DISSERTATION

ON THE

FALSE APOSTLES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE.

THE case of the "false apostles" has an important bearing on the subject of Episcopacy. We argue conclusively, from their case that others besides the special witnesses of the resurrection of CHRIST were apostles-that there were many apostles proper besides these, the thirteen-that inspiration was not an essential qualification for the apostleship-and that the ordinary apostolic office was extensively recognised, both previously and so late as the year 96, when of the thirteen none survived but St. John. These facts being established, it will be sufficiently clear that that office pervaded the Church at large, and was to be permanent.

Mention is made of these impostors in three passages of the New Testament.

"For such are false apostles evdaroσrodo, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of CHRIST. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Cor. xi. 13-15.) The word "ministers" is diakovo.

"Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles arooтoλous, and are not, and hast found them liars, sudeis.” (Rev. ii. 2.)

"An apostle, not of ar men, neither by man, but by JESUS CHRIST." (Gal. i. 1.)

We can imagine but four ways in which the persons alluded to can have pretended to be "apostles "- —as special witnesses of the resurrection of CHRIST-as being, not apostles proper, of whom we affirm there were many, but "messengers," so called -as having apostolic plenary inspiration, like the thirteenor, as possessing the apostolic office; not mere presbytership, as we shall prove; but the episcopate proper. On each of these four views of their case we offer some remarks.

1. The theory that the "false apostles" claimed to be special witnesses of CHRIST's resurrection, is not held, in terms, by any writer that we know of; yet it must be tacitly allowed by those who think they pretended to be apostles proper, and that none could be such but the special witnesses. Such a fancy, however, will not bear the least investigation. There were only thirteen of these witnesses at most-at least one of them, James the Greater, was dead when Paul wrote to the Corinthians against the pretenders, A. D. 60-at least one other ( 267 )

Paul, was personally known to that church, and no one could have there feigned to be that apostle of the alibi of some, if not all of the rest, they were doubtless apprized; and the chance of an impostor's being taken for either of them must have been too small to allow any hope of success: add to this, that Titus had lately been in Corinth; he knew several of the thirteen, and his testimony on such a question of personal identity would have been final. When, again, these impostors are mentioned at the later period, A. D. 96, only St. John was living; and as it was impossible for any pretender to pass himself as that one surviving special witness of the resurrection, so was it perfectly absurd for several to make the attempt. This character, therefore, the "false apostles" did not claim. Of course there were other apostles besides the special witnesses, with whom they endeavored to rank themselves.

2. Equally untenable is the supposition, evading the fact of there having been many apostles proper, that they pretended to be "messengers," so called, or apostles not in the appropriate sense. Twice only are these expressly named, "the messengers of the churches," ""Epaphroditus, your messenger." (2 Cor. viii. 23; Philip. ii. 25.) Not a few writers contend for the translation 66 apostle" in both these places, in its appropriate meaning-fatal to the notion that " messengership was all these impostors claimed. Taking, however, the translation as it stands, we find there were messengers" sent by churches to St. Paul. And we will allow, though we do not find it in Scripture, that messengers may have been sent by one church to another church. We further notice, that Paul despatched persons whom we may call messengers, to both churches and individuals; as Tychicus to the Ephesians and to Timothy, Epaphroditus to the Philippians, Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, Onesimus to the Colossians and to Philemon, Phebe to the Romans, &c. Now, in regard to the first class of these persons, it is clear that no one would pretend to be the " senger" of a church to an inspired apostle, who could instantly detect the fraud. In regard to the next class; it is evident that a messenger from one church to another, if there were such appointments, could not have had the least authority over the latter body; the mission must have been one of benevolence only, or of courtesy: in other words, there was no motive to simulate the character. And in regard to the third class; it is obvious, that when even a woman was one of the messengers whom St. Paul sent, and to the great church in Rome, there could have been nothing in the function to excite the ambition of pretenders. If it be further alleged, that some of Paul's messengers were commissioned to rectify disorders in churches, and that "false" messengers claimed a kindred authority, we reply, that such functionaries could only be sent by those thirteen principal Apostles, who, individually, had authority over all churches; so that a successful claim to such a mission.

mes

could scarcely have been made at any time, and certainly was next to impossible when only St. John remained. We think, therefore, that this second theory of the false apostleship" is baseless. Indeed we are not aware that any one expressly maintains it yet, as it is the only hypothesis left to those who confine the proper apostleship to the special witnesses of our LORD's resurrection, we have deemed it worthy of refutation.

