Editing Apostolic succession (section)

===Objections to the transmission of grace theory===
According to [[William Griffith Thomas]], some Protestants have objected that this theory is not explicitly found in Scripture, and the New Testament uses 'bishop' and 'presbyter' as alternative names for the same office.<ref name="gt">Thomas, Griffith. ''The Principles of Theology''. Church Book Room Press:1963, p.357</ref> [[Michael Ramsey]] argued it is not clearly found in the writings of the Fathers before [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] in the fourth century and there were attempts to read it back as implicit in earlier writers.<ref>Ramsey, Arthur Michael. ''The Gospel and the Catholic Church'' (translated from the Spanish edition published in the Dominican Republic: 1964, p.136)</ref>

For example, [[C. K. Barrett]] points out that the Pastoral Epistles are concerned that ministers of the generation of Timothy and Titus should pass on the doctrine they had received to the third generation. According to Barrett, teaching and preaching are "the main, almost the only, activities of ministry". He argues that in [[Clement of Rome]] ministerial activity is liturgical: the undifferentiated 'presbyter-bishops' are to "make offerings to the Lord at the right time and in the right places" something which is simply not defined by the evangelists. He mentions the change in the use of sacrificial language as a more significant still: for Paul the Eucharist is a receiving of gifts from God, the Christian sacrifice is the offering of one's body.<ref>Romans 12:1</ref><ref name=Barrett>Barrett, C.K. ''Church, Ministry and Sacraments in the New Testament'' Paternoster Press: 1993</ref>{{rp|92f}} 

Moving on to [[Ignatius of Antioch]], Barrett states that a sharp distinction is found between 'presbyter' and 'bishop': the latter now stands out as "an isolated figure" who is to be obeyed and without whom it is not lawful to baptise or hold a love-feast.<ref name=Barrett/>{{rp|94f}} He points out that when Ignatius writes to the Romans, there is no mention of a bishop of the Roman Church, "which we may suppose had not yet adopted the monarchical episcopate".<ref name=Barrett/>{{rp|95}} Jalland{{who |date=August 2015}} comes to a similar conclusion and locates the change from the "polyepiscopacy" of the [[house church]] model in Rome, to monepiscopacy as occurring before the middle of the second century.<ref>Jalland, Trevor Gervaise. ''The Church and the Papacy''. SPCK: 1944, pp.80ff</ref>

Similar objections are voiced by Harvey A.E. who comments that there is a "strong and ancient tradition" that the presence of an ordained man is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist. But, according to him, there is "certainly no evidence for this view in the New Testament" and in the case of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch the implication is not that it {{em|cannot}} be celebrated by anyone else, but that it {{em|ought}} not. Harvey says in the third century this "concern for propriety" begins to be displaced by the concept of 'power' to do so which means that in the absence of such a man it is "literally impossible" for a Eucharist to be celebrated.<ref>Harvey, A.E. ''Priest or President?''. SPCK:1975, pp.45f</ref>