Chapter I: The Constitution Of The Church. Or Church Polity (2)

Constantine thought more highly of his position as member of
Christ’s church than of his position as head of the Roman Empire.
Neither the church nor its pastor should be dependent upon the
unregenerate members of the congregation. Many a pastor is in the
position of a lion tamer with his head in the lion’s mouth. So
long as he strokes the fur the right way, all goes well; but, if
by accident he strokes the wrong way, off goes his head.
Dependence upon the spiritual body which he instructs is
compatible with the pastor’s dignity and faithfulness. But
dependence upon those who are not Christians and who seek to
manage the church with worldly motives and in a worldly way, may
utterly destroy the spiritual effect of his ministry. The pastor
is bound to be the impartial preacher of the truth, and to treat
each member of his church as of equal importance with every other.

(_c_) Since each local church is directly subject to Christ, there is no jurisdiction of one church over another, but all are on an equal footing, and all are independent of interference or control by the civil power.

_Mat. 22:21_—“_Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are
Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s_”; _Acts
5:29_—“_We must obey God rather than men._” As each believer has
personal dealings with Christ and for even the pastor to come
between him and his Lord is treachery to Christ and harmful to his
soul, so much more does the New Testament condemn any attempt to
bring the church into subjection to any other church or
combination of churches, or to make the church the creature of the
state. Absolute liberty of conscience under Christ has always been
a distinguishing tenet of Baptists, as it is of the New Testament
(_cf._ _Rom. 14:4_—“_Who art thou that judgest the servant of
another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be
made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand_”). John
Locke, 100 years before American independence: “The Baptists were
the first and only propounders of absolute liberty, just and true
liberty, equal and impartial liberty.” George Bancroft says of
Roger Williams: “He was the first person in modern Christendom to
assert the doctrine of liberty of conscience in religion....
Freedom of conscience was from the first a trophy of the
Baptists.... Their history is written in blood.”

On Roger Williams, see John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England:
“Such views are to‐day quite generally adopted by the more
civilized portions of the Protestant world; but it is needless to
say that they were not the views of the sixteenth century, in
Massachusetts or elsewhere.” Cotton Mather said that Roger
Williams “carried a windmill in his head,” and even John Quincy
Adams called him “conscientiously contentious.” Cotton Mather’s
windmill was one that he remembered or had heard of in Holland. It
had run so fast in a gale as to set itself and a whole town on
fire. Leonard Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches, vii,
says of Baptist churches: “It has been claimed for these churches
that from the age of the Reformation onward they have been always
foremost and always consistent in maintaining the doctrine of
religious liberty. Let me not be understood as calling in question
their right to so great an honor.”

Baptists hold that the province of the state is purely secular and
civil,—religious matters are beyond its jurisdiction. Yet for
economic reasons and to ensure its own preservation, it may
guarantee to its citizens their religious rights, and may exempt
all churches equally from burdens of taxation, in the same way in
which it exempts schools and hospitals. The state has holidays,
but no holy days. Hall Caine, in The Christian, calls the state,
not the pillar of the church, but the caterpillar, that eats the
vitals out of it. It is this, when it transcends its sphere and
compels or forbids any particular form of religious teaching. On
the charge that Roman Catholics were deprived of equal rights in
Rhode Island, see Am. Cath. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1894:169‐177. This
restriction was not in the original law, but was a note added by
revisers, to bring the state law into conformity with the law of
the mother country. _Ezra 8:22_—“_I was ashamed to ask of the king
a band of soldiers and horsemen ... because ... The hand of our
God is upon all them that seek him, for good_”—is a model for the
churches of every age. The church as an organized body should be
ashamed to depend for revenue upon the state, although its members
as citizens may justly demand that the state protect them in their
rights of worship. On State and Church in 1492 and 1892, see A. H.
Strong, Christ in Creation, 209‐246, esp. 239‐241. On taxation of
church property, and opposing it, see H. C. Vedder, in Magazine of
Christian Literature, Feb. 1890: 265‐272.

B. The sole object of the local church is the glory of God, in the complete establishment of his kingdom, both in the hearts of believers and in the world. This object is to be promoted:

(_a_) By united worship,—including prayer and religious instruction; (_b_) by mutual watchcare and exhortation; (_c_) by common labors for the reclamation of the impenitent world.

(_a_) _Heb. 10:25_—“_not forsaking our own assembling together, as
the custom of some is, but exhorting one another._” One burning
coal by itself will soon grow dull and go out, but a hundred
together will give a fury of flame that will set fire to others.
Notice the value of “the crowd” in politics and in religion. One
may get an education without going to school or college, and may
cultivate religion apart from the church; but the number of such
people will be small, and they do not choose the best way to
become intelligent or religious.

(_b_) _1 Thess. 5:11_—“_Wherefore exhort one another, and build
each other up, even as also ye do_”; _Heb. 3:13_—“_Exhort one
another day by day, so long as it is called To‐day; lest any one
of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin._” Churches exist
in order to: 1. create ideals; 2. supply motives; 3. direct
energies. They are the leaven hidden in the three measures of
meal. But there must be life in the leaven, or no good will come
of it. There is no use of taking to China a lamp that will not
burn in America. The light that shines the furthest shines
brightest nearest home.

