Chapter I: The Constitution Of The Church. Or Church Polity (4)

Hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, not by their
ecclesiastical superiors, as High Church doctrine would require,
but by their equals or inferiors, as simple representatives of the
church. Ordination was nothing more than the recognition of a
divine appointment and the commending to God’s care and blessing
of those so appointed. The council of ordination is only the
church advised by its brethren, or a committee with power, to act
for the church after deliberation.

The council of ordination is not to be composed simply of
ministers who have been themselves ordained. As the whole church
is to preserve the ordinances and to maintain sound doctrine, and
as the unordained church member is often a more sagacious judge of
a candidate’s Christian experience than his own pastor would be,
there seems no warrant, either in Scripture or in reason, for the
exclusion of lay delegates from ordaining councils. It was not
merely the apostles and elders, but the whole church at Jerusalem,
that passed upon the matters submitted to them at the council, and
others than ministers appear to have been delegates. The theory
that only ministers can ordain has in it the beginnings of a
hierarchy. To make the ministry a close corporation is to
recognize the principle of apostolic succession, to deny the
validity of all our past ordinations, and to sell to an
ecclesiastical caste the liberties of the church of God. Very
great importance attaches to decorum and settled usage in matters
of ordination. To secure these, the following suggestions are made
with regard to

I. PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS to be attended to by the candidate: 1.
His letter of dismission should be received and acted upon by the
church before the Council convenes. Since the church has no
jurisdiction outside of its own membership, the candidate should
be a member of the church which proposes to ordain him. 2. The
church should vote to call the Council. 3. It should invite all
the churches of its Association. 4. It should send printed
invitations, asking written responses. 5. Should have printed
copies of an Order of Procedure, subject to adoption by the
Council. 6. The candidate may select one or two persons to
officiate at the public service, subject to approval of the
Council. 7. The clerk of the church should be instructed to be
present with the records of the church and the minutes of the
Association, so that he may call to order and ask responses from
delegates. 8. Ushers should be appointed to ensure reserved seats
for the Council. 9. Another room should be provided for the
private session of the Council. 10. The choir should be instructed
that one anthem, one hymn, and one doxology will suffice for the
public service. 11. Entertainment of the delegates should be
provided for. 12. A member of the church should be chosen to
present the candidate to the Council. 13. The church should be
urged on the previous Sunday to attend the examination of the
candidate as well as the public service.

II. THE CANDIDATE AT THE COUNCIL: 1. His demeanor should be that
of an applicant. Since he asks the favorable judgment of his
brethren, a modest bearing and great patience in answering their
questions, are becoming to his position. 2. Let him stand during
his narration, and during questions, unless for reasons of ill
health or fatigue he is specially excused. 3. It will be well to
divide his narration into 15 minutes for his Christian experience,
10 minutes for his call to the ministry, and 35 minutes for his
views of doctrine. 4. A _viva voce_ statement of all these three
is greatly preferable to an elaborate written account. 5. In the
relation of his views of doctrine: (_a_) the more fully he states
them, the less need there will be for questioning; (_b_) his
statement should be positive, not negative—not what he does not
believe, but what he _does_ believe; (_c_) he is not required to
tell the _reasons_ for his belief, unless he is specially
questioned with regard to these; (_d_) he should elaborate the
later and practical, not the earlier and theoretical, portions of
his theological system; (_e_) he may well conclude each point of
his statement with a single text of Scripture proof.

III. THE DUTY OF THE COUNCIL: 1. It should not proceed to examine
the candidate until proper credentials have been presented. 2. It
should in every case give to the candidate a searching
examination, in order that this may not seem invidious in other
cases. 3. Its vote of approval should read: “We do now set apart,”
and “We will hold a public service expressive of this fact.” 4.
Strict decorum should be observed in every stage of the
proceedings, remembering that the Council is acting for Christ the
great head of the church and is transacting business for eternity.
5. The Council should do no other business than that for which the
church has summoned it, and when that business is done, the
Council should adjourn _sine die_.

