into a number of churches, possessing no organic unity, and therefore incapable of having a visible head. These various national or confessional societies might have communion with one another, and so maintain a kind of outward unity. The Church of England, as we have seen, expressly recognizes some other societies as churches in spite of their errors, and at the time of the Reformation did not reject the communion of Rome;1 but by disowning the papal jurisdiction it joined with other Protestants in breaking the organic unity of Western Christendom, and became to all intents and purposes a schismatic church. The doctrine of the invisible church, an unknown and unorganized crowd of genuine Christians, scattered through all the separated churches, maintained a theoretical and imaginative unity amid the actual recriminations and persecutions of discordant sects. But a rent and tattered Christendom is not a pleasing spectacle, nor is it easy to recognize in it a genuine expression of the Christian ideal. Most thoughtful men feel that there is something wrong somewhere. Either the unity of a divine institution has been violated by the passion and self-will of schismatics and heretics, or the dominant Church, followed in this by smaller societies, has imposed tests of membership which Christ did not impose and would not have recognized, and so has forced into separation men who desired only to be loyal to Christ and to the spiritual faith which he taught. To judge of this alternative we must glance at Christ's teaching as recorded in the Gospels; and we shall perhaps find there a far larger view than those prevalent in Christendom, and one more in accordance with the spiritual facts of the world.

Christ's teaching habitually refers to something wider and more spiritual than any visible Church, and we must briefly notice his conception of the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. This phrase is frequently used in Rabbinical

1 See Gladstone, The State in its Relations with the Church, 2nd edition, 1839, p. 196.

1

writings, where it denotes, as Lightfoot says, 'the inward love and fear of God,' and it is only by an extension of meaning that it can signify the undefined realm of those who are governed by those great principles.2 These two meanings are, however, so closely related that the one easily passes into the other; but it is important to remember that the former is the primary sense, and that a kingdom of God as a visible society upon earth must consist of men in whom the sovereignty of God is inwardly exercised and acknowledged.

This idea, though capable of such wide extension, might be associated with narrow and unspiritual views; for men, not always through arrogance, seem to have a difficulty in believing that the spiritual gifts, of which they are vividly conscious in themselves, are equally open to their neighbours, and that the same God over all ‘is rich unto all that call upon him.'3 Now, in spite of the eschatological passages, which have their parallels in Jewish apocalypse, the distinctive teaching of Jesus set aside the limited expectations and apocalyptic fancies of his time, and spoke of the great governing principles which determine the religious progress of mankind. He denied that the kingdom of God was to come with sudden and miraculous portents, and maintained that it was already present and operative in the world. was not a kingdom of this world, with its geographical limits and political organization, but was an indeterminate community scattered through all lands, and consisting of the poor in spirit, the persecuted, and those who had the simple and confiding faith of childhood. Its subjects were

1 Heb. et Talm. Exerc., Matt. iii. 2.

Yet it

2 See my Jewish Messiah, pp. 319 sqq., and Hibbert Lectures, pp. 129 sq. 3 Rom. x. 12.

4 Luke xvii. 20 sq; Matt. xii. 28, with Luke xi. 20; Matt. vi. 33, with Luke xii. 31; Matt. v. 3, 10; Matt. xviii. 1 sqq., (cf. Mark ix. 33 sqq. and Luke ix. 46 sqq., which omit the kingdom of heaven'); Mark x. 13 sqq. with Matt. xix. 13 sqq. and Luke xviii. 15 sqq; Mark x. 23 sqq. with Matt. xix. 23 sq. and Luke xviii. 24 sq.; Matt. xxiii. 13, with Luke xi. 52; Matt. xi. 12, with Luke xvi. 16; Matt. xxi. 43; Mark xii. 28 sqq.

those who did the will of the Father in heaven, and with modest service ministered to the wants of his children,1 and those alone could see or enter it who were born from above.2 Like all spiritual ideals which are slowly realizing themselves in the world, it is future as well as present, and we still must watch for fresh glories to rise upon the world, and pray that the kingdom may come with ever-growing power to the hearts of men.3

