Is apostolic succession biblical?

Ephesians 2:20 speaks of the Church being "built upon he foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." Of course, Christ is, in the greatest and highest sense, the foundation" Upon this rock I will build my church." But still, to use the words of another, "As the means not only of revealing the mind of God touching the Church, but also particularly of laying down with authority the landmarks of His husbandry in the earth-the Church of God, the apostles and prophets were thus used. To distinguish them the former were characterized by an authority in action, the prophets by giving out according to God His mind and will about this great mystery" (W. K.).

The apostles occupied a unique position in the establishment of the Church which could not be transmitted to others. They were special witnesses of our Lord's resurrection. See Acts 1:22, I Corinthians 9:1 and 15:5-8. Therefore there can be no "apostolic succession" such as various church groups claim today. Only one appointed such by the Lord, and a witness of His resurrection could be an apostle in the full sense of the word.

Now comes the important question, "If there were such men as bishops and deacons in the first days of the Church, why do we not possess them now?" The answer is simple. We have no one to ordain them. There is no ordaining power in the Church of God in the absence of the apostles. I am quite aware of what thousands think and say, that apostolic succession is the resource. But I find no such thing in Scripture. All the N.T. writers speak of evil coming in after their departure, but none refer us to any successors as a safeguard. Paul warned the brethren, and then commended them to God and the Word of His grace (Acts 20:32), Peter provided for the need of the saints after his decease by inspired writings, speaking of nothing and no one else (2 Peter 1:12-15), John casts the saints upon what they had heard from the beginning, and upon the unction they have received (the Holy Spirit, 1 John 2:20-27), and Jude, after drawing a very dark picture, bids us build up ourselves on our most holy faith, etc. (Jude 20). Absolute silence everywhere as to authoritative succession. Transmission of truth I certainly find; transmissions of authority nowhere (2 Tim. 2:2). Every thoughtful person must know that this pretended apostolic succession is the most uncertain thing in the world. It is claimed by the Romish, Greek, and National bodies, all disowning each other. Rome claims that true succession is alone found in her, and that all who have not derived their office from the Pope are impostors. The Greek Church refuses Rome's claims as baseless, and rejects her communion as heretical. Where is certainty in all this? If apostolic succession is a divine principle, and our only true safeguard, as many assert, where can I be sure of finding it? The truth is, the notion has no warrant from Scripture at all. Consequently there is no authority to ordain in the Church now, and this is why we have amongst us no men with the titles of "bishops" and "deacons." We do not pretend to a power that we do not possess. We, the rather, own the ruin and disorder that has come in, and cast ourselves upon the unfailing grace of God. And many can testify, who have been gathered to the Lord's name for many years, apart from all ecclesiastical systems, that God is faithful in these matters to those who put their trust in Him.

The Scriptures give no instructions for the carrying on of the apostolic office from generation to generation as was the case with the High Priesthood in Israel. On the contrary, the apostles and prophets are said to be the foundation. A foundation is laid once and for all. One might as sensibly speak of the foundation of a building being carried up storey by storey to the roof as to speak of apostolic succession. Neither the apostles nor the prophets had successors—they formed the foundation.

Then Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every city. And afterwards Timothy and Titus, as apostolic delegates, did the same. But though an elder should be "apt to teach," his vocation as an elder was not to teach but to "oversee." It is well known that the word "bishop," the elder's official title, means "overseer," and is so translated. (Acts 20:28.) They were elderly grave men, fathers of families, who could show, by the careful training of their own families, that they knew how to take care of the church of God. They tended — were shepherds to, as the word translated "feed" means (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) — the church of God. If they had gift, they laboured in the word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17), but they might rule well without that. Not that they were separate classes of elders, for which there is no scripture at all; but if they had gift, they used it, yet it was not confined to them.

These elders never ordained. Apostles did and could depute others. In Timothy's case, who was no elder, when a spiritual gift was given to him by prophecy, it was accompanied with the imposition of the elders' hands. That is the whole scripture on the subject. As for the successors of apostles, or of Timothy and Titus, they exist in the fables of tradition — nowhere else. Scripture speaks only of a widespread ruin of the church, beginning in the apostles' days, and these commend us to the word of God in their own absence, not to successors. (Acts 20:32; 2 Peter 1:15.)

Should it, however, be thought that the cases of Timothy and Titus are evidence on the other side, a moment's consideration will dispel the illusion. Titus is told plainly that he was left in Crete to "set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city" (Titus 1:5); and Timothy is directed as to the qualifications of such (1 Tim. 3), and expressly told "to lay hands suddenly on no man" (v. 22); i.e., to appoint them to office. Nothing therefore can be plainer than that these two, Timothy and Titus, were acting as delegates of the apostle, and as such exercised a general supervision, and had authority to appoint suited men to the office of bishops and deacons; an authority employed, be it remarked, by individuals, not by churches, and which was never exercised but by the apostles, or, as in the case before us, by their delegates, and which was never transmitted to any successors, and consequently lapsed with the death of the apostles.

In the Ephesian epistle, two evils are seen as intruding into the church, but not yet allowed. One is the early appearance of clerical assumption, and the Lord commends resistance to the claim: "Thou hast tried them who say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Nowhere in scripture is there any authority for the continuance of apostles, or any provision for succession to the apostolic function or office. The office was temporary, to lay doctrinally the foundation of the church, and an apostle must be a witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:22). True ministry, according to Scripture, in the power of the Holy Ghost, is indeed blessèd, and is provided for, for the Holy Spirit remains with the church to the end (John 14:16). But office and gift are two distinct things, and there is no authority upon earth now to appoint to an office in the church, either apostle, bishop or elder, or deacon.