It is always to be remembered, however, that the power to ordain rests with the church, and that the church may proceed without a Council, or even against the decision of the Council. Such ordination, of course, would give authority only within the bounds of the individual church. Where no immediate exception is taken to the decision of the Council, that decision is to be regarded as virtually the decision of the church by which it was called. The same rule applies to a Council’s decision to depose from the ministry. In the absence of immediate protest from the church, the decision of the Council is rightly taken as virtually the decision of the church.

In so far as ordination is an act performed by the local church with the advice and assistance of other rightly constituted churches, it is justly regarded as giving formal permission to exercise gifts and administer ordinances within the bounds of such churches. Ordination is not, therefore, to be repeated upon the transfer of the minister’s pastoral relation from one church to another. In every case, however, where a minister from a body of Christians not Scripturally constituted assumes the pastoral relation in a rightly organized church, there is peculiar propriety, not only in the examination, by a Council, of his Christian experience, call to the ministry, and views of doctrine, but also in that act of formal recognition and authorization which is called ordination.

The Council should be numerous and impartially constituted. The
church calling the Council should be represented in it by a fair
number of delegates. Neither the church, nor the Council, should
permit a prejudgment of the case by the previous announcement of
an ordination service. While the examination of the candidate
should be public, all danger that the Council be unduly influenced
by pressure from without should be obviated by its conducting its
deliberations, and arriving at its decision, in private session.
We subjoin the form of a letter missive, calling a Council of
ordination; an order of procedure after the Council has assembled;
and a programme of exercises for the public service.

LETTER MISSIVE.—The —— church of —— to the —— church of ——: _Dear
Brethren_: By vote of this church, you are requested to send your
pastor and two delegates to meet with us in accordance with the
following resolutions, passed by us on the —— ——, 19—: _Whereas_,
brother ——, a member of this church, has offered himself to the
work of the gospel ministry, and has been chosen by us as our
pastor, therefore, _Resolved_, 1. That such neighboring churches,
in fellowship with us, as shall be herein designated, be requested
to send their pastor and two delegates each, to meet and counsel
with this church, at — o’clock —. M., on ——, 19——, and if, after
examination, he be approved, that brother —— be set apart, by vote
of the Council, to the gospel ministry, and that a public service
be held, expressive of this fact. _Resolved_, 2. That the Council,
if it do so ordain, be requested to appoint two of its number to
act with the candidate, in arranging the public services.
_Resolved_, 3. That printed letters of invitation, embodying these
resolutions, and signed by the clerk of this church, be sent to
the following churches, —— —— —— —— ——, and that these churches be
requested to furnish to their delegates an officially signed
certificate of their appointment, to be presented at the
organization of the Council. _Resolved_, 4. That Rev. ——, and
brethren —— ——, be also invited by the clerk of the church to be
present as members of the Council. _Resolved_, 5. That brethren
——, ——, and ——, be appointed as our delegates, to represent this
church in the deliberations of the Council; and that brother —— be
requested to present the candidate to the Council, with an
expression of the high respect and warm attachment with which we
have welcomed him and his labors among us. In behalf of the
church, —— ——, Clerk. ——, 19—.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE.—1. Reading, by the clerk of the church, of the
letter‐missive, followed by a call, in their order, upon all
churches and individuals invited, to present responses and names
in writing; each delegate, as he presents his credentials, taking
his seat in a portion of the house reserved for the Council. 2.
Announcement, by the clerk of the church, that a Council has
convened, and call for the nomination of a moderator,—the motion
to be put by the clerk,—after which the moderator takes the chair.
3. Organization completed by election of a clerk of the Council,
the offering of prayer, and an invitation to visiting brethren to
sit with the Council, but not to vote. 4. Reading, on behalf of
the church, by its clerk, of the records of the church concerning
the call extended to the candidate, and his acceptance, together
with documentary evidence of his licensure, of his present church
membership, and of his standing in other respects, if coming from
another denomination. 5. Vote, by the Council, that the
proceedings of the church, and the standing of the candidate,
warrant an examination of his claim to ordination. 6. Introduction
of the candidate to the Council, by some representative of the
church, with an expression of the church’s feeling respecting him
and his labors. 7. Vote to hear his Christian experience.
Narration on the part of the candidate, followed by questions as
to any features of it still needing elucidation. 8. Vote to hear
the candidate’s reasons for believing himself called to the
ministry. Narration and questions. 9. Vote to hear the candidate’s
views of Christian doctrine. Narration and questions. 10. Vote to
conclude the public examination, and to withdraw for private
session. 11. In private session, after prayer, the Council
determines, by three separate votes, in order to secure separate
consideration of each question, whether it is satisfied with the
candidate’s Christian experience, call to the ministry, and views
of Christian doctrine. 12. Vote that the candidate be hereby set
apart to the gospel ministry, and that a public service be held,
expressive of this fact; that for this purpose, a committee of two
be appointed, to act with the candidate, in arranging such service
of ordination, and to report before adjournment. 13. Reading of
minutes, by clerk of Council, and correction of them, to prepare
for presentation at the ordination service, and for preservation
in the archives of the church. 14. Vote to give the candidate a
certificate of ordination, signed by the moderator and clerk of
the Council, and to publish an account of the proceedings in the
journals of the denomination. 15. Adjourn to meet at the service
of ordination.

