AoC-4-Chapter IV

Chapter IV
Their Continued Authority And Alleged Successors THE question of questions, for us, in reference to the Apostles of Christ - the Twelve and Paul - is this, How are we today to regard their authority? Are we to think that it was to last only during their lifetime; or that their teaching and example are to be regarded as expressing the will of the Lord Jesus until he comes, and the dispensation ends?

It is true, so far as the present writer is aware, that in theory all the divisions of Christendom today, the Roman, the Eastern, the Anglican, and the Nonconformist Churches, will all alike quote Peter or Paul as Divinely inspired and present-day authorities on Christian duty. Even the Catholic Apostolic, or Irvingite, who has, or had, his restored Apostles, and the Latter-day Saint, who also claims that there is in his Church a restoration of Apostles, will acknowledge the authority of the Apostolic writings in the New Testament. But as in many cases this acknowledgment of Peter and Paul and their fellows, is accompanied by a claim for others which practically makes void the authority of the first and only true Apostles of Christ, we must here state our objection to these claims.

First of all and as affecting the most people, there is what is called APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. There are ostensibly two forms of this stupendous claim, the Roman or Papal form, and the Episcopal or Anglican form, though, judging from their efforts made to secure re-union with Rome, it is manifest many Church of England clergymen accept the Roman view. Up to a certain point the two views are identical, both regard authority and grace as being transmitted in long line from the Apostles to our present-day bishops; but the Papal view makes the whole claim centre in the Primacy of Peter, and of the Pope as his successor; so that bishops not in union with the Pope are really not in the line of Apostolical succession at all. Dr. Newman in "Tracts for the Times" speaks of "the real ground on which our authority is built - our Apostolical Descent; and describes it thus: "The Lord Jesus gave the Spirit to His Apostles; they in their turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them; and these again on others; and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present bishops." To give a more recent example of the claim, Canon Gore, in his work on the Ministry of the Church, while granting that Bishops and others might fitly be elected by those to whom they are to minister, adds, "But their authority to minister in whatever capacity, their qualifying consecration, was to come from above, in such sense that no ministerial act could be regarded as that valid - that is, as having the security of the Divine Covenant about it - unless it was performed under the shelter of a commission received by transmission of the original pastoral authority which had been delegated by Christ Himself to His Apostles" (page 71). "This," he adds, "is what is understood by the Apostolic succession of the ministry." The same view of the matter is set forth by Pope Leo XIII. in his Encyclical of June, 1896, and which in its earlier part was accepted by a bishop of the Church of England as, "An admirable exposition of the foundation of the Church on Jesus Christ and of the devolution of power upon the Apostles generally, and from them to their successors in due course."

Both the Pope and Canon Gore know that certain functions of the Apostles, as that of witnessing to the Resurrection, could not be communicated to others, for in the nature of the case a witness can have no successor, but what they contend for is authority to bind and to loose, to forgive sins, and to give validity to the ordinances. The substance of what the Pope says is given thus: "Christ commanded that the teaching of the Apostles should be religiously accepted and piously kept as if it were His own. Then as these Apostles, like all other men, were under the universal law of dissolution by death, it was provided by God that the magisterium (or teaching authority) should be perpetuated by being delivered from hand to hand. ... Wherefore Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent magisterium, and willed and ordered under the gravest penalties that its teachings should be received as if they were His own." All this Romanist and Anglican are agreed upon. It is only when the validity of the Bishop is made to depend on communion with the Pope, as Peter’s successor, that some Anglicans demur. The Pope wrote: "The Episcopal Order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd (multitudo confusa ac perturbata)." The very audacity of these claims has given them a hold on many pious God-fearing people who are almost afraid to consider the truth of them lest they should be chargeable with irreverence. It will also be seen that anyone admitting this claim practically accepts the teaching and authority of every duly ordained Bishop as equal to that of Christ Himself. We have seen that we have our Lord’s own words directing us to give this high regard to the Apostles as His inspired teachers and ambassadors. We cannot reject their teaching without rejecting Christ. Surely if others are to have the same deference they must show the same credentials! We have seen that the Apostles did not get their place in the early Church by saying, "Christ laid His hands on us and gave us authority." But they gave the "signs of an Apostle," and in these signs the early believers saw the Divine credentials. Of substantial proof of this kind none is afforded to support either the Pope’s claim to Primacy or the Bishop’s claim to Apostolical Succession. The matter is one for historical investigation as to whether in the past Apostolic power has been manifested by those who have claimed to possess Apostolic authority; and those now claiming such authority should be called on to demonstrate their claim by showing "THE SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE." It is astounding that such claims should be conceded without proof by so many; yet, as Dr. Brown remarks, "Institutions and systems based upon unreal foundations seem for a whole to be impregnable; but sooner or later the scientific appeal to history and fact, with its ever-growing influence upon the intelligence of mankind acts as a powerful solvent upon what is unable to stand the test of truth." And how unreal are the foundations of these stupendous claims! Thus the Primacy of the Roman Bishop rests upon a tradition that the Apostle Peter transmitted his chief authority to the Bishop of Rome and this authority has come down from Bishop to Bishop and Pope to Pope since. But this is all without historical foundation. The New Testament gives no superior authority to Peter over the other Apostles, though it shows him chosen to take the leading part in opening the Kingdom to Jew and Gentile. And as to Rome there is no proof in the New Testament and only the haziest tradition that Peter ever was at Rome, and he certainly was not there when Paul wrote "Romans," who surely would have saluted this chief Apostle and bishop. But if he did go there to die, there was no bishop at Rome for long after Peter’s day to whom he could have transmitted his primacy and authority. A little fact may be noted here. In June, 1894, the Pope made proposals of Re-union to the Easter Church on the basis of their acknowledgment of his position as "supreme pontiff, highest spiritual and temporal ruler of the Universal Church, sole representative of Christ upon earth, and dispenser of grace." The Patriarch of Constantinople, with twelve other prelates of the Eastern Church, replied. On the claim to primacy, they reminded the Pope that it was first made in the Pseudo-Clementine writings and supported by the forged decretals of Isidore; and though these documents are now admitted to be spurious even by the Roman Church itself, she has never withdrawn the claim to absolute authority first built upon them. The recent events in connection with the Pope and the Church of England have tended to show the utter baselessness of the whole claim to Apostolic Succession. The Pope declared the Anglican Orders to be utterly void. Why? Not because the right hands were not laid on, but because the right words were not said at their ordination. Well, that led the Anglican bishops to look matters up, and they were able to tell the Pope that the words he said were essential to valid ordination were not known in his own Church for 800 years! So, they point out, if Anglican Orders are invalid because of the absence of these words, on the Pope’s own showing, so are his own. The question of the right hands being laid on is not to be laid aside. The theory of Apostolic Succession requires that the authority of any bishop should be traceable as transmitted to him from bishop to bishop right back to one of the Apostles. We do not dwell on the inextricable confusion in this transmission caused by some exercising the prerogative of bishops who were not duly ordained themselves. We point rather to this:

