturally-inspired) doctrine of apostolic succession, just as Rome does. And when speaking of a “sacrifice” in relation to the Holy Communion, it is good to realize that various Tractarian authors at this point are Crypto-Papists already, who, regardless of any talk by them of the Eucharist being a sacrifice of thanksgiving or of shewing forth the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross [which many Fathers evidently bound up into the Blessed Sacrament], the notion of propitiatory sacrifice of the Eucharist to the Father taught in Rome was shortly thereafter accepted by them, proving their inclination towards blasphemy and heterodoxy even more. In Newman, for example, becoming a Cardinal in the Papist Church after publishing his final tract, the infamous Tract 90, we have a greater proof of Romanist tendencies (despite any Biblical truth or Articles of Religion they still at this point maintained). 

So, then, if these men taught thus, why do they then hypocritically go on to state that they do not unchurch those outside of their system, or deny them the grace of God? First they say that the Church of England is the “only church” in the realm of England “which has a right to be quite sure that she has the Lord’s Body to give to His people” because of her “apostolic succession”. Then, in the next passage, in true sophistic style, they proclaim their pretense and duplicity: “Nor need any man be perplexed by the question, sure to be presently and confidently asked, ‘Do you then unchurch all the Presbyterians, all Christians who have no Bishops? Are they shut out of the Covenant, for all the fruits of Christian piety which seem to have sprung up not scantily among them?’ Nay, we are not judging others, but deciding on our own conduct. We in England cannot communicate with Presbyterians, as neither can we with Roman Catholics, but we do not therefore exclude either from salvation. ‘Necessary to Salvation,’ and ‘necessary to Church Communion’ are not to be used as convertible terms.” Ah, but alas, we are to daft to understand their doctrine, which both unchurches and churches, excludes and includes, receives and rejects, because we who deny their mechanistic succession are poor, waywardly, unlearned Christians: “I readily allow, that this view of our calling has something in it too high and mysterious to be fully understood by unlearned Christians.” The Tractarians obviously forgot the unity and brotherhood of all the Reformed based on the Word of God and Gospel of Jesus Christ, wherein our identity truly stands, whether on the continent or elsewhere. Their arrogant willingness to try and deny true Christians the grace of God is quite Romish indeed. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, when He commanded His Apostles: “Take, eat, this is My body” and “Drink ye all of it”, He commanded all believers of every generation to do the same. When two or three are gathered together in His name, being baptized Christians, He Himself in their midst commands the same. We have every right, duty, privilege and responsibility to obey our Lord and celebrate the Lord’s supper together. The propriety of having a presbyter or bishop presiding is very beneficial in that the Lord’s Table would be fenced, and the people of God taught concerning sound eucharistic doctrine. But certain dire situations may arise where a man of God is not present. Take, for example, 5 Christians rotting away in a North Korean labor camp. Alas! They do not have an English Priest to feed them the body and blood! Alas! They do not have the Papist sacrifice! Alas! An Anglo-Catholic Tractarian cannot come to their aid! What will they do! The absurdity is plain. What will they do? They will memorialize our Lord’s death as soon as they, through prayer and fasting, beg our Lord to provide a small, uncomely cup, and a crusty, almost moldy loaf of bread. They will rejoice in our Lord’s passion, they will worship Him with tears, they will share in all His benefits by faith through the celebration of the Holy Supper. The thought of imperium versus ministerium will in no wise enter their thoughts, the dogmas of prelates will hinder them not; their whole desire will be communion with our Lord, the sweetness of His love, the embrace of Him in their hearts by faith in the Holy Spirit. Who would be so wicked as to deny these poor souls our Lord? Does not Christ Himself command them? Do they not have the authority to obey our Lord by the Scripture? Who would be so vile as to think that Christ Jesus our Lord is not with them and nourishing their souls by His heavenly and spiritual body and blood? Only wolves, only heretics, only false prophets, only descendents of Diotrephes would do such a thing. Only those puffed up with pride, lovers of themselves, haters of God and His Gospel. 