(_c_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
the nations_”; _Acts 8:4_—“_They therefore that were scattered
abroad went about preaching the word_”; _2 Cor. 8:5_—“_and this,
not as we had hoped, but first they gave their own selves to the
Lord, and to us through the will of God_”; _Jude 23_—“_And on some
have mercy, who are in __ doubt; and some save, snatching them out
of the fire._” Inscribed upon a mural tablet of a Christian
church, in Aneityum in the South Seas, to the memory of Dr. John
Geddie, the pioneer missionary in that field, are the words: “When
he came here, there were no Christians; when he went away, there
were no heathen.” Inscription over the grave of David Livingstone
in Westminster Abbey: “For thirty years his life was spent in an
unwearied effort to evangelize the native races, to explore the
undiscovered secrets, to abolish the desolating slave trade of
Central Africa, where with his last words he wrote: ‘All I can add
in my solitude is, May Heaven’s richest blessing come down on
everyone, American, English or Turk, who will help to heal this
open sore of the world.’ ”

C. The law of the church is simply the will of Christ, as expressed in the Scriptures and interpreted by the Holy Spirit. This law respects:

(_a_) The qualifications for membership.—These are regeneration and baptism, _i. e._, spiritual new birth and ritual new birth; the surrender of the inward and of the outward life to Christ; the spiritual entrance into communion with Christ’s death and resurrection, and the formal profession of this to the world by being buried with Christ and rising with him in baptism.

(_b_) The duties imposed on members.—In discovering the will of Christ from the Scriptures, each member has the right of private judgment, being directly responsible to Christ for his use of the means of knowledge, and for his obedience to Christ’s commands when these are known.

How far does the authority of the church extend? It certainly has
no right to say what its members shall eat and drink; to what
societies they shall belong; what alliances in marriage or in
business they shall contract. It has no right, as an organized
body, to suppress vice in the community, or to regenerate society
by taking sides in a political canvass. The members of the church,
as citizens, have duties in all these lines of activity. The
function of the church is to give them religious preparation and
stimulus for their work. In this sense, however, the church is to
influence all human relations. It follows the model of the Jewish
commonwealth rather than that of the Greek state. The Greek πόλις
was limited, because it was the affirmation of only personal
rights. The Jewish commonwealth was universal, because it was the
embodiment of the one divine will. The Jewish state was the most
comprehensive of the ancient world, admitting freely the
incorporation of new members, and looking forward to a worldwide
religious communion in one faith. So the Romans gave to conquered
lands the protection and the rights of Rome. But the Christian
church is the best example of incorporation in conquest. See
Westcott, Hebrews, 386, 387; John Fiske, Beginnings of New
England, 1‐20; Dagg, Church Order, 74‐99; Curtis on Communion,
1‐61.

Abraham Lincoln: “This country cannot be half slave and half free”
= the one part will pull the other over; there is an irrepressible
conflict between them. So with the forces of Christ and of
Antichrist in the world at large. Alexander Duff: “The church that
ceases to be evangelistic will soon cease to be evangelical.” We
may add that the church that ceases to be evangelical will soon
cease to exist. The Fathers of New England proposed “to advance
the gospel in these remote parts of the world, even if they should
be but as stepping‐stones to those who were to follow them.” They
little foresaw how their faith and learning would give character
to the great West. Church and school went together. Christ alone
is the Savior of the world, but Christ alone cannot save the
world. Zinzendorf called his society “The Mustard‐seed Society”
because it should remove mountains (_Mat. 17:20_). Hermann, Faith
and Morals, 91, 238—“It is not by means of things that pretend to
be imperishable that Christianity continues to live on; but by the
fact that there are always persons to be found who, by their
contact with the Bible traditions, become witnesses to the
personality of Jesus and follow him as their guide, and therefore
acquire sufficient courage to sacrifice themselves for others.”

3. The genesis of this organization.

(_a_) The church existed in germ before the day of Pentecost,—otherwise there would have been nothing to which those converted upon that day could have been “added” (Acts 2:47). Among the apostles, regenerate as they were, united to Christ by faith and in that faith baptized (Acts 19:4), under Christ’s instruction and engaged in common work for him, there were already the beginnings of organization. There was a treasurer of the body (John 13:29), and as a body they celebrated for the first time the Lord’s Supper (Mat. 26:26‐29). To all intents and purposes they constituted a church, although the church was not yet fully equipped for its work by the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2), and by the appointment of pastors and deacons. The church existed without officers, as in the first days succeeding Pentecost.

_Acts 2:47_—“_And the Lord added to them_ [marg.: ‘_together_’]
_day by day those that were being saved_”; _19:4_—“_And Paul said,
John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the
people that they should believe on him that should come after him,
that is, on Jesus_”; _John 13:29_—“_For some thought, because
Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we
have need of for the feast; or, that he should give something to
the poor_”; _Mat. 26:26‐29_—“_And as they were eating, Jesus took
bread ... and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat....
And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying,
Drink ye all of it_”; _Acts 2_—the Holy Spirit is poured out. It
is to be remembered that Christ himself is the embodied union
between God and man, the true temple of God’s indwelling. So soon
as the first believer joined himself to Christ, the church existed
in miniature and germ.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 55, quotes _Acts 2:41_—“_and
there were added,_” not to them, or to the church, but, as in
_Acts 5:14_, and _11:24_—“_to the Lord._” This, Dr. Gordon
declares, means not a mutual union of believers, but their divine
coüniting with Christ; not voluntary association of Christians,
but their sovereign incorporation into the Head, and this
incorporation effected by the Head, through the Holy Spirit. The
old proverb, “Tres faciunt ecclesiam,” is always true when one of
the three is Jesus (Dr. Deems). Cyprian was wrong when he said
that “he who has not the church for his mother, has not God for
his Father”; for this could not account for the conversion of the
first Christian, and it makes salvation dependent upon the church
rather than upon Christ. The Cambridge Platform, 1648, chapter 6,
makes officers essential, not to the being, but only to the well
being, of churches, and declares that elders and deacons are the
only ordinary officers; see Dexter, Congregationalism, 439.

