recognized allegiance. And when the kahal became the ecclesia (Matt. 16: 18; Eph. 5: 23-27), and the synagogues became churches, was there not also a transference of the national authority over into an ecumenical power, commissioned to rule all Christian congregations? If not, some reason must be rendered for dropping it. Can we discover any reason which shall find its vindication in the facts of revelation and of history? That reason is found, we think, in the nature of the ceremonial law which Christ fulfilled and abolished, and in the nature of the kingdom of Christ.

(1) The ceremonial law was largely typical of Christ; its priesthood, its sacrifices, its whole economy. Hence it could not but pass away when fulfilled. Its one ordained place of worship, the temple, was superseded in the Christian dispensation (John 4: 20-24), and the temple predicted to be destroyed (Matt. 24: 2). The whole Mosaic ritual contained in ordinances was abolished (Eph. 2: 15; Col. 2: 14, 20), for there was a change in the priesthood (Heb. 7: 11, 12). A new high priest (Heb. 2: 17, 18; 3: 1; 4: 14) offered one sacrifice for eternal salvation (Heb. 7: 27; 9: 12, 25, 26) and became thereby the mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8: 6; 9: 11, 12). That whole ceremonial order of things was superseded and abolished in Christ, as the writer to the Hebrews abundantly demonstrates; and with it went its centralized authority as an organized national theocracy.

(2) So Christ separated his kingdom from the State. Church and State were one and the same under Moses; but under Christ they are separate. Christ was emphatic on this point, when Pontius Pilate examined him (John 18: 36). He refused to meddle in civil and political matters (Luke 12: 14; John 6: 15), and distinguished between the two realms (Matt. 22: 21) as did his apostles (Acts 4: 19, 20; 5: 29; Rom. 13: 1-7; 1 Peter 2: 13, 14).

(3) The church-kingdom, thus stripped both of temporal authority and of the ceremonial law with its priesthood and

sacrifices and ordinances and ritual, appears a better and higher development than the kahal, or congregation, of Israel fettered with both. One is liberty; the other is bondage (Gal. 5: 1). The destruction of these two elements of authority left the kahal, or congregation, of Israel with only the moral and religious institutions of the synagogue-water baptism, and what of the sacred Scriptures was not fulfilled in Christ; and as such it became the Christian ecclesia, or congregation of believers in Jesus Christ,-a church-kingdom spiritual, not of this world, whose sole central authority is in its Head and King, and whose local churches are independent one of another, and of all centralized power, except that which is found in Christ Jesus. This is, therefore, the nor mal relation of individual churches to any part of the whole, or to the whole body.

§ 106. Hence the churches of Christ have not been made subject to an infallible primate. There is no trace of such an order of things in the New Testament. We hunt in vain for Scriptural or historical proof that Peter possessed and exercised a primacy of authority. Whatever primacy he had was of another sort. This is so clearly the case, that Paul, not one of the original apostles, but an apostle to the Gentiles, publicly resisted and rebuked Peter, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2: 11-14). Paul recorded the event, A.D. 56-58.

Many passages quoted or referred to by the Papists in the Tridentine (1545-1563) and Vatican (1870) decrees are so general that they have equal force under all theories of the Christian Church. These we have already given (§ 54). But there are two passages which need special notice. When Andrew brought his brother Simon to the Messiah, Jesus, looking upon him for the first time, said: "Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, Peter)" (John 1: 42). Thus, at the outset, Christ, by the change of name, pointed out in the most emphatic way the place Simon Peter should hold in the coming

dispensation. This was made more emphatic in the last year of his ministry, when in response to a reply of Peter, Jesus said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16: 18, 19). This is the text of the Papacy. Whatever may be meant by the keys, to bind and loose, in this passage, was afterwards conferred in the same words upon each local church, however small (Matt. 18: 18); and after his resurrection, in still stronger language, was conferred upon the whole body of the apostles. What was thus distributed could not be claimed by one alone. Peter never claimed this power as peculiar to himself. It is therefore no proof of his primacy in power.

