PART VII. ECCLESIOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.

Chapter I. The Constitution Of The Church. Or Church Polity.

I. Definition of the Church.

(_a_) The church of Christ, in its largest signification, is the whole

company of regenerate persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on

earth (Mat. 16:18; Eph. 1:22, 23; 3:10; 5:24, 25; Col. 1:18; Heb. 12:23).

In this sense, the church is identical with the spiritual kingdom of God;

both signify that redeemed humanity in which God in Christ exercises

actual spiritual dominion (John 3:3, 5).

_Mat. 16:18_—“_thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my

church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it_”;

_Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_and he put all things in subjection under his

feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which

is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all_”;

_3:10_—“_to the intent that now unto the principalities and the

powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the

church the manifold wisdom of God_”; _5:24, 25_—“_But as the

church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their

husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ

also loved the church, and gave himself up for it_”; _Col.

1:18_—“_And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the

beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he

might have the preeminence_”; _Heb. 12:23_—“_the general assembly

and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven_”; _John

3:3, 5_—“_Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of

God. ... Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot

enter into the kingdom of God._”

Cicero’s words apply here: “Una navis est jam bonorum omnium”—all

good men are in one boat. Cicero speaks of the state, but it is

still more true of the church invisible. Andrews, in Bib. Sac.,

Jan. 1883:14, mentions the following differences between the

church and kingdom, or, as we prefer to say, between the visible

church and the invisible church: (1) the church began with

Christ,—the kingdom began earlier; (2) the church is confined to

believers in the historic Christ,—the kingdom includes all God’s

children; (3) the church belongs wholly to this world—not so the

kingdom; (4) the church is visible,—not so the kingdom; (5) the

church has _quasi_ organic character, and leads out into local

churches,—this is not so with the kingdom. On the universal or

invisible church, see Cremer, Lexicon N. T., transl., 113, 114,

331; Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 12.

H. C. Vedder: “The church is a spiritual body, consisting only of

those regenerated by the Spirit of God.” Yet the Westminster

Confession affirms that the church “consists of all those

throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with

their children.” This definition includes in the church a

multitude who not only give no evidence of regeneration, but who

plainly show themselves to be unregenerate. In many lands it

practically identifies the church with the world. Augustine indeed

thought that “_the field_,” in _Mat. 13:38_, is the church,

whereas Jesus says very distinctly that it “_is the world_.”

Augustine held that good and bad alike were to be permitted to

dwell together in the church, without attempt to separate them;

see Broadus, Com. _in loco_. But the parable gives a reason, not

why we should not try to put the wicked out of the church, but why

God does not immediately put them out of the world, the tares

being separated from the wheat only at the final judgment of

mankind.

Yet the universal church includes all true believers. It fulfils

the promise of God to Abraham in _Gen. 15:5_—“_Look now toward

heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them: and

he said into him, So shall thy seed be_.” The church shall be

immortal, since it draws its life from Christ: _Is. 65:22_—“_as

the days of a tree shall be the days of my people_”; _Zech. 4:2,

3_—“_a candlestick all of gold ... and two olive‐trees by it_.”

Dean Stanley, Life and Letters, 2:242, 243—“A Spanish Roman

Catholic, Cervantes, said: ‘Many are the roads by which God

carries his own to heaven.’ Döllinger: ‘Theology must become a

science not, as heretofore, for making war, but for making peace,

and thus bringing about that reconciliation of churches for which

the whole civilized world is longing.’ In their loftiest moods of

inspiration, the Catholic Thomas à Kempis, the Puritan Milton, the

Anglican Keble, rose above their peculiar tenets, and above the

limits that divide denominations, into the higher regions of a

common Christianity. It was the Baptist Bunyan who taught the

world that there was ‘a common ground of communion which no

difference of external rites could efface.’ It was the Moravian

Gambold who wrote: ‘The man That could surround the sum of things,

and spy The heart of God and secrets of his empire, Would speak

but love. With love, the bright result Would change the hue of

intermediate things, And make one thing of all theology.’ ”

(_b_) The church, in this large sense, is nothing less than the body of

Christ—the organism to which he gives spiritual life, and through which he

manifests the fulness of his power and grace. The church therefore cannot

be defined in merely human terms, as an aggregate of individuals

associated for social, benevolent, or even spiritual purposes. There is a

transcendent element in the church. It is the great company of persons

whom Christ has saved, in whom he dwells, to whom and through whom he

reveals God (Eph. 1:22, 23).

_Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_the church, which is his body, the fulness of

him that filleth all in all._” He who is the life of nature and of

humanity reveals himself most fully in the great company of those

who have joined themselves to him by faith. Union with Christ is

the presupposition of the church. This alone transforms the sinner

into a Christian, and this alone makes possible that vital and

spiritual fellowship between individuals which constitutes the

organizing principle of the church. The same divine life which

ensures the pardon and the perseverance of the believer unites him

to all other believers. The indwelling Christ makes the church

superior to and more permanent than all humanitarian

organizations; they die, but because Christ lives, the church

lives also. Without a proper conception of this sublime relation

of the church to Christ, we cannot properly appreciate our dignity

as church members, or our high calling as shepherds of the flock.

Not “ubi ecclesia, ibi Christus,” but “ubi Christus, ibi

ecclesia,” should be our motto. Because Christ is omnipresent and

omnipotent, “_the same yesterday, and to‐day, yea and forever_”

(_Heb. 13:8_), what Burke said of the nation is true of the

church: It is “indeed a partnership, but a partnership not only

between those who are living, but between those who are living,

those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born.”

McGiffert, Apostolic Church, 501—“Paul’s conception of the church

as the body of Christ was first emphasized and developed by

Ignatius. He reproduces in his writings the substance of all the

Paulinism that the church at large made permanently its own: the

preëxistence and deity of Christ, the union of the believer with

Christ without which the Christian life is impossible, the

importance of Christ’s death, the church the body of Christ. Rome

never fully recognized Paul’s teachings, but her system rests upon

his doctrine of the church the body of Christ. The modern doctrine

however makes the kingdom to be not spiritual or future, but a

reality of this world.” The redemption of the body, the redemption

of institutions, the redemption of nations, are indeed all

purposed by Christ. Christians should not only strive to rescue

individual men from the slough of vice, but they should devise

measures for draining that slough and making that vice impossible;

in other words, they should labor for the coming of the kingdom of

God in society. But this is not to identify the church with

politics, prohibition, libraries, athletics. The spiritual

fellowship is to be the fountain from which all these activities

spring, while at the same time Christ’s “_kingdom is not of this

world_” (_John 18:36_).

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 24, 25, 207—“As Christ is

the temple of God, so the church is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

As God could be seen only through Christ, so the Holy Spirit can

be seen only through the church. As Christ was the image of the

invisible God, so the church is appointed to be the image of the

invisible Christ, and the members of Christ, when they are

glorified with him, shall be the express image of his person....

The church and the kingdom are not identical terms, if we mean by

the kingdom the visible reign and government of Jesus Christ on

earth. In another sense they are identical. As is the king, so is

the kingdom. The king is present now in the world, only invisibly

and by the Holy Spirit; so the kingdom is now present invisibly

and spiritually in the hearts of believers. The king is to come

again visibly and gloriously; so shall the kingdom appear visibly

and gloriously. In other words, the kingdom is already here in

mystery: it is to be here to manifestation. Now the spiritual

kingdom is administered by the Holy Spirit, and it extends from

Pentecost to Parousia. At the Parousia—the appearing of the Son of

man in glory—when he shall take unto himself his great power and

reign (_Rev. 11:17_), when he who has now gone into a far country

to be invested with a kingdom shall return and enter upon his

government (_Luke 19:15_), then the invisible shall give way to

the visible, the kingdom in mystery shall emerge into the kingdom

in manifestation, and the Holy Spirit’s administration shall yield

to that of Christ.”

(_c_) The Scriptures, however, distinguish between this invisible or

universal church, and the individual church, in which the universal church

takes local and temporal form, and in which the idea of the church as a

whole is concretely exhibited.

_Mat. 10:32_—“_Every one therefore, who shall confess me before

men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven_”;

_12:34, 35_—“_out of the abundance of the heart the mouth

speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth

good things_”; _Rom. 10:9, 10_—“_if thou shalt confess with thy

month Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God

raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart

man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is

made unto salvation_”; _James 1:18_—“_Of his own will he brought

us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of

firstfruits of his creatures_”—we were saved, not for ourselves

only, but as parts and beginnings of an organic kingdom of God;

believers are called “_firstfruits_,” because from them the

blessing shall spread, until the whole world shall be pervaded

with the new life; Pentecost, as the feast of first‐fruits, was

but the beginning of a stream that shall continue to flow until

the whole race of man is gathered in.

