in themselves the power to do this. No one said that anything that he had was his own, but they had all things common1. In this they anticipated the final working out of the divine principle in society. The Church could not maintain itself at that exalted level, and after eighteen centuries we are still far from regaining it. But the Christian community is still one in which the brother of low degree is to rejoice in that he is exalted, and the rich in that he is made low 2. Towards this ideal we can see a progress throughout the Christian centuries, and we may cherish an unshaken faith that it will go on to completion. We tend to a universal brotherhood perfected by the Christian spirit.

How then were the members of this new commonwealth, who entered it with free but absolute submission, to be governed? It might seem at first sight as though Christ cared only to assert principles, and that He was careless as to their practical application. And undoubtedly, the highest laws of the kingdom are such as are contained in the beatitudes, or such as have been traced out by the author of Ecce Homo, the law of philanthropy, of edification, of mercy, of resentment, of forgiveness. The lawyer may criticize this by saying that such laws lack a definite penal sanction. But in a spiritual society not only is the conscience sensitive towards God, but it feels and asserts the principles which Christ proclaimed, as with a knightly sense of honour. In such a society at its highest perfection the public sentiment of which each man is conscious would do the 2 James i. 9, 10.

1 Acts iv. 32.

work of discipline. Each member would feel in the averted glances of his brethren and the loss of their esteem a power which restrained him (apart from any actual punishment) from injustice or violence or lust. But our Lord, though He declined to be a judge or a divider in special causes1, yet gave indications that the divine principle must be applied, and that the community which He founded must not shrink from the actual decision of cases, and the formation of rules and laws. He Himself, in the case of divorce, did not hesitate to speak distinctly, even peremptorily 2, and showed the result which must flow from the Christian spirit in contrast to the general selfishness of the marriage relation both in the East and the West, and even in the Mosaic law itself3. Nor need we find Himself the pre

a difficulty in ascribing to Christ scription of the methods for the settlement of quarrels among His followers, as contained in Matt. xviii, if we bear in mind that, as with so many of His words, it is the method not the rule which we are meant to follow. That is, He would say, 'Do not be judge in your own cause; take others who are not blinded by self-interest to determine the question. Only when you have exhausted all such efforts to be justified in treating the man you think to have injured you as distinctly in the wrong, and needing like the publican or heathen repentance and reclamation.' This is a good instance of the way in which Christian principle can guide us in many domestic affairs, in political and social relations, in international

1 Luke xii. 14.

set things right can you

dealings, in the making and enforcement of laws. The principle which Christ enjoins is capable of an application to awards and judgments in the most general sense. It results in such rules of moral and political conduct as these: let self-interest be banished as much as possible wherever you have to form a judgment; be conscious of your own liability to undue prejudice ; let others decide rather than you; and again, to carry the principle into the wider sphere, let all have their proper share in the national representation; appeal to a neutral tribunal if such can be found; invoke arbitration before you draw the sword. It is a mistake to confine the application of such a principle to a single punishment like that of excommunication, which some have held to be the foundation of Church-discipline, while others have believed it to have been never practised in primitive times. The principle must be applied in a larger sense. It is a witness that Christianity is broadly human, and the Church capable of guiding and assimilating all human institutions.

It is true that, while the Church was first making its way in the world, this great social capacity was restrained. The Church was hemmed in by a vast organized society which had power over a large part of the Christian's life. The first need of the infant community was instruction. Our Lord Himself was principally a teacher. The Apostles gave themselves to the word of God and to prayer1. But the teaching function needs much less organization than has been commonly assumed. In the Constitution of the Synagogue no

1 Acts vi. 4.

formal office of teaching existed. The instruction was given by any scholar with any pretensions who presented himself for the occasion. And this, no doubt, was followed in the early Christian communities which arose out of the Synagogue. And, accordingly, so long as the element of government was greatly subordinate, there was little organization. It was the practical needs of the Church as a body of men living together, not the needs of worship or of teaching, which gave birth to the permanent organization. Even the great change under which Episcopacy sprang up, if it was caused by doctrinal requirements, was caused by them not because new doctrines caused differences of opinion, but because they caused schisms, and rent asunder the body which should be united 2. Consequently, while the infant community chiefly needed instruction (though the function of government was never wholly absent) the organization was slight and precarious 3. Our Lord gave no injunctions about it of

2 The word alpeois, which has passed into a technical sense as heresy, was always used in early times for a schism or division, as in 1 Cor. xi. 19: 'There must be also heresies (margin "sects") among you.' St. Paul is speaking of the lack of unity in those who ought to be one body at the Communion.

3 The belief that teaching was not confined to the bishops and Presbyters in the primitive church is confirmed by the discovery (since the delivery of these Lectures) of the 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,' which shows that in the middle of the second century there still existed Prophets and Apostles to whom special authority in teaching was accorded; but also that all who were capable of teaching could do so. There is no restriction in such passages as these (Sections II, 12, 15): 'Whosoever cometh and teacheth you all the things aforesaid, receive him.' 'Afterwards by putting him to the test you shall know him.' This is confirmed by what is said of the Bishops: They too minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers; therefore despise them not.' (Farrar's Translation, 'Contemporary Review,' May, 1884)

perpetual obligation. We can gather from His actions no more than that there must be order of some kind, and an order suited to the circumstances. He sent out the Twelve, two and two, during the Galilæan ministry, and the Seventy to prepare His way in His last journey to Jerusalem but both these orders passed away. The Seventy were for a temporary occasion; the Twelve were the first Judaic mould of the Church: but after the election of Matthias their number was never filled up, and, at the age when our Gospels were put in their present shape, there would seem to have been considerable doubt as to the original list. We may trace a rudimentary organization of the Church during our Lord's ministry, a leadership in Peter, an inner circle of trusted followers in the Three, the rudiments of a ruling body in the Twelve, a management of the common purse, Christ Himself acting as Governor; and we may see that the Jewish officers who collected the Temple tax, recognized Him as the head of the community by the question, 'Doth not your Master pay tribute 1?' But it is evident that for the general purposes of government these rudiments were quite inadequate. The Church must adapt itself to the wider society which it tends to assimilate, and must take upon itself successively the forms of the family, the club, the synagogue, the municipality, the nation, the empire, the universal federation, binding these forms to its divine purpose, infusing into them all the Spirit of Christ.

1

The later part of the New Testament reveals the first attempts at the organization which was needed

1 Matt. xvii. 24.