PROGRAMME OF PUBLIC SERVICE (two hours in length).—1.
Voluntary—five minutes. 2. Anthem—five. 3. Reading minutes of the
Council, by the clerk of the Council—ten. 4. Prayer of
invocation—five. 5. Reading of Scripture—five. 6. Sermon—twenty‐
five. 7. Prayer of ordination, with laying‐on of hands—fifteen. 8.
Hymn—ten. 9. Right hand of fellowship—five. 10. Charge to the
candidate—fifteen. 11. Charge to the church—fifteen. 12.
Doxology—five. 13. Benediction by the newly ordained pastor.

The tenor of the N. T. would seem to indicate that deacons should
be ordained with prayer and the laying‐on of hands, though not by
council or public service. Evangelists, missionaries, ministers
serving as secretaries of benevolent societies, should also be
ordained, since they are organs of the church, set apart for
special religious work on behalf of the churches. The same rule
applies to those who are set to be teachers of the teachers, the
professors of theological seminaries. Philip, baptizing the
eunuch, is to be regarded as an organ of the church at Jerusalem.
Both home missionaries and foreign missionaries are evangelists;
and both, as organs of the home churches to which they belong, are
not under obligation to take letters of dismission to the churches
they gather. George Adam Smith, in his Life of Henry Drummond,
265, says that Drummond was ordained to his professorship by the
laying‐on of the hands of the Presbytery: “The rite is the same in
the case whether of a minister or of a professor, for the church
of Scotland recognizes no difference between her teachers and her
pastors, but lays them under the same vows, and ordains them all
as ministers of Christ’s gospel and of his sacraments.”

Rome teaches that ordination is a sacrament, and “once a priest,
always a priest,” but only when Rome confers the ordination. It is
going a great deal further than Rome to maintain the indelibility
of _all_ orders—at least, of all orders conferred by an
evangelical church. At Dover in England, a medical gentleman
declined to pay his doctor’s bill upon the ground that it was not
the custom of his calling to pay one another for their services.
It appeared however that he was a retired practitioner, and upon
that ground he lost his case. Ordination, like vaccination, may
run out. Retirement from the office of public teacher should work
a forfeiture of the official character. The authorization granted
by the Council was based upon a previous recognition of a divine
call. When by reason of permanent withdrawal from the ministry,
and devotion to wholly secular pursuits, there remains no longer
any divine call to be recognized, all authority and standing as a
Christian minister should cease also. We therefore repudiate the
doctrine of the “indelibility of sacred orders,” and the
corresponding maxim: “Once ordained, always ordained”; although we
do not, with the Cambridge Platform, confine the ministerial
function to the pastoral relation. That Platform held that “the
pastoral relation ceasing, the ministerial function ceases, and
the pastor becomes a layman again, to be restored to the ministry
only by a second ordination, called installation. This theory of
the ministry proved so inadequate, that it was held scarcely more
than a single generation. It was rejected by the Congregational
churches of England ten years after it was formulated in New
England.”