Let the reader now mark the results of what we have thus far presented. The impostors before us did not pretend to be mere messengers," but apostles proper; and they did not make this pretension as special witnesses of the resurrection of the Saviour. They would not, however, claim an office which did not exist therefore, there were apostles proper who were not of the number of the special witnesses. Neithier would they have elaimed an office that was not common enough to give their imposture a reasonable chance of success: therefore, there were many apostles proper besides the thirteen who were first in the office. There were many such apostles proper in the year 58, when both their existence and that of pretenders to the station, as will hereafter be seen, was recognised in the epistle to the Galatians -many such in the year 60, when the Corinthians were cautioned against persons who falsely usurped the charactermany such about the year 98, when "the angel of the church of Ephesus" had "tried" and convicted some of the false ones. Can any reasonable man ask stronger proof that apostles proper were intended to be spread over the Church generally, and to be retained in it permanently?

3. In some of the foregoing arguments we have a strong presumption against the third hypothesis-that the "false apostles" pretended to have, like the thirteen, plenary inspiration. The lower kinds of inspiration were claimed by the "false prophets;" but these other impostors, if they claimed inspiration as "apostles," must have arrogated the full measure.. But this seems very improbable, as there were only eleven at first, and only two others afterward, who had the genuine claim of this sort and for the impostors to allege that they were of the eleven, would have been madness, particularly when only one of the eleven survived; and to assert that they, like the only other two plenarily inspired apostles, Matthias and Paul, had been thus added to the eleven, would have indicated rather an unreflecting audacity, than cool and calculating artifice. Besides the thirteen, only two are known to have been thus inspired, Mark and Luke, which shows that such persons were not numerous enough to encourage pretenders: and these two are not called apostles, which further shows, that even plenary inspiration did not imply apostleship; so that the impostors could not have relied on this pretence alone, but must have alleged other grounds for their clain. And this brings us to the result, that the criterion of apostleship proper was something different from inspiration, as it was from the being a special witness

men might have, and did have this office, without either of these qualifications. This is a sufficient disproof of the theory now before us.

As, however, it is respectably supported by commentators, we shall add some further remarks on the opinion that the pretenders arrogated full inspiration as the basis of their alleged apostleship. Such a counterfeit implying the rankest spiritual. ambition, it would have been more consistent with their evil purpose to assume independent chieftainship, and pretend to be CHRIST, with unlimited authority, than to claim only the dependent chieftainship, which would be fettered by Christianity as already revealed, and by the rights of those of the fully inspired thirteen who might come in contact with them. Accordingly, we read in history (Josephus) of various false Christs, but nowhere of false apostles who aspired to apostolic plenary inspiration. This latter assertion we make on the indirect authority of Hammond, who regards Cerinthus as a false apostle, without mentioning any others. For this character of Cerinthus, he quotes Caius in Eusebius, who, however, does not state that Cerinthus claimed to be himself an apostle, but only that he "pretended revelations written by some great apostle, ως υπο αποστολου μεγάλου, and related prodigious narrations as showed him by angels." This being the only case given by Hammond, we presume no other was to be found.* And this, obviously, was not a case of arrogating apostolic inspiration, but only of passing a counterfeit revelation ascribed to some. other person as a "great apostle," probably one of the "prime" or primary ones, as Hammond argues. As to the alleged. agency of "angels" in showing him "wonderful things," such. a pretension put Cerinthus below the false prophets, in the claim of inspiration, and of course far below the sort of false apostles here supposed; for the true Christian " prophets " held direct communication with GoD, though not of the plenary kind. (See Hammond on Rev. ii. 2, note a, and Crusé's Eusebius, p. 113.). Cerinthus was one of the chief pretenders who professed to keep within the Christian pale;. and if he did not claim apostolic inspiration, it is highly probable no other pretender did, and infinitely improbable that so many did as to justify, in that sense, the broad denunciation of "false apostles," and the broad allusion to 66 them which say they are apostles, and are not."

Further if apostolic plenary inspiration had been counterfeited in that age, we might expect the counterfeit to be included in the warning against the untrue "spirits;" but this is

*Poole's Synopsis, on Rev. ii. 2, quotes Paræus for Ebion's being a "false prophet:" whether "false apostle" is meant we do not know. The existence of such a person is doubtful. Mosheim's remarks are to this effect. Eusebius does not mention him, though Milner, we suppose inadvertently, says he does.. If there were ever such a person, it does not appear that he claimed plenary inspiration,