94

APOSTOLIC CONDUCT.

nism to this, we say that there is not one passage in all the New Testament which can be brought forward to prove it. The nature of the apostolic office was temporary, not permanenttherefore not hereditary, transferable, or in any sense successional. You hear not one word in all the inspired record, that when one Apostle died through martyrdom or age, that the survivors proceeded to elect another apostle in his room. "Oh, yes! this was just their plan," says the writer of the Tract No. 5, page 6, when he observes that one of their very first acts, when deprived of the presence of their Lord, was to select a person to be associated with them in the apostolic office, that the number originally named to that office might be complete." If the object, as here stated, was "that the number [twelve] originally named might be complete," why have the advocates for succession increased that "number" to twelve hundredaye, to twelve thousand fold? Why not keep to the number, twelve? But the reference made by the writer is, beyond question, to the election of Matthias, of whom we never hear another word after this election. Now that was either an official act, or it was not. If official, it was premature. The Apostles were commanded to wait till they were endued with power from on high. Then, till thus enriched, they were

PECULIAR NATURE OF APOSTOLIC OFFICE. 95

powerless-unauthorized. And from nothing nothing is, is an ancient axiom. Their premature election, therefore, vitiated its utility. But if it be admitted that their choice was not an official act, the whole transaction sinks into nothing, and dwindles from the touch when examined as a precedent for successional descent. Besides, was not this election wholly set aside by Christ, when he chose and called Paul to bear his name far hence to the Gentiles? and therefore he miraculously allowed him to see him, that, like all other Apostles, he might be a witness of his resurrection. It was indispensible to the very existence of the apostolic office, and the proper possession of it, that the commission should be held immediately from Christ. This was the case with Paul. This was not the case with Matthias. It is not the case with any of the men who Puseyistically boast that they only are the true successors of the Apostles.

Besides, by a scriptural examination of the nature of the apostolic office, and the peculiar prerequisites needful for it, and the duties attendant on it, it was impossible that they could have SUCCESSORS. Let us ask, What were the "signs of an apostle?" They were inspired. Inspiration was essential to an apostle. But Puseyistic prelates and priests are not inspired, therefore they are not their successors.

The

96

DR. CAMPBELL'S STRICTURES.

apostles especially possessed the gifts of working miracles; their pretended successors can work no miracles. They had seen the Lord, and were all of them to be the witnesses of the Saviour's resurrection; but who in modern times, like them, have seen the Lord? None. In this latter view, then, none can be successors of the apostles. The learned Dr. George Campbell, many years ago the Principal of Mareschal College, Aberdeen, has, in his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History (Lecture 5), thus stated the temporary nature of the apostolic office. On each of the following particulars he most judiciously amplifies, whilst showing-1. The indispensable requisites in an apostle sufficiently demonstrate, that the office should be but temporary. It was necessary that he should be one who had seen Jesus Christ in the flesh, after his resurrection. 2. The apostles were distinguished by prerogatives, which did not descend to any after them. 3. Their mission was of quite a different kind to that of any ordinary pastor. 4. As a full proof that the matter was thus universally understood, both in their own age, and in the times immediately succeeding; no one, on the death of an apostle, was even substituted in his room; and when that original sacred college was extinct, the title became EXTINCT with it. The arguments of this

DR. ISAAC BARROW'S VIEWS.

97

presbyterian clergyman are ably supported by that eminent ornament of the Church of England, Dr. Isaac Barrow, who, in his learned "Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy," thus expresses himself, as to any scriptural support of the notion of apostolical succession. His words are:-" The apostolical office, as such, was personal and temporary; and therefore, according to its nature and design, not successive, or communicable to others in perpetual descendence from them. It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for special purposes, discharged by special aids, endowed with special privileges, as was needful for the propagation of christianity, and founding of churches." After eloquently amplifying on many particulars, Dr. B. winds up the whole argument from scripture thus: "Now such an office, consisting of so many extraordinary privileges, and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the foundation of the church and the diffusion of christianity, against the manifold difficulties and discouragements, which it then must needs encounter, was not designed to continue by derivation; for it containeth in it divers things which apparently were not communicable, and which no man, without gross imposture and hypocrisy, could challenge to himself. Neither did the apostles

98

BELLARMINE'S TESTIMONY.

pretend to communicate it; they did indeed appoint standing pastors and teachers in each church; they did assume fellow-labourers and assistants in the work of preaching and governance; but they did not constitute Apostles equal to themselves in authority, privileges, and gifts." "For who knoweth not," saith St. Austin, "the principate of apostleship to be preferred before any episcopacy." "And the bishops," saith Bellarmine," have NO PART of the TRUE APOSTOLICAL AUTHORITY." Thus we

see, then, if candid, and unwarped by party prejudice, the Scriptures no where countenance the scheme. "It is manifest, then, that in what was original, extraordinary, miraculous, and of necessity temporary-that is, in all that was peculiar and essential to their office-THE

APOSTLES COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE SUCCESSORS.

To say they could, is to deny scripture testimony, and is as absurd as to assert, that the Creator could have successors in making the world!"*

In addition to what has been already stated, a number of other collateral enquiries might quickly be enumerated and urged, all of which would produce new and insuperable difficulties to the exclusive claimants of apostolical succes

* See "Godkin's Apostolical Christianity," p. 67.