“The National Council of Congregational Churches, in 1880,
resolved that any man serving a church as minister can be dealt
with and disciplined by any church, no matter what his relations
may be in church membership, or ecclesiastical affiliations. If
the church choosing him will not call a council, then any church
can call one for that purpose”; see New Englander, July,
1883:461‐491. This latter course, however, presupposes that the
steps of fraternal labor and admonition, provided for in our next
section on the Relation of Local Churches to one another, have
been taken, and have been insufficient to induce proper action on
the part of the church to which such minister belongs.

The authority of a Presbyterian church is limited to the bounds of
its own denomination. It cannot ordain ministers for Baptist
churches, any more than it can ordain them for Methodist churches
or for Episcopal churches. When a Presbyterian minister becomes a
Baptist, his motives for making the change and the conformity of
his views to the New Testament standard need to be scrutinized by
Baptists, before they can admit him to their Christian and church
fellowship; in other words, he needs to be ordained by a Baptist
church. Ordination is no more a discourtesy to the other
denomination than Baptism is. Those who oppose reördination in
such cases virtually hold to the Romish view of the sacredness of
orders.

The Watchman, April 17, 1902—“The Christian ministry is not a
priestly class which the laity is bound to support. If the
minister cannot find a church ready to support him, there is
nothing to prevent his entering another calling. Only ten per
cent. of the men who start in independent business avoid failure,
and a much smaller proportion achieve substantial success. They
are not failures, for they do useful and valuable work. But they
do not secure the prizes. It is not wonderful that the proportion
of ministers securing prominent pulpits is small. Many men fail in
the ministry. There is no sacred character imparted by ordination.
They should go into some other avocation. ‘Once a minister, always
a minister’ is a piece of Popery that Protestant churches should
get rid of.” See essay on Councils of Ordination, their Powers and
Duties, by A. H. Strong, in Philosophy and Religion, 259‐268;
Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists, 114; Dexter,
Congregationalism, 136, 145, 146, 150, 151. _Per contra_, see
Fish, Ecclesiology, 365‐399; Presb. Rev., 1886:89‐126.

3. Discipline of the Church.

A. Kinds of discipline.—Discipline is of two sorts, according as offences are private or public. (_a_) Private offences are to be dealt with according to the rule in Mat. 5:23, 24; 18:15‐17.

_Mat. 5:23, 24_—“_If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the
altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against
thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first
be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy
gift_”—here is provision for self‐discipline on the part of each
offender; _18:15‐17_—“_And if thy brother sin against thee, go,
show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee,
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with
thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three
every word may be established. 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_”—here is, first,
private discipline, one of another; and then, only as a last
resort, discipline by the church. Westcott and Hort, however omit
the εἰς σέ—“_against thee_”—in _Mat. 18:15_, and so make each
Christian responsible for bringing to repentance every brother
whose sin he becomes cognizant of. This would abolish the
distinction between private and public offences.

When a brother wrongs me, I am not to speak of the offence to
others, nor to write to him a letter, but to go to him. If the
brother is already penitent, he will start from his house to see
me at the same time that I start from my house to see him, and we
will meet just half way between the two. There would be little
appeal to the church, and little cherishing of ancient grudges, if
Christ’s disciples would observe his simple rules. These rules
impose a duty upon both the offending and the offended party. When
a brother brings a personal matter before the church, he should
always be asked whether he has obeyed Christ’s command to labor
privately with the offender. If he has not, he should be bidden to
keep silence.

(_b_) Public offences are to be dealt with according to the rule in 1 Cor. 5:3‐5, 13, and 2 Thess. 3:6.