  “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?… He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” The Tractarians and their Papist allies would have us receive the Spirit by their wicked hands and succession. Their learning devolved into carnal knowledge, and they were puffed up with pride. Love builds up, but knowledge puffs up (1 Corinthians 8:1). There will always be men who want to put the saints in bondage to their superstitious vain traditions and doctrines of devils. But we must continue to abide in Christ. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Galatians 5:1). 

In toto, the combined concepts of Tractarian apostolic succession and sacerdotal grace were a clear and massive departure from the theology and practice of the Reformed and Protestant Church of England, and, primarily, the teaching of Scripture. For the English divines, right doctrine rather than “right consecrations” as constituting apostolic succession established a vehement rejection of any sacerdotalism in Christian ministry. Both tactical apostolic succession and sacerdotal grace/priesthood have absolutely no bearing on Article XIX [which defines a true Church of Christ]: “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.” Knowing that Scripture does not support these two ideas, and that Scripture alone contains everything necessary for salvation (Article VI), and that the Tractarians and Papists would have us believe that these erroneous doctrines are necessary for salvation [because without them we cannot receive the grace of God], they must be utterly condemned by all faithful Christians. Any Anglican who subscribes to these two pernicious, anti-Scriptural doctrines has thus erred in the faith and must return to the sound teaching of God’s Word and the freedom of the Gospel. 

The Declaration of Papal Infallibility Constitutes a False Gospel 

For those who were once Anglican and have now swam the tiber, it is plain that they have yoked themselves with a false gospel. Papal supremacy is a false Gospel, because it demands obedience in soul and body to the Pope for salvation, and anathematizes those who resist, even if they have faith in Jesus Christ alone. The doctrines of the immaculate conception and bodily assumption of Mary are false gospels, because they demand belief as infallible revelations of God and portions of the deposit of faith, without which none can be saved; and, again, by them, those who reject such heresy are anathematized, even if they have faith in Jesus Christ alone. Likewise, the declaration of Papal infallibility is a false gospel, because, as the Vatican Council stated, it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Pope, when speaking Ex Cathedra, is able to define doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole church, because of the “supreme apostolic authority” he wields as “shepherd and teacher of all Christians”. The Pope can thus add to the Creeds – that is the absolutely undeniable consequence. If you don’t subscribe, again the Vatican has a pronouncement of everlasting Hell-fire for you: “So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.” There is no difference between the Judaizers demanding circumcision as requisite to salvation and the Pope declaring new-fangled damnable heresies [not found in Scripture] as requisite to salvation. It is quite sad that Anglo-Catholics, stemming from the Tractarian movement, esteem the Pope as the holy father, and regard his antichrist doctrines [such as have been mentioned] as truly catholic and apostolic, as if the undivided church received the same. Those who followed the Tractarians into Rome have seriously departed from the faith once delivered unto the saints. Those who add to the gospel, or take away from it, will suffer the plagues of God’s wrath (Revelation 22:18-19). The Papist gospel is NOT the gospel that our Lord or His disciples preached. Sadly, the fruit of the Oxford Movement was ultimately rotten, bringing many into the bondage of the Whore of Babylon. My prayer then is for repentance and renewed faith for anyone who subscribes to the strange doctrines of tactical apostolic succession, sacerdotal priesthood in the New Testament, or Papal infallibility. 

Conclusion

Dr. Cairns did an excellent job of summarizing some of the most important events in the history of Christianity, and for this present discussion, for Anglicans. The impact of the Oxford Movement can be felt throughout the entire Anglican Communion, whether continuing or otherwise. Two of it’s chiefest doctrines, that of tactical apostolic succession and sacerdotal priesthood, must be completely rejected and denounced by all faithful Anglicans, who, to be considered faithful, must locate their entire identity in Christ, and cling wholeheartedly to the Apostolic deposit of Faith and Gospel, found solely in the Word of God. Likewise, Anglicans must stay Protestant and Reformed, treating Papist heresies, from whence the Tractarian doctrines sprang, as damnable and repugnant to God.