of the belief that they were prelates and transmitters of prelacy to all subsequent ages.

It is pertinent, though painful, to note also that the breadth of practical application which the prelatist claims for his conclusions is inversely proportioned to the strength of argument by which they are supported. He would exclude all Christians who are not organized under the prelatic polity from membership in the Church of Christ.

6. THE PAPAL ARGUMENT.

With the Roman Catholic the Church is first. It stands evermore as the one teacher of truth. The Scriptures indeed are infallible; but they are given as a depositum to the Church, which, speaking supremely through the pope, is their only infallible interpreter. Should the papist, therefore, wish to satisfy his mind concerning the divine right of the bishop of Rome to govern all Christians, he will not inquire of the Scriptures. He will ask the bishop of Rome himself, and rest silent, if not content, with the answer.

This answer, however, will not avail for other inquirers. Should they be Protestants, Scriptural proof must be offered. "But have we any positive proof," asks Cardinal Gibbons, "that Christ did appoint a supreme ruler over his Church? To those, indeed, who read the Scriptures with the single eye of a pure intention, the most abundant evidence of this fact is furnished." This evidence is the primacy of Peter. Christ declared that upon Peter, as a rock, he would build his Church, and to him. would he give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And this investiture of power is supposed to be confirmed by the words, "Do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren," and by the charge, "Feed my sheep." Also, in the lists of the Apostles as given in the Gospels, the name of Peter stands first. Then, too, when he had spoken in the council in Jerusalem, every one kept silence."

Matt. xvi. 13-19.

*John xxi. 17.

"Acts xv. 12.

"The Faith of Our Fathers," p. 117. Luke xxii. 32.

One feels at a loss to determine what is the "pure intention" that can find here that "most abundant evidence" of which the Cardinal speaks-unless indeed it be the intention to accept with unquestioning trust whatever the Roman Church may offer in support of her claims. The power of the keys was not only promised by Christ to Peter, but was also given both to him and to the other Apostles,' and to the Christian congregation. The Church is built "upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.' Peter was simply first in activity, outspokenness, and honor among the original Twelve; it was he that first preached the gospel of Jesus and the Resurrection at Pentecost and to the Gentiles,* claiming for himself only to be a "fellow-elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ"-and that was his primacy. James, not Peter, was presiding officer of the church in Jerusalem, and apparently president of the council held there. The silence in the council was for the purpose of hearkening to Barnabas and Saul -and even were it due to the words that Peter had just spoken, it would prove nothing to the point. The apostle Paul, from the beginning of his missionary career, was the chief leader and caretaker of the churches; and he acknowledged dependence for his apostleship solely upon Christ, not upon Peter or any of the Apostles who were before him. It came to him “not from men, neither through man [or, a man].”

Imagine the Apostle of the Gentiles recognizing a constitutional authority to control the course of his ministry in Simon Peter, and holding himself in readiness to obey his commands. True, he was formally set apart, together with Barnabas, to a great missionary undertaking whereunto the Spirit of God had called him. Not, however, by Simon Peter, nor by any Apostle; but with the laying on of the hands, after fasting and prayer, of prophets and teachers, his brethren, in the Christian congregation of Antioch-whence and not from Jerusalem he went forth.*

1John xx. 22, 23. 2Matt. xviii 15-20.

Eph. ii. 20. 'Acts x.

"I Pet. v. I.
"Acts xv. 12.

"Gal. i. I.

Acts xiii. 1-3.

But even supposing, in the face of the whole spirit and teaching of the New Testament, that Peter's primacy was that of "a supreme ruler over Christ's Church," the contention that this rulership has been transmitted to the bishops of Rome, making them, each in succession, the absolute ruler, final judge, and infallible teacher of all churches and all Christians, is simply "the annihilating polemics of assertion."

Prelacy and papacy are alike in the exclusiveness of their claim. Obedience to some bishop, in the one case, as obedience to the bishop of Rome, in the other, is accounted necessary to membership in the Church of God. But as to the bishop of Rome, those who reject his supremacy are officially anathematized.