Fish, Ecclesiology, 14‐11, by a striking analogy, distinguishes
three periods of the church’s life: (1) the pre‐natal period, in
which the church is not separated from Christ’s bodily presence;
(2) the period of childhood, in which the church is under
tutelage, preparing for an independent life; (3) the period of
maturity, in which the church, equipped with doctrines and
officers, is ready for self‐government. The three periods may be
likened to bud, blossom, and fruit. Before Christ’s death, the
church existed in bud only.

(_b_) That provision for these offices was made gradually as exigencies arose, is natural when we consider that the church immediately after Christ’s ascension was under the tutelage of inspired apostles, and was to be prepared, by a process of education, for independence and self‐ government. As doctrine was communicated gradually yet infallibly, through the oral and written teaching of the apostles, so we are warranted in believing that the church was gradually but infallibly guided to the adoption of Christ’s own plan of church organization and of Christian work. The same promise of the Spirit which renders the New Testament an unerring and sufficient rule of faith, renders it also an unerring and sufficient rule of practice, for the church in all places and times.

_John 16:12‐26_ is to be interpreted as a promise of gradual
leading by the Spirit into all the truth; _1 Cor. 14:37_—“_the
things which I write unto you ... they are the commandments of the
Lord._” An examination of Paul’s epistles in their chronological
order shows a progress in definiteness of teaching with regard to
church polity, as well as with regard to doctrine in general. In
this matter, as in other matters, apostolic instruction was given
as providential exigencies demanded it. In the earliest days of
the church, attention was paid to preaching rather than to
organization. Like Luther, Paul thought more of church order in
his later days than at the beginning of his work. Yet even in his
first epistle we find the germ which is afterwards continuously
developed. See:

(1) _1 Thess. 5:12, 13_ (A. D. 52)—“_But we beseech you, brethren,
to know them that labor among you, and are over you_
(προῖσταμένους) _in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them
exceeding highly in love for their work’s sake._”

(2) _1 Cor. 12:28_ (A. D. 57)—“_And God hath set some in the
church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then
miracles, then gifts of healings, helps_ [ἀντιλήψεις = gifts
needed by deacons], _governments_ [κυβερνήσεις = gifts needed by
pastors], _divers kinds of tongues_.”

(3) _Rom. 12:6‐8_ (A. D. 58)—“_And having gifts differing
according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let
us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; or ministry_
[διακονίαν], _let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that
teacheth, to his teaching; or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting:
he that giveth, let him do it with liberality; he that ruleth_ [ὁ
προῖσταμένος], _with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with
cheerfulness_.”

(4) _Phil. 1:1_ (A. D. 62)—“_Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus
Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi,
with the bishops_ [ἐπισκόποις, marg.: ‘_overseers_’] _and deacons_
[διακόνοις].”

(5) _Eph. 4:11_ (A. D. 63)—“_And he gave some to be apostles; and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers_ [ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους].”

(6) _1 Tim. 3:1, 2_ (A. D. 66)—“_If a man seeketh the office of a
bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop_ [τὸν ἐπίσκοπον]
_therefore must be without reproach_.” On this last passage,
Huther in Meyer’s Com. remarks: “Paul in the beginning looked at
the church in its unity,—only gradually does he make prominent its
leaders. We must not infer that the churches in earlier time were
without leadership, but only that in the later time circumstances
were such as to require him to lay emphasis upon the pastor’s
office and work.” See also Schaff, Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, 62‐75.

McGiffert, in his Apostolic Church, puts the dates of Paul’s
Epistles considerably earlier, as for example: _1 Thess._, circ.
48; _1 Cor._, c. 51, 52; _Rom._, 52, 53; _Phil._, 56‐58; _Eph._,
52, 53, or 56‐58; _1 Tim._, 56‐58. But even before the earliest
Epistles of Paul comes _James 5:14_—“_Is any among you sick? let
him call for the elders of the church_”—written about 48 A. D.,
and showing that within twenty years after the death of our Lord
there had grown up a very definite form of church organization.

On the question how far our Lord and his apostles, in the
organization of the church, availed themselves of the synagogue as
a model, see Neander, Planting and Training, 28‐34. The ministry
of the church is without doubt an outgrowth and adaptation of the
eldership of the synagogue. In the synagogue, there were elders
who gave themselves to the study and expounding of the Scriptures.
The synagogues held united prayer, and exercised discipline. They
were democratic in government, and independent of each other. It
has sometimes been said that election of officers by the
membership of the church came from the Greek ἐκκλησία, or popular
assembly. But Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
1:438, says of the elders of the synagogue that “their election
depended on the choice of the congregation.” Talmud, Berachob, 55
_a_: “No ruler is appointed over a congregation, unless the
congregation is consulted.”