Of a somewhat different claims of Irvingites and Mormons, we need not say much. Mr. Irving, we understand, claimed to have been directed to restore the gifts to the Church, including twelve apostles. These were to minister in the sealing of the one hundred and forty and four thousands, at the end of which the Lord would appear. These apostles have all died. We understand mention has been made of appointing deputies to fill their place - a new kind of Apostolical succession. The Mormons profess to have had apostles appointed in a similar way; but I gather in answer to an enquiry that they keep on adding new ones as required, who are usually spoken of as elders.

We do not attempt to decide whether these claimants are to be regarded as deliberate impostors or as self-deceived. The Church in Ephesus is commended for trying "them which call themselves apostles and they are not." We may do the same. In the previous Chapter we have the criteria for testing. Let those whose claim to be apostles or to have the same teaching authority the Apostles had, shew the same credentials; let these bishops and apostles perform miracles in the same open manner as did the Apostles whom Christ chose; when they lay on hands let those on whom they lay hands prove the presence of the Spirit by the working of miracles; and lastly, let them communicate some new Revelation such as the body of truth found in the New Testament, the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints; but if these demands for credentials are not met, then it seems to us that to acquiesce in these claims at the mere word of those who make them, is to lay one’s self open to be imposed upon by any deliberate impostor or self-deceived enthusiast. The true view of the matter is that expressed by the words, "Their continued authority." It is true they are dead, but if it could be said of Abel that "being dead he yet speaketh," why may not the same thing be true of the Apostles? Some of their work, as witnessing to the Resurrection, and communicating by the Spirit’s aid what Christ had taught them, no one else could possibly do. As an actual and indisputable fact no one today believes in Christ except through their testimony. We have seen that the New Testament contains no hint of the devolution of their authority on others; but it does contain evidence that the Apostles’ authority was to continue. This may be inferred from the fact that they were agents in establishing the Kingdom of God, in which we include establishing the Church of Christ. Whoever lays down or reveals the constitution of a kingdom lays down what will remain in force, not only as long as he lives, but as long as the Kingdom lasts. Hence the things of the Kingdom established by the Apostles will not pass away until the end of the Dispensation. As an example of this, we may refer to Paul’s words "till he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26).

We have already noted that he claimed to have established this ordinance of the Lord’s supper among the Corinthians by express direction from the Lord. So when he speaks of this feast being attended to thus - until Christ comes, he implies its continuance, and so the continuance of his authority, until he comes. Their Commission as recorded by Matthew ends with a promise that Christ would be with them even to the end of the age. Believers are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone (Ephesians 2 :), which implies that Christ’s authority and that of the Apostles go and continue together. The Savior’s prayer shows that the word of the Apostles would be essential to the faith of future believers (John 17:20). Observe, too, Paul’s injunction to Timothy: "And the things which thou hast heard among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). This shows that the Apostle expected the things to be handed on - not a fresh set of things revealed to each generation. So Jude exhorts believers to contend earnestly for the faith once for all revealed to the saints.

Let these indications be added to those we have quoted or referred to, which shew the writings of the Apostles were regarded as inspired and classed with those of "other Scriptures," and it will be seen they fit no other view than that the Apostles were by their teaching and example to be the permanent authority in the Church until Christ’s return. And here we have the analogy of the Old Covenant. Jesus taught that men had Moses and the Prophets, although these were all dead, and said that those who could not learn their duty from Moses and the Prophets would not do so though one were sent to them from the dead. "Moses," said James to the Jerusalem Conference, "from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath Day (Acts 15:21). We conclude that the view which the New Testament suggests is that which was accepted from the beginning before "Apostolical Succession" or "Restored Apostles" were heard of, viz., that, just as Moses and the Prophets continued to speak God’s word through their writings, so the Apostles and Prophets of the early Church were to continue to teach the "all things" necessary for the conversion of the world and the well-being of the Church through the writings of the New Covenant Scriptures. After looking in Chapter V., at some alleged imperfections in Apostolic teaching and example, we shall consider in Chapter VI., how Christianity stands, or rather does not stand, if the Apostles be rejected from the exalted place which, as we have sought to show, Christ intended them to occupy unto "the end of the world."