R. S. Storrs: “When any truth becomes central and vital, there

comes the desire to utter it,”—and we may add, not only in words,

but in organization. So beliefs crystallize into institutions. But

Christian faith is something more vital than the common beliefs of

the world. Linking the soul to Christ, it brings Christians into

living fellowship with one another before any bonds of outward

organization exist; outward organization, indeed, only expresses

and symbolizes this inward union of spirit to Christ and to one

another. Horatius Bonar: “Thou must be true thyself, If thou the

truth wouldst teach; Thy soul must overflow, if thou Another’s

soul wouldst reach; It needs the overflow of heart To give the

lips full speech. Think truly, and thy thoughts Shall the world’s

famine feed; Speak truly, and each word of thine Shall be a

fruitful seed; Live truly, and thy life shall be A great and noble

creed.”

Contentio Veritatis, 128, 129—“The kingdom of God is first a state

of the individual soul, and then, secondly, a society made up of

those who enjoy that state.” Dr. F. L. Patton: “The best way for a

man to serve the church at large is to serve the church to which

he belongs.” Herbert Stead: “The kingdom is not to be narrowed

down to the church, nor the church evaporated into the kingdom.”

To do the first is to set up a monstrous ecclesiasticism; to do

the second is to destroy the organism through which the kingdom

manifests itself and does its work in the world (W. R. Taylor).

Prof. Dalman, in his work on The Words of Jesus in the Light of

Postbiblical Writing and the Aramaic Language, contends that the

Greek phrase translated “kingdom of God” should be rendered “the

sovereignty of God.” He thinks that it points to the reign of God,

rather than to the realm over which he reigns. This rendering, if

accepted, takes away entirely the support from the Ritschlian

conception of the kingdom of God as an earthly and outward

organization.

(_d_) The individual church may be defined as that smaller company of

regenerate persons, who, in any given community, unite themselves

voluntarily together, in accordance with Christ’s laws, for the purpose of

securing the complete establishment of his kingdom in themselves and in

the world.

_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_”; _Acts 14:23_—“_appointed

for them elders in every church_”; _Rom. 16:5_—“_salute the church

that is in their house_”; _1 Cor. 1:2_—“_the church of God which

is at Corinth_”; _4:17_—“_even as I teach everywhere in every

church_”; _1 Thess. 2:14_—“_the churches of God which are in Judæa

in Christ Jesus._”

We do not define the church as a body of “baptized believers,”

because baptism is but one of “Christ’s laws,” in accordance with

which believers unite themselves. Since these laws are the laws of

church‐organization contained in the New Testament, no Sunday

School, Temperance Society, or Young Men’s Christian Association,

is properly a church. These organizations 1. lack the transcendent

element—they are instituted and managed by man only; 2. they are

not confined to the regenerate, or to those alone who give

credible evidence of regeneration; 3. they presuppose and require

no particular form of doctrine; 4. they observe no ordinances; 5.

they are at best mere adjuncts and instruments of the church, but

are not themselves churches; 6. their decisions therefore are

devoid of the divine authority and obligation which belong to the

decisions of the church.

The laws of Christ, in accordance with which believers unite

themselves into churches, may be summarized as follows: 1. the

sufficiency and sole authority of Scripture as the rule both of

doctrine and polity; (2) credible evidence of regeneration and

conversion as prerequisite to church‐membership; (3) immersion

only, as answering to Christ’s command of baptism, and to the

symbolic meaning of the ordinance; (4) the order of the ordinance,

Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, as of divine appointment, as well

as the ordinances themselves; (5) the right of each member of the

church to a voice in its government and discipline; (6) each

church, while holding fellowship with other churches, solely

responsible to Christ; (7) the freedom of the individual

conscience, and the total independence of church and state. Hovey

in his Restatement of Denominational Principles (Am. Bap. Pub.

Society) gives these principles as follows: 1. the supreme

authority of the Scriptures in matters of religion; 2. personal

accountability to God in religion; 3. union with Christ essential

to salvation; 4. a new life the only evidence of that union; 5.

the new life one of unqualified obedience to Christ. The most

concise statement of Baptist doctrine and history is that of

Vedder, in Jackson’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, 1:74‐85.

With the lax views of Scripture which are becoming common among us

there is a tendency in our day to lose sight of the transcendent

element in the church. Let us remember that the church is not a

humanitarian organization resting upon common human brotherhood,

but a supernatural body, which traces its descent from the second,

not the first, Adam, and which manifests the power of the divine

Christ. Mazzini in Italy claimed Jesus, but repudiated his church.