_1 Cor. 5:3‐5, 13_—“_For I verily, being absent in body but
present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged
him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of the Lord
Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power
of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
of the Lord Jesus.... Put away the wicked man from among
yourselves._”

Notice here that Paul gave the incestuous person no opportunity to
repent, confess, or avert sentence. The church can have no valid
evidence of repentance immediately upon discovery and arraignment.
At such a time the natural conscience always reacts in remorse and
self‐accusation, but whether the sin is hated because of its
inherent wickedness, or only because of its unfortunate
consequences, cannot be known at once. Only fruits meet for
repentance can prove repentance real. But such fruits take time,
And the church has no time to wait. Its good repute in the
community, and its influence over its own members, are at stake.
These therefore demand the instant exclusion of the wrong‐doer, as
evidence that the church clears its skirts from all complicity
with the wrong. In the case of gross public offences, labor with
the offender is to come, not before, but after, his
excommunication; _cf._ _2 Cor. 2:6‐8_—“_Sufficient to such a one
is this punishment which was inflicted by the many;... forgive him
and comfort him;... confirm your love toward him._”

The church is not a Mutual Insurance Company, whose object is to
protect and shield its individual members. It is a society whose
end is to represent Christ in the world, and to establish his
truth and righteousness. Christ commits his honor to its keeping.
The offender who is only anxious to escape judgment, and who
pleads to be forgiven without delay, often shows that he cares
nothing for the cause of Christ which he has injured, but that he
has at heart only his own selfish comfort and reputation. The
truly penitent man will rather beg the church to exclude him, in
order that it may free itself from the charge of harboring
iniquity. He will accept exclusion with humility, will love the
church that excludes him, will continue to attend its worship,
will in due time seek and receive restoration. There is always a
way back into the church for those who repent. But the Scriptural
method of ensuring repentance is the method of immediate
exclusion.

In _2 Cor. 2:6‐8_—“_inflicted by the many_” might at first sight
seem to imply that, although the offender was excommunicated, it
was only by a majority vote, some members of the church
dissenting. Some interpreters think he had not been excommunicated
at all, but that only ordinary association with him had ceased.
But, if Paul’s command in the first epistle to “_put away the
wicked man from among yourselves_” (_1 Cor. 5:13_) had been thus
disobeyed, the apostle would certainly have mentioned and rebuked
the disobedience. On the contrary he praises them that they had
done as he had advised. The action of the church at Corinth was
blessed by God to the quickening of conscience and the
purification of life. In many a modern church the exclusion of
unworthy members has in like manner given to Christians a new
sense of their responsibility, while at the same time it has
convinced worldly people that the church was in thorough earnest.
The decisions of the church, indeed, when guided by the Holy
Spirit, are nothing less than an anticipation of the judgments of
the last day; see _Mat. 18:18_—“_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._” In _John 8:7_, Jesus
recognizes the sin and urges repentance, while he challenges the
right of the mob to execute judgment, and does away with the
traditional stoning. His gracious treatment of the sinning woman
gave no hint as to the proper treatment of her case by the regular
synagogue authorities.

_2 Thess. 3:6_—“_Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother
that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they
received of us._” The mere “dropping” of names from the list of
members seems altogether contrary to the spirit of the N. T.
polity. That recognizes only three methods of exit from the local
church: (1) exclusion; (2) dismission; (3) death. To provide for
the case of members whose residence has long been unknown, it is
well for the church to have a standing rule that all members
residing at a distance shall report each year by letter or by
contribution, and, in case of failure to report for two successive
years, shall be subject to discipline. The action of the church,
in such cases, should take the form of an adoption of preamble and
resolution: “_Whereas_ A. B. has been absent from the church for
more than two years, and has failed to comply with the standing
rule requiring a yearly report or contribution, therefore,
_Resolved_, that the church withdraw from A. B. the hand of
fellowship.”

In _all_ cases of exclusion, the resolution may uniformly read as
above; the preamble may indefinitely vary, and should always cite
the exact nature of the offence. In this way, neglect of the
church or breach of covenant obligations may be distinguished from
offences against common morality, so that exclusion upon the
former ground shall not be mistaken for exclusion upon the latter.
As the persons excluded are not commonly present at the meeting of
the church when they are excluded, a written copy of the preamble
and resolution, signed by the Clerk of the Church, should always
be immediately sent to them.

