firming the indications of the divine will which had been given by the lot" (Plumptre). "All those assembled 'put forward two"" (Meyer). In the most important election ever held in the Christian Church, then one local body, the whole assembly participated. The use of the lot carried the final choice between the two up to God. The apostles only superintended the election, giving the needed qualifications, and praying before the casting of the lots (Acts 1: 21, 22, 24, 25). This was an election to the apostolate recognized as valid after the baptism of the Holy Ghost in the mention of "the twelve (Acts 6: 2); and it was not set aside or superseded by the subsequent call of Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9: 15).

(2) The election of seven assistants of the apostles on the occasion of the first dissension in the Church was expressly by "the multitude of the disciples" (Acts 6: 1-6). The multitude chose the men to serve (or deacon) tables, judging of their qualifications, "whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them." This office gave rise to the order of deacons in Christian churches (Phil. 1: 1). Their ordination by the apostles did not involve the power of confirmation or ratification on the part of the apostles.

(3) When the church-kingdom had extended and appeared in many local churches, the churches held intercommunion by delegates, as the kahal, or congregation, of the old dispensation had been dispersed into all nations and appeared in local synagogues with communication between them. A messenger was "chosen of the churches to travel with Paul" with contributions for the poor saints in Judæa (2 Cor. 8: 19). It was by church action, on command by the Spirit, that Paul and Barnabas were sent on their first missionary tour (Acts 13: 1-3). These first missionaries were in fact a deputation from the church in Antioch. It was the same church that "appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles

and elders" (Acts 15: 2), to consult them about the question of circumcision. These messengers were chosen by the churches, not by the apostles, as bodies independent one of another in matters of control.

(4) There is no account of the election or appointment of elders in the churches. They were the same in the primitive churches as bishops, presbyters, pastors (§ 118: 4). They are first mentioned as receiving contributions from the hand of Barnabas and Saul (Acts 11: 30); then it is said: "And when they had appointed for them elders in every city" (Acts 14: 23). Thus these officers first appear in the churches, "instituted after the manner of the synagogue"; "but certainly the presbyters (Acts 11: 30), as elsewhere (Acts 14: 23), so also in Jerusalem (Acts 15: 22; 21: 18), were chosen by the church, and apostolically installed" (Meyer). "The word for appointed' certainly seems to imply popular election (election by show of hands), which is, indeed, the natural meaning of the word" (Plumptre). They were appointed by taking the vote of the people, the apostles merely presiding over the choice" (Schaff, Bannerman, Alford, Lange, Stanley). Later, the custom by which "church officers were freely chosen by the several communities from their adult members," was changed.13 Others, however, hold that elders were at first appointed by the apostles (Hackett).

66

We see, then, that local churches, in the exercise of their right arising from their relation to the church-kingdom, elected their own officers and messengers. The action of each was complete in itself without reference to any other church. Or if any superintendency or confirmation were required in ordination, it was found only in the functions of the apostles, which, as we shall show, ceased at their death.

§ 101. If we turn from internal discipline and the election of church officers to the relation of one church to another, we find marks of their individual independence. The primitive

13 Hatch's Org. Early Christ. Chhs. 202.

Com

churches had constant intercourse one with another. mendatory letters were given (Acts 18: 27; 2 Cor. 3: 1, 2); messengers were sent from one to another (Acts 15: 2); the distress of churches in one country was relieved by the gifts of foreign churches (Acts 11: 29, 30; 1 Cor. 16: 1-3; Rom. 15: 26); and epistles sent to one church were requested to be forwarded to another (Col. 4: 16). "The seven churches, addressed in the seven epistles (Rev. 2; 3), are presented as distinct from each other. No sign of common government is visible; no other bonds of union amongst the churches can be recognized than the interchange of common spiritual sympathies and subjection to a common divine law." 14

There is no intimation in the New Testament that one church was' subordinate to another; but on the contrary each church managed its own discipline, elected its own officers, and conducted all its intercourse with other churches as an independent body, not subject to the supervision or control of any other church.