What is meant then by the words: "upon this rock I will build my church"? We answer: (1) One interpretation gives to the words an historical primacy. Peter was the first to preach the gospel to the Jews (Acts 2: 14), and to the Gentiles (Acts 10: 44-48), thus becoming the foundation of the Church. This is the view of Tertullian, who wrote A.D. 192-220.22 (2) Cyprian, A.D. 246-258, uses the passage to prove "that the Church is founded upon the bishops." 23 (3) Others make the rock Christ himself, since "other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3: 11). This was written to a church building on men, on Cephas, as one of them, and has special weight therefore. This view is held by very eminent names in the Church. (4) The confession of Peter has been regarded by some as the rock; that is, faithfulness of confession. (5) But a certain precedence must be ascribed to Peter, which may be called in a modified sense a primacy. Peter held a peculiar personal position among the apostles and in the building of the church. He was the spokesman

22 On Modesty, xxi.

23 Ep. xxvi, 1.

of the apostles. God chose him first to preach the gospel, after the inauguration of the church-kingdom, to Jews and Gentiles. He laid "the foundations of the church deep and strong on the Rock of rocks"; but even here he was not as active (1 Cor. 15: 10), nor as consistent (Gal. 2: 11-14), nor wrote as many epistles as Paul. "Nor was Peter himself ever bishop of Rome, nor had he any more to do with the founding the church at Rome than the apostle Paul” (Meyer). His primacy was not that of authority; for he was brought before the church at Jerusalem and the other apostles for preaching to Cornelius (Acts 11: 2-18); while in the council at Jerusalem, A.D. 50, he did not hold as high a position in the settlement of the question had in controversy as James (Acts 15: 19); and Paul publicly rebuked him for his conduct (Gal. 2: 11) and then published the account. He does not begin his epistles with the words: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, bishop of bishops;" but simply: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," and "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle." He even calls himself, when speaking to the elders. of the churches, "a fellow-elder" (1 Peter 5: 1).

Whatever primacy may be ascribed to Peter, in this sole text of the Papacy, it is impossible to find in it the warrant for the infallible primacy. It did not give special authority to Peter. It did not make him bishop of bishops. It did not provide for successors. It did not keep him from error. Whatever power it conferred upon him was afterwards given to local churches and to the other apostles. There is not the least hint of proof that the primitive churches were either united in Peter or subordinate to Peter as primate.

§ 107. The churches of Christ have not been made subject to an episcopate. Their relations to the whole fraternity did not culminate in a hierarchy of bishops; for each local church had more than one bishop. There was no union or convocation of such bishops, with authority, until the fourth century; that is, not until after the Church was united with the State.

It is true that the churches were, in some respects, under the apostles as the inspired teachers of Christ, to give them both doctrine and order. Their words were the commands of Christ (1 Cor. 14: 37). But the apostolate is not the episcopate. We shall see (§ 116) that not one of the characteristics or signs which distinguished an apostle was transmitted to successors. After the election of Matthias no vacancy in the apostolate was filled, and the office with its functions ceased when John at last fell asleep on the bosom of his Beloved.

But the term apostle was not used exclusively of the Twelve, and of Matthias and Paul. The word means "one sent forth," and is applied to Barnabas (Acts 14: 4, 14). Hence we are not surprised to read of "apostles" in "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles; " but there "apostles and prophets are described as mere evangelists, or itinerant preachers, who were not expected to remain in one place more than a single day." 24 The "Teaching" was written about A.D. 100.

The so-called Council at Jerusalem, A.D. 50, did not represent the churches generally by presbyters, bishops, or delegates except in and through the apostles. And whatever of authority its decree possessed was derived from the apostles and the claimed inspiration of the Holy Ghost (Acts 15: 28). This council was held for an emergency. The earliest synods were held in Asia Minor, but not until the middle of the second century.25 The earliest general council was held A.D. 325. Previous to this Nicene Council there could have been no general Episcopal rule of the churches, taken collectively. Even Dean Stanley says: "Before the conversion of the Empire, bishops and presbyters alike were chosen by the whole mass of the people in the parish or diocese (the words at that time were almost interchangeable)."" "26 Episcopacy is, then, a late growth. The primitive churches were not

24 Chap. xi, note on Hitchcock and Brown's ed. 25 Hefele's Hist. Councils, i. 2.

26 Christian Institutions, 175.