On the apostolical succession Parochial lectures, second series — Reading Notes

The Dedication and Its Context

The volume is dedicated to Edward Bouverie Pusey, D.D., Canon of Christ Church and Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Irons acknowledges his “deep feeling of obligation” for Pusey’s “learned instruction, his Christian example, and his honest friendship.” This dedication places the lectures squarely within the Oxford Movement’s theological orbit. Yet Irons is careful to assert his own intellectual independence: he has not “learned a lesson by rote” but thought freely, and the public must not hold Pusey responsible for every opinion. The preface also notes that the general doctrine was maintained by Irons “long before he had the happiness and advantage of being acquainted with the works” of the leading Oxford divines. This dual gesture—honoring Pusey while claiming independent conviction—shapes the reader’s expectation of a reasoned, not merely derivative, argument.

Scriptural Analogy Between Jewish and Christian Ministries

In the second lecture, Irons confronts the objection that comparing Christian and Jewish priesthoods is “essentially Anti-christian.” He counters by pointing to the New Testament’s own language: St. Paul’s argument for ministerial maintenance in 1 Corinthians 9:13 is “wholly derived from the analogy of the Jewish Priesthood.” Irons emphasizes that the Apostle “places the Eucharistic Table of the Lord in a position precisely parallel with that of the Jewish Altar” (1 Cor. 10:13). He also cites Hebrews 5:4, “No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron,” as a general principle still valid. The lecture insists that such “priestly terms” are used “continually in the New Testament, and even as a ‘matter of course.’” This evidence-based argument from scripture is central to Irons’s method.

The Argument from Apostolic Language and Practice

Irons draws attention to specific apostolic phrases that link the offices of apostle and high priest. He notes that St. Paul calls Christ “the Apostle and High-priest,” joining the two ideas, and that Christ “glorified not Himself to be made an High-priest” (Heb. 5:5). The sending of the Son by the Father is paralleled with the sending of the apostles: “as His Father sent Him, so He sent His Apostles.” Irons also examines Hebrews 13:10, “We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle,” which follows an injunction to “remember them” that have the rule over you. He argues that such sacrificial allusions would be misleading if no analogy existed. The cumulative effect is to show that the New Testament writers assumed a continuous, ordained ministry.

The Structure of the Lectures and the Reader’s Path

The table of contents reveals a clear progression: Lecture I on “The Doctrine,” Lecture II on “The Evidence,” and subsequent lectures presumably building on these foundations. The preface states that the lectures were delivered in Advent at Saint Mary’s, Newington, and that the arrangement of the subject follows the order in which it “originally came before my own mind.” This suggests a pedagogical, almost autobiographical, unfolding of the argument. The reader is invited to follow Irons’s own intellectual journey from initial questions to a settled conviction. The lectures are not a dry treatise but a series meant to assist “those who are seeking to clear and define their thoughts.” The opening lecture’s method—contrasting apostolical language with modern notions—sets a pattern of careful comparison that the reader can trace throughout.

Irons’s lectures reward a reader who attends to his use of scripture and his engagement with opposing views. The excerpts show a writer who argues from specific texts and analogies, not from abstract principles alone. A first reading might focus on how Irons handles the key biblical passages he cites, and how he anticipates objections. The dedication to Pusey and the preface’s insistence on independent thought also provide a lens for understanding the work’s place in the Oxford Movement. Readers interested in the history of Anglican ecclesiology will find here a methodical, evidence-driven case for apostolic succession.