So modern socialists cry: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” and

deny that there is need of anything more than human unity,

development, and culture. But God has made the church to sit with

Christ “_in the heavenly places_” (_Eph. 2:6_). It is the

regeneration which comes about through union with Christ which

constitutes the primary and most essential element in

ecclesiology. “We do not stand, first of all, for restricted

communion, nor for immersion as the only valid form of baptism,

nor for any particular theory of Scripture, but rather for a

regenerate church membership. The essence of the gospel is a new

life in Christ, of which Christian experience is the outworking

and Christian consciousness is the witness. Christian life is as

important as conversion. Faith must show itself by works. We must

seek the temporal as well as spiritual salvation of men, and the

salvation of society also” (Leighton Williams).

E. G. Robinson: “Christ founded a church only proleptically. In

_Mat. 18:17_, ἐκκλησία is not used technically. The church is an

outgrowth of the Jewish synagogue, though its method and economy

are different. There was little or no organization at first.

Christ himself did not organize the church. This was the work of

the apostles after Pentecost. The germ however existed before.

Three persons may constitute a church, and may administer the

ordinances. Councils have only advisory authority. Diocesan

episcopacy is antiscriptural and antichristian.”

The principles mentioned above are the essential principles of

Baptist churches, although other bodies of Christians have come to

recognise a portion of them. Bodies of Christians which refuse to

accept these principles we may, in a somewhat loose and modified

sense, call churches; but we cannot regard them as churches

organized in all respects according to Christ’s laws, or as

completely answering to the New Testament model of church

organization. We follow common usage when we address a Lieutenant

Colonel as “Colonel,” and a Lieutenant Governor as “Governor.” It

is only courtesy to speak of pedobaptist organizations as

“churches,” although we do not regard these churches as organized

in full accordance with Christ’s laws as they are indicated to us

in the New Testament. To refuse thus to recognize them would be a

discourtesy like that of the British Commander in Chief, when he

addressed General Washington as “Mr. Washington.”

As Luther, having found the doctrine of justification by faith,

could not recognize that doctrine as Christian which taught

justification by works, but denounced the church which held it as

Antichrist, saying, “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, God help

me,” so we, in matters not indifferent, as feet‐washing, but

vitally affecting the existence of the church, as regenerate

church‐membership, must stand by the New Testament, and refuse to

call any other body of Christians a regular church, that is not

organized according to Christ’s laws. The English word “church”

like the Scotch “kirk” and the German “_Kirche_,” is derived from

the Greek κυριακή, and means “belonging to the Lord.” The term

itself should teach us to regard only Christ’s laws as our rule of

organization.

(_e_) Besides these two significations of the term “church,” there are

properly in the New Testament no others. The word ἐκκλησία is indeed used

in Acts 7:38; 19:32, 39; Heb. 2:12, to designate a popular assembly; but

since this is a secular use of the term, it does not here concern us. In

certain passages, as for example Acts 9:31 (ἐκκλησία, sing., א A B C), 1

Cor. 12:28, Phil. 3:6, and 1 Tim. 3:15, ἐκκλησία appears to be used either

as a generic or as a collective term, to denote simply the body of

independent local churches existing in a given region or at a given epoch.

But since there is no evidence that these churches were bound together in

any outward organization, this use of the term ἐκκλησία cannot be regarded

as adding any new sense to those of “the universal church” and “the local

church” already mentioned.

_Acts 7:38_—“_the church_ [marg. ‘_congregation_’] _in the

wilderness_” = the whole body of the people of Israel;

_19:32_—“_the assembly was in confusion_”—the tumultuous mob in

the theatre at Ephesus; _39_—“_the regular assembly_”; _9:31_—“_So

the church throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria had peace,

being edified_”; _1 Cor. 12:28_—“_And God hath set some in the

church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers_”;

_Phil. 3:6_—“_as touching zeal, persecuting the church_”; _1 Tim.

3:15_—“_that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves

in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the

pillar and ground of the truth._”

In the original use of the word ἐκκλησία, as a popular assembly,

there was doubtless an allusion to the derivation from ἐκ and

καλέω, to call out by herald. Some have held that the N. T. term

contains an allusion to the fact that the members of Christ’s

church are called, chosen, elected by God. This, however, is more

than doubtful. In common use, the term had lost its etymological

meaning, and signified merely an assembly, however gathered or

summoned. The church was never so large that it could not

assemble. The church of Jerusalem gathered for the choice of

deacons (_Acts 6:2, 5_), and the church of Antioch gathered to

hear Paul’s account of his missionary journey (_Acts 14:27_).