(_c_) Any number of believers, therefore, may constitute themselves into a Christian church, by adopting for their rule of faith and practice Christ’s law as laid down in the New Testament, and by associating themselves together, in accordance with it, for his worship and service. It is important, where practicable, that a council of churches be previously called, to advise the brethren proposing this union as to the desirableness of constituting a new and distinct local body; and, if it be found desirable, to recognize them, after its formation, as being a church of Christ. But such action of a council, however valuable as affording ground for the fellowship of other churches, is not constitutive, but is simply declaratory; and, without such action, the body of believers alluded to, if formed after the N. T. example, may notwithstanding be a true church of Christ. Still further, a band of converts, among the heathen or providentially precluded from access to existing churches, might rightfully appoint one of their number to baptize the rest, and then might organize, _de novo_, a New Testament church.

The church at Antioch was apparently self‐created and self‐
directed. There is no evidence that any human authority, outside
of the converts there, was invoked to constitute or to organize
the church. As John Spillsbury put it about 1640: “Where there is
a beginning, some must be first.” The initiative lies in the
individual convert, and in his duty to obey the commands of
Christ. No body of Christians can excuse itself for disobedience
upon the plea that it has no officers. It can elect its own
officers. Councils have no authority to constitute churches. Their
work is simply that of recognizing the already existing
organization and of pledging the fellowship of the churches which
they represent. If God can of the stones raise up children unto
Abraham, he can also raise up pastors and teachers from within the
company of believers whom he has converted and saved.

Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:294, quotes from Luther, as follows: “If
a company of pious Christian laymen were captured and sent to a
desert place, and had not among them an ordained priest, and were
all agreed in the matter, and elected one and told him to baptize,
administer the Mass, absolve, and preach, such a one would be as
true a priest as if all the bishops and popes had ordained him.”
Dexter, Congregationalism, 51—“Luther came near discovering and
reproducing Congregationalism. Three things checked him: 1. he
undervalued polity as compared with doctrine; 2. he reacted from
Anabaptist fanaticisms; 3. he thought Providence indicated that
princes should lead and people should follow. So, while he and
Zwingle alike held the Bible to teach that all ecclesiastical
power inheres under Christ in the congregation of believers, the
matter ended in an organization of superintendents and
consistories, which gradually became fatally mixed up with the
state.”

III. Government of the Church.

1. Nature of this government in general.

It is evident from the direct relation of each member of the church, and so of the church as a whole, to Christ as sovereign and lawgiver, that the government of the church, so far as regards the source of authority, is an absolute monarchy.

In ascertaining the will of Christ, however, and in applying his commands to providential exigencies, the Holy Spirit enlightens one member through the counsel of another, and as the result of combined deliberation, guides the whole body to right conclusions. This work of the Spirit is the foundation of the Scripture injunctions to unity. This unity, since it is a unity of the Spirit, is not an enforced, but an intelligent and willing, unity. While Christ is sole king, therefore, the government of the church, so far as regards the interpretation and execution of his will by the body, is an absolute democracy, in which the whole body of members is intrusted with the duty and responsibility of carrying out the laws of Christ as expressed in his word.

The seceders from the established church of Scotland, on the
memorable 18th of May, 1843, embodied in their protest the
following words: We go out “from an establishment which we loved
and prized, through interference with conscience, the dishonor
done to Christ’s crown, and the rejection of his sole and supreme
authority as King in his church.” The church should be rightly
ordered, since it is the representative and guardian of God’s
truth—its “_pillar and ground_” (_1 Tim. 3:15_)—the Holy Spirit
working in and through it.

But it is this very relation of the church to Christ and his truth
which renders it needful to insist upon the right of each member
of the church to his private judgment as to the meaning of
Scripture; in other words, absolute monarchy, in this case,
requires for its complement an absolute democracy. President
Wayland: “No individual Christian or number of individual
Christians, no individual church or number of individual churches,
has original authority, or has power over the whole. None can add
to or subtract from the laws of Christ, or interfere with his
direct and absolute sovereignty over the hearts and lives of his
subjects.” Each member, as equal to every other, has right to a
voice in the decisions of the whole body; and no action of the
majority can bind him against his conviction of duty to Christ.

John Cotton of Massachusetts Bay, 1643, Questions and Answers:
“The royal government of the churches is in Christ, the stewardly
or ministerial in the churches themselves.” Cambridge Platform,
1648, 10th chapter—“So far as Christ is concerned, church
government is a monarchy; so far as the brotherhood of the church
is concerned, it resembles a democracy.” Unfortunately the
Platform goes further and declares that, in respect of the
Presbytery and the Elders’ power, it is also an aristocracy.

Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill, who held diverse views in
philosophy, were once engaged in controversy. While the discussion
was running through the press, Mr. Spencer, forced by lack of
funds, announced that he would be obliged to discontinue the
publication of his promised books on science and philosophy. Mr.
Mill wrote him at once, saying that, while he could not agree with
him in some things, he realized that Mr. Spencer’s investigations
on the whole made for the advance of truth, and so he himself
would be glad to bear the expense of the remaining volumes. Here
in the philosophical world is an example which may well be taken
to heart by theologians. All Christians indeed are bound to
respect in others the right of private judgment while stedfastly
adhering themselves to the truth as Christ has made it known to
them.

Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, dug for each neophyte a
grave, and buried him all but the head, asking him: “Art thou
dead?” When he said: “Yes!” the General added: “Rise then, and
begin to serve, for I want only dead men to serve me.” Jesus, on
the other hand, wants only living men to serve him, for he gives
life and gives it abundantly (_John 10:10_). The Salvation Army,
in like manner, violates the principle of sole allegiance to
Christ, and like the Jesuits puts the individual conscience and
will under bonds to a human master. Good intentions may at first
prevent evil results; but, since no man can be trusted with
absolute power, the ultimate consequence, as in the case of the
Jesuits, will be the enslavement of the subordinate members. Such
autocracy does not find congenial soil in America,—hence the
rebellion of Mr. and Mrs. Ballington Booth.

A. Proof that the government of the church is democratic or congregational.

(_a_) From the duty of the whole church to preserve unity in its action.

_Rom. 12:16_—“_Be of the same mind one toward another_”; _1 Cor.
1:10_—“_Now I beseech you ... that ye all speak the same thing,
and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected
together in the same mind and in the same judgment_”; _2 Cor.
13:11_—“_be of the same mind_”; _Eph. 4:3_—“_giving diligence to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace_”; _Phil.
1:27_—“_that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one soul striving
for the faith of the gospel_”; _1 Pet. 3:8_—“_be ye all
likeminded._”

These exhortations to unity are not mere counsels to passive
submission, such as might be given under a hierarchy, or to the
members of a society of Jesuits; they are counsels to coöperation
and to harmonious judgment. Each member, while forming his own
opinions under the guidance of the Spirit, is to remember that the
other members have the Spirit also, and that a final conclusion as
to the will of God is to be reached only through comparison of
views. The exhortation to unity is therefore an exhortation to be
open‐minded, docile, ready to subject our opinions to discussion,
to welcome new light with regard to them, and to give up any
opinion when we find it to be in the wrong. The church is in
general to secure unanimity by moral suasion only; though, in case
of wilful and perverse opposition to its decisions, it may be
necessary to secure unity by excluding an obstructive member, for
schism.

A quiet and peaceful unity is the result of the Holy Spirit’s work
in the hearts of Christians. New Testament church government
proceeds upon the supposition that Christ dwells in all believers.
Baptist polity is the best possible polity for good people. Christ
has made no provision for an unregenerate church‐membership, and
for Satanic possession of Christians. It is best that a church in
which Christ does not dwell should by dissension reveal its
weakness, and fall to pieces; and any outward organization that
conceals inward disintegration, and compels a merely formal union
after the Holy Spirit has departed, is a hindrance instead of a
help to true religion.

Congregationalism is not a strong government to look at. Neither
is the solar system. Its enemies call it a rope of sand. It is
rather a rope of iron filings held together by a magnetic current.
Wordsworth: “Mightier far Than strength of nerve or sinew, or the
sway Of magic portent over sun and star, Is love.” President
Wayland: “We do not need any hoops of iron or steel to hold us
together.” At high tide all the little pools along the sea shore
are fused together. The unity produced by the inflowing of the
Spirit of Christ is better than any mere external unity, whether
of organization or of creed, whether of Romanism or of
Protestantism. The times of the greatest external unity, as under
Hildebrand, were times of the church’s deepest moral corruption. A
revival of religion is a better cure for church quarrels than any
change in church organization could effect. In the early church,
though there was no common government, unity was promoted by
active intercourse. Hospitality, regular delegates, itinerant
apostles and prophets, apostolic and other epistles, still later
the gospels, persecution, and even heresy, promoted unity—heresy
compelling the exclusion of the unworthy and factious elements in
the Christian community.

Dr. F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia: “Not a word in the
Epistle to the Ephesians exhibits the one _ecclesia_ as made up of
many _ecclesiæ_.... The members which make up the one _ecclesia_
are not communities, but individual men.... The unity of the
universal _ecclesia_ ... is a truth of theology and religion, not
a fact of what we call ecclesiastical politics.... The _ecclesia_
itself, _i. e._, the sum of all its male members, is the primary
body, and, it would seem, even the primary authority.... Of
officers higher than elders we find nothing that points to an
institution or system, nothing like the Episcopal system of later
times.... The monarchical principle receives practical though
limited recognition in the position ultimately held by St. James
at Jerusalem, and in the temporary functions entrusted by St. Paul
to Timothy and Titus.” On this last statement Bartlett, in
Contemp. Rev., July, 1897, says that James held an unique position
as brother of our Lord, while Paul left the communities organized
by Timothy and Titus to govern themselves, when once their
organization was set agoing. There was no permanent diocesan
episcopate, in which one man presided over many churches. The
_ecclesiæ_ had for their officers only bishops and deacons.

Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare
majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a
large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What
indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and
opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite
plan, so that the whole church moves together. The large church
has the advantage over the small church in that the single
crotchety member cannot do so much harm. One man in a small boat
can easily upset it, but not so in the great ship. Patient
waiting, persuasion, and prayer, will ordinarily win over the
recalcitrant. It is not to be denied, however, that patience may
have its limits, and that unity may sometimes need to be purchased
by secession and the forming of a new local church whose members
can work harmoniously together.

(_b_) From the responsibility of the whole church for maintaining pure doctrine and practice.

