corded (Acts, i. 15-26), took place before the Apostles had been endued with power from on high (Acts i. 8), and, therefore, be- fore they had any authority to act in the premises. Christ in his own time and way completed the number of his witnesses by call- ing Paul to be an Apostle. But, however this may be, here if ever exceptio prohat regulam. It proves that the ranks of the Apostles could be filled, and the succession continued only from the number of those who could bear independent witness of the resurrection and doctrines of Christ.
Besides the fact that there is no command to appoint apostles, there is clear evidence that the office was not designed to be per- petuated. With regard to all the permanent officers of the Church, there is, (1.) Not only a promise to continue the gifts which , pertained to the office, and the command to appoint suitable persons/ / to fill it, but also a specification of the qualifications to be soughi// and demanded ; and (2.) a record of the actual appointment of incumbents ; and (3.) historical evidence of their continuance in the Church from that day to this. _With regard to the Apostleship, all this is w^anting. As we have seen, the gifts of the office have notbeen continued, there is no command to perpetuate the office, no directions to guide the Church in the selection of proper persons to be apostles, no record of their appointment, and no historical evidence of their continuance ; on the contrary, they disappear entirely after the death of the original twelve. It might as well be asserted that the Pharaohs of Egypt, or the twelve Caesars of Rome have been continued, as that the race of apostles has been perpetuated.
It is true that there are a few passages in which persons other than the original twelve seem to be designated as apostles. But from tlie beginning of the Church until of late, no one has ven- tured on that account to regard Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and Titus, as apostles, in the official sense of the word. All the designations given to the officers of the Church in the New Testa- ment, are used in different senses. Thus, " presbyter " or " elder," means, an old man, a Jewish officer, an officer of the Church. The word " deacon," means, a domestic, sometimes a secular officer, sometimes any minister of the Church; sometimes the low- est order of church officers. Because Paul and Peter call them- selves " deacons," it does not prcTve that their office was to serve tables. In like manner the word " apostle " is sometimes used in its etymological sense "a messenger," sometimes in a relig- ious sense, as we use the word " missionary ; " and sometimes in
14^ INTRODUCTION. [Ch. V. — R. C. R. of Faith.
its strict official sense, in whicli it is confined to the immediate messengers of Christ. Notliing can be plainer from the New Tes- tament than that neither Silas nor Timothy, nor any other person, is ever spoken of as the official equal of the twelve Apostles. These constitute a class by themselves. They stand out in the New- Testament as they do in all Church history, as the authoritative founaers of the Christian Church, without peers or colleagues.
If, then, the Apostleship, from its nature and design, was inca- pable of transmission ; if there be this decisive evidence from Scrip- ture and history, that it has not been perpetuated, then the whole theory of the Romanists concerning the Church falls to the ground. That theory is founded on the assumption that prelates are apostles, invested with the same authority to teach and rule, as the original messengers of Christ. If this assumption is unfounded, then all claim to the infallibility of the Church must be given up ; for it is not pretended that the mass of the people .is infallible nor the priesthood, but simply the episcopate. And bishops are infallible only on the assumption that they are apostles, in the official sense of the term. This they certainly are not. The Church may make priests, and bishops, and even popes ; but Christ alone can make an Apostle. For an Apostle was a man endowed with supernatural knowledge, and with supernatural power.
E. Infallibility founded oti a False Interpretation of the Promise of Christ. The third decisive argument against the infallibility of the Church is, that Christ never promised to preserve it from all error. What is here meant is that Christ never promised the true Church, that is, " the company of true believers," that they should not err in doctrine. He did promise that they should not fatally apostatize from the truth. IJ.e did promise that He would grant his true dis- ciples such a measure of divine guidance by his Spirit, that they should know enough to be saved.. He, moreover, promised that ^e -would call men into the ministry, and give them the qualifica- tions of faithful teachers, such as were the presbyters whom the Apostles ordained in every city. But there is no promise of infalli- bility either to the Chui'ch as a whole, or to any class of men in the Church. Christ promised to sanctify his people ; but this was not a promise to make them perfectly holy in this life. He prom- ised to give them joy and peace in believing ; but this is not a promise to make them perfectly happy in this life, — that they should have no trials or sorrr ws. Then, why should the promise