It is only by a common figure of rhetoric that many churches are

spoken of together in the singular number, in such passages as

_Acts 9:31_. We speak generically of “man,” meaning the whole race

of men; and of “the horse,” meaning all horses. Gibbon, speaking

of the successive tribes that swept down upon the Roman Empire,

uses a noun in the singular number, and describes them as “the

several detachments of that immense army of northern

barbarians,”—yet he does not mean to intimate that these tribes

had any common government. So we may speak of “the American

college” or “the American theological seminary,” but we do not

thereby mean that the colleges or the seminaries are bound

together by any tie of outward organization.

So Paul says that God has set in the church apostles, prophets,

and teachers (_1 Cor. 12:28_), but the word “church” is only a

collective term for the many independent churches. In this same

sense, we may speak of “the Baptist church” of New York, or of

America; but it must be remembered that we use the term without

any such implication of common government as is involved in the

phrases “the Presbyterian church,” or “the Protestant Episcopal

church,” or “the Roman Catholic church”; with us, in this

connection, the term “church” means simply “churches.”

Broadus, in his Com. on Mat., page 359, suggests that the word

ἐκκλησία in _Acts 9:31_, “denotes the original church at

Jerusalem, whose members were by the persecution widely scattered

throughout Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and held meetings

wherever they were, but still belonged to the one original

organization.... When Paul wrote to the Galatians, nearly twenty

years later, these separate meetings had been organized into

distinct churches, and so he speaks (_Gal. 1:22_) in reference to

that same period, of ‘_the churches of Judæa which were in

Christ_.’ ” On the meaning of ἐκκλησία, see Cremer, Lex. N. T.,

329; Trench, Syn. N. T., 1:18; Girdlestone, Syn. O. T., 367;

Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 301; Dexter,

Congregationalism, 25; Dagg, Church Order, 100‐120; Robinson, N.

T. Lex., _sub voce_.

The prevailing usage of the N. T. gives to the term ἐκκλησία the second of

these two significations. It is this local church only which has definite

and temporal existence, and of this alone we henceforth treat. Our

definition of the individual church implies the two following particulars:

A. The church, like the family and the state, is an institution of divine

appointment.

This is plain: (_a_) from its relation to the church universal, as its

concrete embodiment; (_b_) from the fact that its necessity is grounded in

the social and religious nature of man; (_c_) from the Scripture,—as for

example, Christ’s command in Mat. 18:17, and the designation “church of

God,” applied to individual churches (1 Cor. 1:2).

President Wayland: “The universal church comes before the

particular church. The society which Christ has established is the

foundation of every particular association calling itself a church

of Christ.” Andrews, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1883:35‐58, on the

conception ἐκκλησία in the N. T., says that “the ‘church’ is the

_prius_ of all local ‘churches.’ ἐκκλησία in _Acts 9:31_ = the

church, so far as represented in those provinces. It is

ecumenical‐local, as in _1 Cor. 10:33_. The local church is a

microcosm, a specialized localization of the universal body. קהל,

in the O. T. and in the Targums, means the whole congregation of

Israel, and then secondarily those local bodies which were parts

and representations of the whole. Christ, using Aramaic, probably

used קהל in _Mat. 18:17_. He took his idea of the church from it,

not from the heathen use of the word ἐκκλησία, which expresses the

notion of locality and state much more than קהל. The larger sense

of ἐκκλησία is the primary. Local churches are points of

consciousness and activity for the great all‐inclusive unit, and

they are not themselves the units for an ecclesiastical aggregate.

They are faces, not parts of the one church.”

Christ, in _Mat. 18:17_, delegates authority to the whole

congregation of believers, and at the same time limits authority

to the local church. The local church is not an end in itself, but

exists for the sake of the kingdom. Unity is not to be that of

merely local churches, but that of the kingdom, and that kingdom

is internal, “_cometh not with observation_” (_Luke 17:20_), but

consists in “_righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit_”

(_Rom. 14:17_). The word “church,” in the universal sense, is not

employed by any other N. T. writer before Paul. Paul was

interested, not simply in individual conversions, but in the

growth of the church of God, as the body of Christ. He held to the

unity of all local churches with the mother church at Jerusalem.