_1 Tim. 3:15_—“_the church of the living God, the pillar and
ground of the truth_”; _Jude 3_—“_exhorting you to contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the
saints_”; _Rev. 2_ and _3_—exhortations to the seven churches of
Asia to maintain pure doctrine and practice. In all these
passages, pastoral charges are given, not by a so‐called bishop to
his subordinate priests, but by an apostle to the whole church and
to all its members.

In _1 Tim. 3:15_, Dr. Hort would translate “_a pillar and ground
of the truth_”—apparently referring to the local church as one of
many. _Eph. 3:18_—“_strong to apprehend with all saints what is
the breadth and length and height and depth._” Edith Wharton,
Vesalius in Zante, in N. A. Rev., Nov. 1892—“Truth is many‐
tongued. What one man failed to speak, another finds Another word
for. May not all converge, In some vast utterance of which you and
I, Fallopius, were but the halting syllables?” Bruce, Training of
the Twelve, shows that the Twelve probably knew the whole O. T. by
heart. Pandita Ramabai, at Oxford, when visiting Max Müller,
recited from the Rig Veda _passim_, and showed that she knew more
of it by heart than the whole contents of the O. T.

(_c_) From the committing of the ordinances to the charge of the whole church to observe and guard. As the church expresses truth in her teaching, so she is to express it in symbol through the ordinances.

_Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them ... teaching them_”; _cf._ _Luke
24:33_—“_And they rose up that very hour ... found the eleven
gathered together, and them that were with __ them_”; _Acts
1:15_—“_And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the
brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered
together, about a hundred and twenty)_”; _1 Cor. 15:6_—“_then he
appeared to above five hundred brethren at once_”—these passages
show that it was not to the eleven apostles alone that Jesus
committed the ordinances.

_1 Cor. 11:2_—“_Now I praise you that ye remember me in all
things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to
you_”; _cf._ _23, 24_—“_for I received of the Lord that which also
I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he
was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake
it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in
remembrance of me_”—here Paul commits the Lord’s Supper into the
charge, not of the body of officials, but of the whole church.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, therefore, are not to be
administered at the discretion of the individual minister. He is
simply the organ of the church; and pocket baptismal and communion
services are without warrant. See Curtis, Progress of Baptist
Principles, 299; Robinson, Harmony of Gospels, notes, § 170.

(_d_) From the election by the whole church, of its own officers and delegates. In Acts 14:23, the literal interpretation of χειροτονήσαντες is not to be pressed. In Titus 1:5, “when Paul empowers Titus to set presiding officers over the communities, this circumstance decides nothing as to the mode of choice, nor is a choice by the community itself thereby necessarily excluded.”

_Acts 1:23, 26_—“_And they put forward two ... and they gave lots
for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with
the eleven apostles_”; _6:3, 5_—“_Look ye out therefore, brethren,
from among you seven men of good report ... And the saying pleased
the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, ... and Philip, and
Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus_”—as
deacons; _Acts 13:2, 3_—“_And as they ministered to the Lord, and
fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for
the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they had fasted
and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away._”

On this passage, see Meyer’s comment: “ ‘_Ministered_’ here
expresses the act of celebrating divine service on the part of the
whole church. To refer αὐτῶν to the ‘_prophets and teachers_’ is
forbidden by the ἀφορίσατε—and by _verse 3_. This interpretation
would confine this most important mission‐act to five persons, of
whom two were the missionaries sent; and the church would have had
no part in it, even through its presbyters. This agrees, neither
with the common possession of the Spirit in the apostolic church,
nor with the concrete cases of the choice of an apostle (_ch. 1_)
and of deacons (_ch. 6_). Compare _14:27_, where the returned
missionaries report to the church. The imposition of hands (_verse
3_) is by the presbyters, as representatives of the whole church.
The subject in _verses 2_ and _3_ is ‘_the church_’—(represented
by the presbyters in this case). The church sends the missionaries
to the heathen, and consecrates them through its elders.”

_Acts 15:2, 4, 22, 30_—“_the brethren appointed that Paul and
Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem....
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the
church and the apostles and the elders.... Then it seemed good to
the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men
out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and
Barnabas.... So they ... came down to Antioch; and having gathered
the multitude together, they delivered the epistle_”; _2 Cor.
8:19_—“_who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us
in the matter of this grace_”—the contribution for the poor in
Jerusalem; _Acts 14:23_—“_And when they had appointed_
(χειροτονήσαντες) _for them elders in every church_”—the apostles
announced the election of the church, as a College President
confers degrees, _i. e._, by announcing degrees conferred by the
Board of Trustees. To this same effect witnesses the newly
discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, chapter 15: “Appoint
therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons.”

The derivation of χειροτονήσαντες, holding up of hands, as in a
popular vote, is not to be pressed, any more than is the
derivation of ἐκκλησία from καλέω. The former had come to mean
simply “to appoint,” without reference to the manner of
appointment, as the latter had come to mean an “assembly,” without
reference to the calling of its members by God. That the church at
Antioch “_separated_” Paul and Barnabas, and that this was not
done simply by the five persons mentioned, is shown by the fact
that, when Paul and Barnabas returned from the missionary journey,
they reported not to these five, but to the whole church. So when
the church at Antioch sent delegates to Jerusalem, the letter of
the Jerusalem church is thus addressed: “_The apostles and the
elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in
Antioch and Syria and Cilicia_” (_Acts 15:23_). The Twelve had
only spiritual authority. They could advise, but they did not
command. Hence they could not transmit government, since they had
it not. They could demand obedience, only as they convinced their
hearers that their word was truth. It was not they who commanded,
but their Master.