B. Relation of the pastor to discipline.—(_a_) He has no original authority; (_b_) but is the organ of the church, and (_c_) superintendent of its labors for its own purification and for the reclamation of offenders; and therefore (_d_) may best do the work of discipline, not directly, by constituting himself a special policeman or detective, but indirectly, by securing proper labor on the part of the deacons or brethren of the church.

The pastor should regard himself as a judge, rather than as a
prosecuting attorney. He should press upon the officers of his
church their duty to investigate cases of immorality and to deal
with them. But if he himself makes charges, he loses dignity, and
puts it out of his power to help the offender. It is not well for
him to be, or to have the reputation of being, a ferreter‐out of
misdemeanors among his church members. It is best for him in
general to serve only as presiding officer in cases of discipline,
instead of being a partisan or a counsel for the prosecution. For
this reason it is well for him to secure the appointment by his
church of a Prudential Committee, or Committee on Discipline,
whose duty it shall be at a fixed time each year to look over the
list of members, initiate labor in the case of delinquents, and,
after the proper steps have been taken, present proper preambles
and resolutions in cases where the church needs to take action.
This regular yearly process renders discipline easy; whereas the
neglect of it for several successive years results in an
accumulation of cases, in each of which the person exposed to
discipline has friends, and these are tempted to obstruct the
church’s dealing with others from fear that the taking up of any
other case may lead to the taking up of that one in which they are
most nearly interested. The church which pays no regular attention
to its discipline is like the farmer who milked his cow only once
a year, in order to avoid too great a drain; or like the small boy
who did not see how any one could bear to comb his hair every
day,—he combed his own only once in six weeks, and then it nearly
killed him.

As the Prudential Committee, or Committee on Discipline, is simply
the church itself preparing its own business, the church may well
require all complaints to be made to it through the committee. In
this way it may be made certain that the preliminary steps of
labor have been taken, and the disquieting of the church by
premature charges may be avoided. Where the committee, after
proper representations made to it, fails to do its duty, the
individual member may appeal directly to the assembled church; and
the difference between the New Testament order and that of a
hierarchy is this, that according to the former all final action
and responsibility is taken by the church itself in its collective
capacity, whereas on the latter the minister, the session, or the
bishop, so far as the individual church is concerned, determines
the result. See Savage, Church Discipline, Formative and
Corrective; Dagg, Church Order, 268‐274. On church discipline in
cases of remarriage after divorce, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy
and Religion, 431‐442.

IV. Relation of Local Churches to one another.

1. The general nature of this relation is that of fellowship between equals.

Notice here:

(_a_) The absolute equality of the churches.—No church or council of churches, no association or convention or society, can relieve any single church of its direct responsibility to Christ, or assume control of its action.

(_b_) The fraternal fellowship and coöperation of the churches.—No church can properly ignore, or disregard, the existence or work of other churches around it. Every other church is presumptively possessed of the Spirit, in equal measure with itself. There must therefore be sympathy and mutual furtherance of each other’s welfare among churches, as among individual Christians. Upon this principle are based letters of dismission, recognition of the pastors of other churches, and all associational unions, or unions for common Christian work.

H. O. Rowlands, in Bap. Quar. Rev., Oct. 1891:669‐677, urges the
giving up of special Councils, and the turning of the Association
into a Permanent Council, not to take original cognizance of what
cases it pleases, but to consider and judge such questions as may
be referred to it by the individual churches. It could then revise
and rescind its action, whereas the present Council when once
adjourned can never be called together again. This method would
prevent the packing of a Council, and the Council when once
constituted would have greater influence. We feel slow to sanction
such a plan, not only for the reason that it seems destitute of
New Testament authority and example, but because it tends toward a
Presbyterian form of church government. All permanent bodies of
this sort gradually arrogate to themselves power; indirectly if
not directly they can assume original jurisdiction; their
decisions have altogether too great influence, if they go further
than personal persuasion. The independence of the individual
church is a primary element of polity which must not be sacrificed
or endangered for the mere sake of inter‐ecclesiastical harmony.
Permanent Councils of any sort are of doubtful validity. They need
to be kept under constant watch and criticism, lest they undermine
our Baptist church government, a fundamental principle of which is
that there is no authority on earth above that of the local
church.