7. CONCLUSIONS.

Now among Christians who believe that no particular form of outward organization is essential to the existence of the Church of Christ, the differences of ecclesiastic structure are not of serious import. But when it is put forward as an article of faith, that one designated governmental form of Christianity is necessary to the Church's very existence, covenanted grace flowing into human hearts through that channel only, a radically different conception of the religion of Jesus is involved. So the inquiry now concerns an essential element of the Christian religion.'

If Jesus Christ did organize his Church in a tactual succession of bishops, with or without a personal autocratic head, inside of which are all the blessings of his covenant and outside of which are none, then those who deny this apostolic succession are chargeable with rebellion against the Divine order and with schism in the body of Christ. On the other hand, if Jesus Christ did not so organize his Church, then those who affirm such an apostolic succession are chargeable with these same offenses.

"In a word, this book claims on behalf of the apostolic succession that it must be reckoned with as a permanent and essential element of Christianity." (Gore, "The Church and the Ministry," p. xiv.)

Moreover, the burden of proof rests upon those who affirm. The advocates of the sacerdotal episcopal succession must prove their case. Until then the demand that it shall be accepted by others save by the unthinking or the will-less-is worse than idle. In the civil courts no man may be condemned so long as there remains a reasonable doubt of his innocence. What has been the amount and character of the evidence on which, in the ecclesiastical court, multiplied millions of evangelic Christians have been condemned as having no part nor lot in the covenanted blessings of the Church of Christ?

It is a true and most sacred idea, that of divine right. Not permission only but duty as well are included in it. Nor is there any sphere of life and activity from which it can be shut out. Whatever, being not unlawful, is expedient, may and must be done. Either an individual or a society may not only claim the right to do it, but must do it because it is right.

Within these limits of lawfulness and expediency, therefore, all church organization is alike jure divino. For such organization is something that may be and that ought to be.

But neither is this all. The supreme constructive force in the kingdom of God is not that of rights, nor is it that of the right. The Divine Builder of the Church, let it never be forgotten, found the symbol of his power and wisdom in the cross. And only as sharers in his mind can workers together with him plan and build with true success. The heart of love molds and colors the outward order. Think of an ecclesiastic economy taking form from the question, Which of us shall be greatest? as compared with one that should be directed by the motive: "For all things are for your sakes, that the grace, being multiplied through the many, may cause the thanksgiving to abound unto the glory of God." Christianity as organized is to be for service, sacrificial and unceasing. Hence its highest formative force: "love buildeth up."

CONCLUSION.

THE PROPHET IN ADMINISTRATION.

OUR excursion into the field of ecclesiology is here about at an end. Its results hardly call for a formal summing up. But it seems not unfitting, now at the last, to dwell for a little while, in connection with a word of résumé, upon a certain personal qualification in whoever would conduct successfully the business of organized Christianity.

I. FORMATIVE IDEAS IN CHURCH ORGANIZATION.

The sources of human power, let us not refuse to be again. reminded, are in that which is invisible. They are not to be found in muscle or nerve, but in ideas, affections, aspirations, choices, plans, purposes. We could live on without the visible world, and before long shall do so. Whatever works, therefore, men may produce on earth are wrought out indeed through the body, but from and by the unseen conscious self. This is equally true, whether the product be a mechanism or an institution— equally true of the houses we build and of the social organizations, political, religious, or other, which may hold meetings in them. Whatever else any such things may be, they are visualized ideas. Take the ideas out of a watch or a pocketknife, and there is nothing left. You have robbed timepiece and knife of that without which neither of them would or could have come into existence. Take the ideas out of the organized government of the American commonwealth, and there is nothing left to concern yourself about. You have taken away that without which no organized government would or could ever have come into existence. So, in order to appreciate any mechanical product or any institution, it must needs be looked at both from without and from within-from without to see what it is, from within to see what it means.

Now we have been led to recognize in certain ideas-such as (545)

35