Now the apostles, as all confess, had a peculiar and an unique place — having been endowed with extraordinary gifts and authority — and they never had successors. I shall not detain you long upon this point, as apart from the Romish and Anglican Churches* (at least in the West) this statement would be generally accepted. Two Scriptures will therefore suffice. Peter, writing to the believers of his own nation — "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus" etc. — says, "I will endeavour" (i.e., by writing the epistle) "that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance" (2 Peter 1:15). He thus commits them in the future to the guidance (not of apostolic successors, but) of the written word. Paul, in like manner, addressing the elders of the Church in Ephesus, and warning them of their coming difficulties and dangers, says, "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace" (Acts 20:32). The two great apostles therefore — one of the circumcision, and the other of the uncircumcision, agree in this — that they alike declare that the resource of the Church, after they should have passed away, would be in the word of God. It is thus clear that they could not have contemplated successors to their office.

The first need, therefore, in view of the circumstances, is to be strong, and grace is that which alone will furnish us with the strength we need. Timothy was, with the courage of his conviction, to entrust the things which he had heard of the apostle, in the presence of many witnesses, to faithful men who should be able to teach others also. This is the apostolic succession which we are to look for in Christianity, and it is the only one. It is a succession of those who hold the doctrine of the apostles, energized by the Spirit of God. It is at once most sorrowful and very comforting to realize how little the history of the Church is the history of those who were at any time approved of God. The first Church history was written when already a debased Christianity had accepted alliance with the world.

But where then are the college-educated, and regularly or humanly ordained, and salaried ministers and dignitaries? The scriptures do speak, — although not as man speaks, — of instruction and elocution (Matt. 11:25-27; Matt. 13:11-16, 51, 52 Matt. 16:17; Luke 24:25-27, 44-48; Acts 4:13, 20; Acts 18:24-28; 1 Cor. 1:17 - 2:16; 2 Cor. 10:10; Gal. 1:10-23), and salaries (Acts 18:3; Acts 20:33-35; 1 Cor. 4:11-12; 1 Cor. 9:7-18; 2 Cor. 11:27; 2 Cor. 12:13-18; Phil. 4:10-18; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7-8; 1 Peter 5:1-3; 3 John 6-8), and also of regularly ordained (appointed) elders (called also bishops or overseers, comp. Acts 20:17 with 28, and Titus 1:5 with 6, 7), and deacons (that is, servants or ministers), in some of the churches, in the New Testament; but only the apostles (Acts 6:2-3, 6; Acts 14:23), or those like Timothy or Titus, with a special gift of the Holy Ghost (2 Tim. 1:6), and authority from an apostle (Titus 1:5), might appoint these (1 Tim. 3:1-15; 1 Tim. 5:17-22; Titus 1:5-9; and comp. Acts 6:3 with 6).* Also we read of the Spirit and His gifts being communicated in those days through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:15-19; Acts 9:17; Acts 19:6; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), which, as practised in the present day, being unaccompanied by real power, is as mere a form as anointing a sick person with oil (James 5:14) would now be. But we never find that the different churches might appoint the one, or conferred the other, for themselves; for sheep cannot choose or create their own rulers and shepherds: still less could money (Acts 8:14-24), or even those ordered of God to govern this world (Matt. 17:24-27; Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-18), do so for them (Matt. 22:21). Only the Lord of the harvest (Matt. 9:37-38; Heb. 2:4) and the Chief Shepherd Himself (Eph. 4:7-8), or one deriving delegated, vested, and real authority and power from HIM (and not from the flock or the world), could do so. If, then, any one can clearly prove that he has this authority to ordain, and this power to impart spiritual gifts (by apostolic succession and a special gift of the Holy Ghost), then the power to ordain, and to impart the Holy Ghost still really exists amongst us; but, if no one can satisfactorily produce and prove such authority and commission, then this power must have been lost amidst the mournful wreck and apostasy of the professing Church; and those who pretend to it are infringing on what now is alone the direct right of the Holy Ghost. Paul said something about "apostolic succession" to the Ephesians (Acts 20:28-32), and then John has a word of approval to them for having acted on it (Rev. 2:2).

Here are the words of Clement, or rather of the whole Church at Rome, in whose name he writes. There were divisions at Corinth, on the subject of elders. The Church had set aside certain elders, as claiming the right to do so according to the principles which I contest. In his Epistle, 1 Corinthians 4:2, "The apostles evangelized us on behalf of our Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ did so on behalf of God. The Christ was sent on behalf of God, and the apostles on behalf of Christ. The two things occurred regularly therefore according to the will of God. Having therefore preached through divers places, in the country, and in the towns, they established their firstfruits to be overseers and deacons among those who should believe, having, by the Holy Spirit, found them worthy. And there is nothing new in this." Then he quotes the choice of Aaron by the direct testimony of God in what happened to his rod. "And our apostles knew, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be disputations with regard to the name of the episcopacy. Therefore, having received a perfect foreknowledge of this, they established those of whom we have previously spoken and then gave a legal order of succession, how that, when they fell asleep, other approved persons might receive their ministry. Those therefore, who were established by them, or afterwards by other eminent (renowned) men, the whole Church approving them … these we esteem wrongfully deprived of their ministry." Here we have the question expressly treated by one who was a companion of the apostle, who acted in the matter, who was a successor of the apostle, as far as anyone could be such, and one who is, in every way, the highest possible authority on such a subject. What he says to be the history of the matter is confirmed by the whole Church of Rome, and he declares that the apostle had foreseen the difficulty, and that, when the Corinthians were pretending to exercise the very authority claimed by the Evangelical Church at Geneva. He declares that the apostle had established elders and a form of succession; then that other men of repute had established them, the whole Church being satisfied with it. It is impossible to have anything clearer or more positive, in ecclesiastical history, to contradict the assertion of my opponents.