2. This fellowship involves the duty of special consultation with regard to matters affecting the common interest.

(_a_) The duty of seeking advice.—Since the order and good repute of each is valuable to all the others, cases of grave importance and difficulty in internal discipline, as well as the question of ordaining members to the ministry, should be submitted to a council of churches called for the purpose.

(_b_) The duty of taking advice.—For the same reason, each church should show readiness to receive admonition from others. So long as this is in the nature of friendly reminder that the church is guilty of defects from the doctrine or practice enjoined by Christ, the mutual acceptance of whose commands is the basis of all church fellowship, no church can justly refuse to have such defects pointed out, or to consider the Scripturalness of its own proceeding. Such admonition or advice, however, whether coming from a single church or from a council of churches, is not itself of binding authority. It is simply in the nature of moral suasion. The church receiving it has still to compare it with Christ’s laws. The ultimate decision rests entirely with the church so advised or asking advice.

Churches should observe comity, and should not draw away one
another’s members. Ministers should bring churches together, and
should teach their members the larger unity of the whole church of
God. The pastor should not confine his interest to his own church
or even to his own Association. The State Convention, the
Education Society, the National Anniversaries, should all claim
his attention and that of his people. He should welcome new
laborers and helpers, instead of regarding the ministry as a close
corporation whose numbers are to be kept forever small. E. G.
Robinson: “The spirit of sectarianism is devilish. It raises the
church above Christ. Christ did not say: ‘Blessed is the man who
accepts the Westminster Confession or the Thirty‐Nine Articles.’
There is not the least shadow of churchism in Christ. Churchism is
a revamped and whitewashed Judaism. It keeps up the middle wall of
partition which Christ has broken down.”

Dr. P. H. Mell, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, calls
Church Councils “Committees of Help.” President James C. Welling
held that “We Baptists are not true to our democratic polity in
the conduct of our collective evangelical operations. In these
matters we are simply a bureaucracy, tempered by individual
munificence.” A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 149, 150,
remarks on _Mat. 18:19_—“_If two of you shall
agree_”—συμφωνήσωσιν, from which our word “symphony” comes: “If
two shall ‘accord,’ or ‘symphonize’ in what they ask, they have
the promise of being heard. But, as in tuning an organ, all the
notes must be keyed to the standard pitch, else harmony were
impossible, so in prayer. It is not enough that two disciples
agree with each other,—they must agree with a Third—the righteous
and holy Lord, before they can agree in intercession. There may be
agreement which is in most sinful conflict with the divine will:
‘_How is it that ye have agreed together_’—συνεφωνήθη—the same
word—‘_to try the Spirit of the Lord?_’ says Peter (_Acts 5:9_).
Here is mutual accord, but guilty discord with the Holy Spirit.”

3. This fellowship may be broken by manifest departures from the faith or practice of the Scriptures, on the part of any church.

In such case, duty to Christ requires the churches, whose labors to reclaim a sister church from error have proved unavailing, to withdraw their fellowship from it, until such time as the erring church shall return to the path of duty. In this regard, the law which applies to individuals applies to churches, and the polity of the New Testament is congregational rather than independent.

Independence is qualified by interdependence. While each church
is, in the last resort thrown upon its own responsibility in
ascertaining doctrine and duty, it is to acknowledge the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in other churches as well as in
itself, and the value of the public opinion of the churches as an
indication of the mind of the Spirit. The church in Antioch asked
advice of the church in Jerusalem, although Paul himself was at
Antioch. Although no church or union of churches has rightful
jurisdiction over the single local body, yet the Council, when
rightly called and constituted, has the power of moral influence.
Its decision is an index to truth, which only the gravest reasons
will justify the church in ignoring or refusing to follow.