The church in a city or in a house is merely a local manifestation

of the one universal church and derived its dignity therefrom.

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: “As this broken bread was

scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered became one, so

may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth

into thy kingdom.”

Sabatier, Philos. Religion, 92—“The social action of religion

springs from its very essence. Men of the same religion have no

more imperious need than that of praying and worshiping together.

State police have always failed to confine growing religious sects

within the sanctuary or the home ... God, it is said, is the place

where spirits blend. In rising toward him, man necessarily passes

beyond the limits of his own individuality. He feels instinctively

that the principle of his being is the principle of the life of

his brethren also, that that which gives him safety must give it

to all.” Rothe held that, as men reach the full development of

their nature and appropriate the perfection of the Savior, the

separation between the religious and the moral life will vanish,

and the Christian state, as the highest sphere of human life

representing all human functions, will displace the church. “In

proportion as the Savior Christianizes the state by means of the

church, must the progressive completion of the structure of the

church prove the cause of its abolition. The decline of the church

is not therefore to be deplored, but is to be recognized as the

consequence of the independence and completeness of the religious

life” (Encyc. Brit., 21:2). But it might equally be maintained

that the state, as well as the church, will pass away, when the

kingdom of God is fully come; see _John 4:21_—“_the hour cometh,

when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship

the Father_”; _1 Cor. 15:24_—“_Then cometh the end, when he shall

deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have

abolished all rule and all authority and power_”; _Rev.

21:22_—“_And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the

Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof._”

B. The church, unlike the family and the state, is a voluntary society.

(_a_) This results from the fact that the local church is the outward

expression of that rational and free life in Christ which characterizes

the church as a whole. In this it differs from those other organizations

of divine appointment, entrance into which is not optional. Membership in

the church is not hereditary or compulsory. (_b_) The doctrine of the

church, as thus defined, is a necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of

regeneration. As this fundamental spiritual change is mediated not by

outward appliances, but by inward and conscious reception of Christ and

his truth, union with the church logically follows, not precedes, the

soul’s spiritual union with Christ.

We have seen that the church is the body of Christ. We now

perceive that the church is, by the impartation to it of Christ’s

life, made a living body, with duties and powers of its own. A. J.

Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 53, emphasizes the preliminary

truth. He shows that the definition: The church a voluntary

association of believers, united together for the purposes of

worship and edification, is most inadequate, not to say incorrect.

It is no more true than that hands and feet are voluntarily united

in the human body for the purposes of locomotion and work. The

church is formed from within. Christ, present by the Holy Ghost,

regenerating men by the sovereign action of the Spirit, and

organizing them into himself as the living centre, is the only

principle that can explain the existence of the church. The Head

and the body are therefore one—one in fact, and one in name. He

whom God anointed and filled with the Holy Ghost is called “_the

Christ_” (_1 John 5:1_—“_Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the

Christ is begotten of God_”); and the church which is his body and

fulness is also called “_the Christ_” (_1 Cor. 12:12_—“_all the

members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is the

Christ_”).

Dorner includes under his doctrine of the church: (1) the genesis

of the church, through the new birth of the Spirit, or

Regeneration; (2) the growth and persistence of the church through

the continuous operation of the Spirit in the means of grace, or

Ecclesiology proper, as others call it; (3) the completion of the

church, or Eschatology. While this scheme seems designed to favor

a theory of baptismal regeneration, we must commend its

recognition of the fact that the doctrine of the church grows out

of the doctrine of regeneration and is determined in its nature by

it. If regeneration has always conversion for its obverse side,

and if conversion always includes faith in Christ, it is vain to

speak of regeneration without faith. And if union with the church

is but the outward expression of a preceding union with Christ

which involves regeneration and conversion, then involuntary

church‐membership is an absurdity, and a misrepresentation of the

whole method of salvation.

The value of compulsory religion may be illustrated from David

Hume’s experience. A godly matron of the Canongate, so runs the

story, when Hume sank in the mud in her vicinity, and on account

of his obesity could not get out, compelled the sceptic to say the

Lord’s Prayer before she would help him. Amos Kendall, on the

other hand, concluded in his old age that he had not been acting

on Christ’s plan for saving the world, and so, of his own accord,

connected himself with the church. Martineau, Study, 1:319—“Till

we come to the State and the Church, we do not reach the highest

organism of human life, into the perfect working of which all the

disinterested affections and moral enthusiasms and noble ambitions

flow.”