Hackett, Com. on Acts—“χειροτονησαντες is not to be pressed, since
Paul and Barnabas constitute the persons ordaining. It may
possibly indicate a concurrent appointment, in accordance with the
usual practice of universal suffrage; but the burden of proof lies
on those who would so modify the meaning of the verb. The word is
frequently used in the sense of choosing, appointing, with
reference to the formality of raising the hand.” _Per contra_, see
Meyer, _in loco_: “The church officers were elective. As appears
from analogy of _6:2‐6_ (election of deacons), the word
χειροτονήσαντες retains its etymological sense, and does not mean
‘constituted’ or ‘created.’ Their choice was a recognition of a
gift already bestowed,—not the ground of the office and source of
authority, but merely the means by which the gift becomes [known,
recognized, and] an actual office in the church.”

Baumgarten, Apostolic History, 1:456—“They—the two apostles—allow
presbyters to be chosen for the community by voting.” Alexander,
Com. on Acts—“The method of election here, as the expression
χειροτονήσαντες indicates, was the same as that in _Acts 6:5, 6_,
where the people chose the seven, and the twelve ordained them.”
Barnes, Com. on Acts: “The apostles presided in the assembly where
the choice was made,—appointed them in the usual way by the
suffrage of the people.” Dexter, Congregationalism,
138—“ ‘_Ordained_’ means here ‘prompted and secured the election’
of elders in every church.” So in _Titus 1:5_—“_appoint elders in
every city._” Compare the Latin: “dictator consules creavit” =
prompted and secured the election of consuls by the people. See
Neander, Church History, 1:189; Guericke, Church History, 1:110;
Meyer, on _Acts 13:2_.

The Watchman, Nov. 7, 1901—“The root‐difficulty with many schemes
of statecraft is to be found in deep‐seated distrust of the
capacities and possibilities of men. Wendell Phillips once said
that nothing so impressed him with the power of the gospel to
solve our problems as the sight of a prince and a peasant kneeling
side by side in a European Cathedral.” Dr. W. R. Huntington makes
the strong points of Congregationalism to be: 1. a lofty estimate
of the value of trained intelligence in the Christian ministry; 2.
a clear recognition of the duty of every lay member of a church to
take an active interest in its affairs, temporal as well as
spiritual. He regards the weaknesses of Congregationalism to be:
1. a certain incapacity for expansion beyond the territorial
limits within which it is indigenous; 2. an undervaluation of the
mystical or sacramental, as contrasted with the doctrinal and
practical sides of religion. He argues for the object‐symbolism as
well as the verbal‐symbolism of the real presence and grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Dread of idolatry, he thinks, should not make
us indifferent to the value of sacraments. Baptists, we reply, may
fairly claim that they escape both of these charges against
ordinary Congregationalism, in that they have shown unlimited
capacity of expansion, and in that they make very much of the
symbolism of the ordinances.

(_e_) From the power of the whole church to exercise discipline. Passages which show the right of the whole body to exclude, show also the right of the whole body to admit, members.

_Mat. 18:17_—“_And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the
church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto
thee as the Gentile and the publican. Verily I say unto you, What
things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven_”—words often inscribed over Roman Catholic confessionals,
but improperly, since they refer not to the decisions of a single
priest, but to the decisions of the whole body of believers guided
by the Holy Spirit. In _Mat. 18:17_, quoted above, we see that the
church has authority, that it is bound to take cognizance of
offences, and that its action is final. If there had been in the
mind of our Lord any other than a democratic form of government,
he would have referred the aggrieved party to pastor, priest, or
presbytery, and, in case of a wrong decision by the church, would
have mentioned some synod or assembly to which the aggrieved
person might appeal. But he throws all the responsibility upon the
whole body of believers. _Cf._ _Num. 15:35_—“_all the congregation
shall stone him with stones_”—the man who gathered sticks on the
Sabbath day. Every Israelite was to have part in the execution of
the penalty.

_1 Cor. 5:4, 5, 13_—“_ye being gathered together ... to deliver
such a one unto Satan.... Put away the wicked man from among
yourselves_”; _2 Cor. 2:6, 7_—“_Sufficient to such a one is this
punishment which was inflicted by the many; so that contrariwise
ye should rather forgive him and comfort him_”; _7:11_—“_For
behold, this selfsame thing ... what earnest care it wrought in
you, yea, what clearing of yourselves.... In every thing ye
approved yourselves to be pure in the matter_”; _2 Thess. 3:6, 14,
15_—“_withdraw yourselves from every brother that __ walketh
disorderly ... if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,
note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that
he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish
him as a brother._” The evils in the church at Corinth were such
as could exist only in a democratic body, and Paul does not enjoin
upon the church a change of government, but a change of heart.
Paul does not himself excommunicate the incestuous man, but he
urges the church to excommunicate him.

