eleven apostles, in the place of Judas (Acts i. 26); and only by the voice of the Holy Ghost were Barnabas and Saul separated for the work whereunto our Redeemer had called them (Acts xiii. 2; cf. ix. 15).” (p. 212.)
This last proof, the meaning of which I absolutely fail to make out, contains the first part of the proofs as to why the hierarchy is to be considered as founded by Christ.
After that follow proofs from the Acts and the Epistles. One would think that here it would be easier to find texts which might confirm the divine origin of the hierarchy, but again the same takes place. It turns out that in all the texts, quoted and not quoted, there is nowhere a word about those rights (as though it were a legal establishment) which the Theology proclaims from the very first words.
“(2) Still more clearly is this intention of the Lord seen in the actions of the apostles who were guided by his Spirit. These actions are of two kinds and both equally refer to the confirmation of the truth under discussion. The actions of the first kind are the following: (a) the holy apostles constantly asserted their right and carried out the obligations which the Lord had enjoined on them (Acts v. 42; vi. 1-5; 1 Cor. iv. 1; v. 4-5; ix. 16), in spite of all obstacles on the part of the enemies who tried to take that divine power from them (Acts iv. 19; v. 28-29).” (pp. 212 and 213.)
These references to the apostles and especially to the Acts are remarkable. The author does not write them out, because he knows that, if anything at all is to be deduced from them, it is the very opposite of what he is trying to prove. Every passage where Christ’s disciples preach his teaching is adduced as a proof that the hierarchy was established; for example, in Acts iv. 19, Peter and John said: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.”