Socialism abolishes freedom, which the church cultivates and

insists upon as the principle of its life. Tertullian: “Nec

religionis est cogere religionem”—“It is not the business of

religion to compel religion.” Vedder, History of the Baptists:

“The community of goods in the church at Jerusalem was a purely

voluntary matter; see _Acts 5:4_—‘_While it remained, did it not

remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy

power?_’ The community of goods does not seem to have continued in

the church at Jerusalem after the temporary stress had been

relieved, and there is no reason to believe that any other church

in the apostolic age practised anything of the kind.” By

abolishing freedom, socialism destroys all possibility of

economical progress. The economical principle of socialism is

that, relatively to the enjoyment of commodities, the individual

shall be taken care of by the community, to the effect of his

being relieved of the care of himself. The communism in the Acts

was: 1. not for the community of mankind in general, but only for

the church within itself; 2. not obligatory, but left to the

discretion of individuals; 3. not permanent, but devised for a

temporary crisis. On socialism, see James MacGregor, in Presb. and

Ref. Rev., Jan. 1892:35‐68.

Schurman, Agnosticism, 166—“Few things are of more practical

consequence for the future of religion in America than the duty of

all good men to become identified with the visible church. Liberal

thinkers have, as a rule, underestimated the value of the church.

Their point of view is individualistic, ‘as though a man were

author of himself, and knew no other kin.’ ‘The old is for slaves’

they declare. But it is also true that the old is for freedmen who

know its true uses. It is the bane of the religion of dogma that

it has driven many of the choicest religious souls out of the

churches. In its purification of the temple, it has lost sight of

the object of the temple. The church, as an institution, is an

organism and embodiment such as the religion of spirit necessarily

creates. Spiritual religion is not the enemy, it is the essence,

of institutional religion.”

II. Organization of the Church.

1. The fact of organization.

Organization may exist without knowledge of writing, without written

records, lists of members, or formal choice of officers. These last are

the proofs, reminders, and helps of organization, but they are not

essential to it. It is however not merely informal, but formal,

organization in the church, to which the New Testament bears witness.

That there was such organization is abundantly shown from (_a_) its stated

meetings, (_b_) elections, and (_c_) officers; (_d_) from the designations

of its ministers, together with (_e_) the recognized authority of the

minister and of the church; (_f_) from its discipline, (_g_)

contributions, (_h_) letters of commendation, (_i_) registers of widows,

(_j_) uniform customs, and (_k_) ordinances; (_l_) from the order enjoined

and observed, (_m_) the qualifications for membership, and (_n_) the

common work of the whole body.

(_a_) _Acts 20:7_—“_upon the first day of the week, when we were

gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”;

_Heb. 10:25_—“_not forsaking our own assembling together, as the

custom of some is, but exhorting one another._”

(_b_) _Acts 1:23‐26_—the election of Matthias; 6:5, 6—the election

of deacons.

(_c_) _Phil. 1:1_—“_the saints in Christ Jesus that are at

Philippi, with the bishops and deacons._”

(_d_) _Acts 20:17, 28_—“_the elders of the church ... the flock,

in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops_ [marg.:

‘_overseers_’].”

(_e_) _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_”; _1 Pet. 5:2_—“_Tend

the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not

of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God._”

(_f_) _1 Cor. 5:4, 5, 13_—“_in the name of our 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._”

(_g_) _Rom. 15:26_—“_For it hath been the good pleasure of

Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor

among the saints that are at Jerusalem_”; _1 Cor. 16:1, 2_—“_Now

concerning the collection for the saints, as I __ gave order to

the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the

week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper,

that no collection be made when I come._”

(_h_) _Acts 18:27_—“_And when he was minded to pass over into

Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to

receive him_”; _2 Cor. 3:1_—“_Are we beginning again to commend

ourselves? or need we, as do some, epistles of commendation to you

or from you?_”

(_i_) _1 Tim. 5:9_—“_Let none be enrolled as a widow under

threescore years old_”; _cf._ _Acts 6:1_—“_there arose a murmuring

of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were

neglected in the daily ministration._”

(_j_) _1 Cor. 11:16_—“_But if any man seemeth to be contentious,

we have no such custom, neither the churches of God._”

(_k_) _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received his word were

baptized_”; _1 Cor. 11:23‐26_—“_For I received of the Lord that

which also I delivered unto you_”—the institution of the Lord’s

Supper.