While Christ thus spoke continually of the kingdom of God, the word 'church' is almost wholly absent from his teaching. In three of the Gospels it is nowhere found-a sufficient proof that, to say the least, it must have occupied a very subordinate place in his thought. It is only in Matthew that the term appears, and even there there is only one passage that has any bearing on our subject. In xviii. 17 where Christ directs his disciples to report to the Church the case of an obstinate offender, the ẻκkλŋoía probably refers simply to a body of ten persons, called y, or congregation, ten being the number required by Rabbinical law for various more solemn religious acts,' so that we have this climax (1) first go to him privately; then (2) with one or two [or three] witnesses, i.e., semi-publicly; and then (3) with a full congregation of ten men, i.e., publicly.' The reference in the other passage, however, is beyond question. After Peter's confession Jesus says to him, 'Thou art Peter (Пérpos), and on this rock (mérpa) I will build my Church.'5 This is the one text on which Catholic theologians rely as the divine authentication of the Papal claims and it is truly

1 Matt. vii. 21 sqq.; cf. Luke vi. 46, xiii. 25 sqq.; see also Matt. xii. 50, with Mark iii. 35 and Luke viii. 21; Luke xi. 27 sq.; Matt. xxv. 31 sqq.; Matt. xiii. 24 sqq., 37 sqq.; Luke x. 30 sqq.

2 John iii. 3.

3 For the detailed consideration of the several passages referred to see my Hibbert Lectures, IV, on 'The Kingdom of God.'

4 W. H. Lowe, The Fragment of Talmud Babli, 1879, p. 65, note Cc. 5 Matt. xvi. 18.

astonishing that men can be content with such slender evidence to sustain the weight of a stupendous dogma. Let us observe the facts.

In the first place, the passage contains no reference whatever to Peter's successors, much less to the Bishop of Rome. Secondly, the meaning of building the Church upon Peter is very obscure. Some interpreters, indeed, point out the distinction between Térрos and Téтрa, and refer the latter to Peter's confession as the foundation of the Christian Church; but it is probable that both words were N in Aramaic, so that the 'rock' naturally refers to Peter. Granting this, can the figurative expression denote more than that Christ relied on the firmness and solidity of Peter to sustain the fabric of his Church, and not allow his cause to perish? The sequel did not demonstrate Peter's rock-like character; for he denied his Master in a moment of panic, and, according to Paul, he virtually denied him again by his hypocritical conduct at Antioch. Metaphorical language readily admits of different applications, and for this reason affords a very insecure basis for dogma. Paul represents Jesus Christ himself, and him only, as the foundation;1 and elsewhere the members of the Church are spoken of as built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.'2 In Jerusalem Peter, by his boldness and energy, started the Church, and reared its earliest fabric, and in this sense was the rock on which it rested; but even in Jerusalem the primacy was subsequently accorded to James the brother of the Lord. In no other place could Peter have a higher claim, and in fact, unless the present passage be an exception, his primacy receives. no recognition in the New Testament. We must add that any primacy among Christ's disciples, except the primacy of self-denial and loving service is expressly prohibited. 'Who

3 For Origen's view, extending the promise to all the faithful, see before, p. 102, note 2.

1

soever shall humble himself as this little child shall be greatest in the kingdom of heaven' ;1 'whosoever shall wish to become great among you, shall be your servant, and whosoever shall wish to be first among you, shall be the slave of all '; 'be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, the Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.'3 These are explicit sayings, and agreeable to the whole tenor of Christ's teaching; but good Churchmen think that Ignatius and Cyprian knew better.

Thirdly, those who feel compelled to apply critical methods to the evangelical narratives cannot help entertaining grave doubts whether the words in question were ever uttered by Christ at all. If they really contain the fundamental dogma of Christianity, we should expect to find them, if not referred to in the Epistles, at least recorded in all four Gospels. But what militates most strongly against their authenticity is the fact that Mark4 and Luke5 contain narratives which, notwithstanding minor differences, are closely parallel to that in Matthew, and yet they both omit the address to Peter. The natural inference surely is that, if they all followed a common source, the source was without this addition; or, if Mark is the source, of which Matthew and Luke are literary variations, then also the earliest form of the record contained no allusion to the Church. In either case it would seem that our first evangelist is responsible for the insertion. He may have had some source, written or oral, which he thought he could depend upon; but we know nothing of its value, and have no reason to suppose that he scanned his authorities with a very critical eye. Another evidence of insertion is afforded by the incongruity between the solemn eulogium 1 Matt. xviii. 4; and see Mark ix. 35. 2 Mark x. 43 sq., with Matt. xx. 26 sq. 4 Mark viii. 27 sqq.

3 Matt. xxiii. 8-11.

5 Luke ix. 18 sqq.