66

§ 102. And this is what we should expect both from the relation of the churches to the church-kingdom and from their model, the Jewish synagogue. Nearly every town and city where the apostles preached had one or more synagogues. The separation of Christians from these synagogues was gradual. In these synagogues were "rulers" of the synagogue. They formed the local Sanhedrin, or tribunal. But their election depended on the choice of the congregation." "15 "The supreme official, like the two other members of the local court" in each synagogue was elected. "His election entirely depended upon the suffrages of the members of the synagogue." The three almoners "had to be elected by the unanimous voice of the people." 16 Synagogues had power to inflict corporal punishment, and to excommunicate, as we have seen. They were also independent one of an

14 Ecclesia; Church Problems, etc. 12.

15 Life and Times of Jesus, by Dr. A. Edersheim, 1, 438.

16 Bib. Theol. and Eccl. Cycl., Art. Synagogue.

other in the management of their affairs. "Each synagogue formed an independent republic, but kept up a regular correspondence with other synagogues." 17 "At Alexandria, where the state gave the Jewish colony exceptional privileges, the separate synagogues seem to have been all subject to the ethnarch; but at Rome and elsewhere there are no signs of their having been linked together by any stronger tie than the fellowship of a common creed and a common isolation from the Gentiles." 18 In so far then as the churches. were modeled after the synagogue, they were independent one of another.

§ 103. If we turn to the meager record of the churches given by the Apostolic Fathers, we find nothing to contradict the independence of the local churches one of another, but every thing to confirm it. "The church of God which sojourns at Rome," near the close of the first century addressed a letter to "the church of God sojourning at Corinth," as one equal addresses another equal. In it the church in Corinth is reproved for deposing "some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry." " 19 There is no intimation of redress by appeal to any man, church, or synod; nor is there any assumption of authority on the part of the church at Rome to correct the wrong. So also when the church at Philippi deposed the presbyter Valens from the ministry, Polycarp, in his letter to the church, approves the act, but grieves for the need of such discipline.20 Clement Romanus refers also to majority action of a church, and to presbyters appointed by the apostles "with the consent of the whole Church." 21

Thus the independence of the local churches one of another, which is logically deducible as the only normal. relation of church to church, is confirmed by the uniform teachings of the New Testament, the development of the churches from the Jewish synagogues, and the intimations.

17 Hist. Christ. Ch., Schaff, 1, 458.

18 Hatch's Org. Early Christ. Chhs. 59. 19 Clement Romanus, Ep. Cor. i, 44.

20 Ep. Phil. xi.
21 Ep. 1, 44, 54.

of the Apostolic Fathers. Each church, as thus independent, completes the discipline of its members, elects its own officers and messengers, and manages its external relations. Among themselves all were equal and independent, as the towns in a commonwealth. But this independence may be conceded, and yet it may at the same time be held that each and all, while managing their own affairs as regards one another, are still subject to some centralized authority. We have therefore a further question to consider before we leave the independence of the local churches.

III.- WERE THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES

SUBORDINATE TO

ANY CENTRALIZED ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY?

This is by no means the same question as that which we have been considering. One church may be independent of another, or of all others taken singly, and yet be subject to them taken collectively, or to an order in the ministry, or to a primate, in which case either Presbyterianism, or Episcopacy, or the Papacy follows.

§ 104. Each church is in spiritual union with all the rest in virtue of its being a part of the church-kingdom; and as such is subject to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, however that will may be made known (§ 32: 1). Each church in consequence of this spiritual oneness is required to exhibit in all suitable ways its unity with all others. No duty is greater than this; and for it Christ especially prayed (John 17: 20-23). Hence Christendom has endured manifold tyrannies rather than break the visible unity of believers.

§ 105. While the kahal, or congregation, of Israel before and even in the dispersion was divided up into synagogues independent one of another, there was still a central authority in the ceremonial law with its priesthood, rites, ritual, and ordinances, to which all Jews and full proselytes owed a