The educational influence upon the whole church of this election
of pastors and deacons, choosing of delegates, admission and
exclusion of members, management of church finance and general
conduct of business, carrying on of missionary operations and
raising of contributions, together with responsibility for correct
doctrine and practice, cannot be overestimated. The whole body can
know those who apply for admission, better than pastors or elders
can. To put the whole government of the church into the hands of a
few is to deprive the membership of one great means of Christian
training and progress. Hence the pastor’s duty is to develop the
self‐government of the church. The missionary should not command,
but advise. That minister is most successful who gets the whole
body to move, and who renders the church independent of himself.
The test of his work is not while he is with them, but after he
leaves them. Then it can be seen whether he has taught them to
follow him, or to follow Christ; whether he has led them to the
formation of habits of independent Christian activity, or whether
he has made them passively dependent upon himself.

It should be the ambition of the pastor not “to run the church,”
but to teach the church intelligently and Scripturally to manage
its own affairs. The word “minister” means, not master, but
servant. The true pastor inspires, but he does not drive. He is
like the trusty mountain guide, who carries a load thrice as heavy
as that of the man he serves, who leads in safe paths and points
out dangers, but who neither shouts nor compels obedience. The
individual Christian should be taught: 1. to realize the privilege
of church membership; 2. to fit himself to use his privilege; 3.
to exercise his rights as a church member; 4. to glory in the New
Testament system of church government, and to defend and propagate
it.

A Christian pastor can either rule, or he can have the reputation
of ruling; but he can not do both. Real ruling involves a sinking
of self, a working through others, a doing of nothing that some
one else can be got to do. The reputation of ruling leads sooner
or later to the loss of real influence, and to the decline of the
activities of the church itself. See Coleman, Manual of Prelacy
and Ritualism, 87‐125; and on the advantages of Congregationalism
over every other form of church‐polity, see Dexter,
Congregationalism, 236‐296. Dexter, 290, note, quotes from
Belcher’s Religious Denominations of the U. S., 184, as follows:
“Jefferson said that he considered Baptist church government the
only form of pure democracy which then existed in the world, and
had concluded that it would be the best plan of government for the
American Colonies. This was eight or ten years before the American
Revolution.” On Baptist democracy, see Thomas Armitage, in N.
Amer. Rev., March, 1887:232‐243.

John Fiske, Beginnings of New England: “In a church based upon
such a theology [that of Calvin], there was no room for prelacy.
Each single church tended to become an independent congregation of
worshipers, constituting one of the most effective schools that
has ever existed for training men in local self‐government.”
Schurman, Agnosticism, 160—“The Baptists, who are nominally
Calvinists, are now, as they were at the beginning of the century,
second in numerical rank [in America]; but their fundamental
principle—the Bible, the Bible only—taken in connection with their
polity, has enabled them silently to drop the old theology and
unconsciously to adjust themselves to the new spiritual
environment.” We prefer to say that Baptists have not dropped the
old theology, but have given it new interpretation and
application; see A. H. Strong, Our Denominational Outlook, Sermon
in Cleveland, 1904.

B. Erroneous views as to church government refuted by the foregoing passages.

(_a_) The world‐church theory, or the Romanist view.—This holds that all local churches are subject to the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter and the infallible vicegerent of Christ, and, as thus united, constitute the one and only church of Christ on earth. We reply:

First,—Christ gave no such supreme authority to Peter. Mat. 16:18, 19, simply refers to the personal position of Peter as first confessor of Christ and preacher of his name to Jews and Gentiles. Hence other apostles also constituted the foundation (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). On one occasion, the counsel of James was regarded as of equal weight with that of Peter (Acts 15:7‐30), while on another occasion Peter was rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2:11), and Peter calls himself only a fellow‐elder (1 Pet. 5:1).

_Mat. 16:18, 19_—“_And I also say unto thee, that 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 shall loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven._” Peter exercised this power of the
keys for both Jews and Gentiles, by being the first to preach
Christ to them, and so admit them to the kingdom of heaven. The
“_rock_” is a confessing heart. The confession of Christ makes
Peter a rock upon which the church can be built. Plumptre on
Epistles of Peter, Introd., 14—“He was a stone—one with that rock
with which he was now joined by an indissoluble union.” But others
come to be associated with him: _Eph. 2:20_—“_built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself
being the chief corner stone_”; _Rev. 21:14_—“_And the wall of the
city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the
twelve apostles of the Lamb._” _Acts 15:7‐30_—the Council of
Jerusalem. _Gal. 2:11_—“_But when Cephas came to Antioch, I
resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned_”; _1 Pet.
5:1_—“_The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow‐
elder._”

Here it should be remembered that three things were necessary to
constitute an apostle: (1) he must have seen Christ after his
resurrection, so as to be a witness to the fact that Christ had
risen from the dead; (2) he must be a worker of miracles, to
certify that he was Christ’s messenger; (3) he must be an inspired
teacher of Christ’s truth, so that his final utterances are the
very word of God. In _Rom. 16:7_—“_Salute Andronicus and Junias,
my kinsmen, and my fellow‐prisoners, who are of note among the
apostles_” means simply: “who are highly esteemed among, or by,
the apostles.” Barnabas is called an apostle, in the etymological
sense of a messenger: _Acts 13:2, 3_—“_Separate me Barnabas and
Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they
had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them
away_”; _Heb. 3:1_—“_consider the Apostle and High Priest of our
confession, even Jesus._” In this latter sense, the number of the
apostles was not limited to twelve.