Dexter, Congregationalism, 695—“Barrowism gave all power into the
hands of the elders, and it would have no Councils.
Congregationalism is Brownism. It has two foci: Independence and
Interdependence.” Charles S. Scott, on Baptist Polity and the
Pastorate, in Bap. Quar. Rev., July, 1890:291‐297—“The difference
between the polity of Baptist and of Congregational churches is in
the relative authority of the Ecclesiastical Council.
Congregationalism is Councilism. Not only the ordination and first
settlement of the minister must be with the advice and consent of
a Council, but every subsequent unsettlement and settlement.”
Baptist churches have regarded this dependence upon Councils after
the minister’s ordination as extreme and unwarranted.

The fact that the church has always the right, for just cause, of
going behind the decision of the Council, and of determining for
itself whether it will ratify or reject that decision, shows
conclusively that the church has parted with no particle of its
original independence or authority. Yet, though the Council is
simply a counsellor—an organ and helper of the church,—the neglect
of its advice may involve such ecclesiastical or moral wrong as to
justify the churches represented in it, as well as other churches,
in withdrawing, from the church that called it, their
denominational fellowship. The relation of churches to one another
is analogous to the relation of private Christians to one another.
No meddlesome spirit is to be allowed; but in matters of grave
moment, a church, as well as an individual, may be justified in
giving advice unasked.

Lightfoot, in his new edition of Clemens Romanus, shows that the
Epistle, instead of emanating from Clement as Bishop of Rome, is a
letter of the church at Rome to the Corinthians, urging them to
peace. No pope and no bishop existed, but the whole church
congregationally addressed its counsels to its sister body of
believers at Corinth. Congregationalism, in A. D. 95, considered
it a duty to labor with a sister church that had in its judgment
gone astray, or that was in danger of going astray. The only
primacy was the primacy of the church, not of the bishop; and this
primacy was a primacy of goodness, backed up by metropolitan
advantages. All this fraternal fellowship follows from the
fundamental conception of the local church as the concrete
embodiment of the universal church. Park: “Congregationalism
recognizes a voluntary coöperation and communion of the churches,
which Independency does not do. Independent churches ordain and
depose pastors without asking advice from other churches.”

In accordance with this general principle, in a case of serious
disagreement between different portions of the same church, the
council called to advise should be, if possible, a mutual, not an
_ex parte_, council; see Dexter, Congregationalism, 2, 3, 61‐64.
It is a more general application of the same principle, to say
that the pastor should not shut himself in to his own church, but
should cultivate friendly relations with other pastors and with
other churches, should be present and active at the meetings of
Associations and State Conventions, and at the Anniversaries of
the National Societies of the denomination. His example of
friendly interest in the welfare of others will affect his church.
The strong should be taught to help the weak, after the example of
Paul in raising contributions for the poor churches of Judea.

The principle of church independence is not only consistent with,
but it absolutely requires under Christ, all manner of Christian
coöperation with other churches; and Social and Mission Unions to
unify the work of the denomination, to secure the starting of new
enterprises, to prevent one church from trenching upon the
territory or appropriating the members of another, are only
natural outgrowths of the principle. President Wayland’s remark,
“He who is displeased with everybody and everything gives the best
evidence that his own temper is defective and that he is a bad
associate,” applies to churches as well as to individuals. Each
church is to remember that, though it is honored by the indwelling
of the Lord, it constitutes only a part of that great body of
which Christ is the head.

See Davidson, Eccl. Polity of the N. T.; Ladd, Principles of
Church Polity; and on the general subject of the Church, Hodge,
Essays, 201; Flint, Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, 53‐82; Hooker,
Ecclesiastical Polity; The Church,—a collection of essays by
Luthardt, Kahnis, _etc._; Hiscox, Baptist Church Directory;
Ripley, Church Polity; Harvey, The Church; Crowell, Church
Members’ Manual; R. W. Dale, Manual of Congregational Principles;
Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, excursus on the Christian
Ministry; Ross, The Church‐Kingdom—Lectures on Congregationalism;
Dexter, Congregationalism, 681‐716, as seen in its Literature;
Allison, Baptist Councils in America. For a denial that there is
any real apostolic authority for modern church polity, see O. J.
Thatcher, Sketch of the History of the Apostolic Church.