(_l_) _1 Cor. 14:40_—“_let all things be done decently and in

order_”; _Col. 2:5_—“_For though I am absent in the flesh, yet am

I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the

stedfastness of your faith in Christ._”

(_m_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all

the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the

Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Acts 2:47_—“_And the Lord added to

them day by day those that were being saved._”

(_n_) _Phil. 2:30_—“_because for the work of Christ he came nigh

unto death, hazarding his life to supply that which was lacking in

your service toward me._”

As indicative of a developed organization in the N. T. church, of which

only the germ existed before Christ’s death, it is important to notice the

progress in names from the Gospels to the Epistles. In the Gospels, the

word “disciples” is the common designation of Christ’s followers, but it

is not once found in the Epistles. In the Epistles, there are only

“saints,” “brethren,” “churches.” A consideration of the facts here

referred to is sufficient to evince the unscriptural nature of two modern

theories of the church:

A. The theory that the church is an exclusively spiritual body, destitute

of all formal organization, and bound together only by the mutual relation

of each believer to his indwelling Lord.

The church, upon this view, so far as outward bonds are concerned, is only

an aggregation of isolated units. Those believers who chance to gather at

a particular place, or to live at a particular time, constitute the church

of that place or time. This view is held by the Friends and by the

Plymouth Brethren. It ignores the tendencies to organization inherent in

human nature; confounds the visible with the invisible church; and is

directly opposed to the Scripture representations of the visible church as

comprehending some who are not true believers.

_Acts 5:1‐11_—Ananias and Sapphira show that the visible church

comprehended some who were not true believers; _1 Cor. 14:23_—“_If

therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak

with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will

they not say that ye are mad?_”—here, if the church had been an

unorganized assembly, the unlearned visitors who came in would

have formed a part of it; _Phil. 3:18_—“_For many walk, of whom I

told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the

enemies of the cross of Christ._”

Some years ago a book was placed upon the Index, at Rome,

entitled: “The Priesthood a Chronic Disorder of the Human Race.”

The Plymouth Brethren dislike church organizations, for fear they

will become machines; they dislike ordained ministers, for fear

they will become bishops. They object to praying for the Holy

Spirit, because he was given on Pentecost, ignoring the fact that

the church after Pentecost so prayed: see _Acts 4:31_—“_And when

they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered

together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they

spake the word of God with boldness._” What we call a giving or

descent of the Holy Spirit is, since the Holy Spirit is

omnipresent, only a manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit,

and this certainly may be prayed for; see _Luke 11:13_—“_If ye

then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,

how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to

them that ask him?_”

The Plymouth Brethren would “unite Christendom by its

dismemberment, and do away with all sects by the creation of a new

sect, more narrow and bitter in its hostility to existing sects

than any other.” Yet the tendency to organize is so strong in

human nature, that even Plymouth Brethren, when they meet

regularly together, fall into an informal, if not a formal,

organization; certain teachers and leaders are tacitly recognized

as officers of the body; committees and rules are unconsciously

used for facilitating business. Even one of their own writers, C.

H. M., speaks of the “natural tendency to association without

God,—as in the Shinar Association or Babel Confederacy of _Gen.

11_, which aimed at building up a name upon the earth. The

Christian church is God’s appointed association to take the place

of all these. Hence God confounds the tongues in Gen. 11

(judgment); gives tongues in _Acts 2_ (grace); but only one tongue

is spoken in _Rev. 7_ (glory).”

The Nation, Oct. 16, 1890:303—“Every body of men must have one or

more leaders. If these are not provided, they will make them for

themselves. You cannot get fifty men together, at least of the

Anglo‐Saxon race, without their choosing a presiding officer and

giving him power to enforce rules and order.” Even socialists and

anarchists have their leaders, who often exercise arbitrary power

and oppress their followers. Lyman Abbott says nobly of the

community of true believers: “The grandest river in the world has

no banks; it rises in the Gulf of Mexico; it sweeps up through the

Atlantic Ocean along our coast; it crosses the Atlantic, and

spreads out in great broad fanlike form along the coast of Europe;

and whatever land it kisses blooms and blossoms with the fruit of

its love. The apricot and the fig are the witness of its

fertilizing power. It is bound together by the warmth of its own

particles, and by nothing else.” This is a good illustration of

the invisible church, and of its course through the world. But the

visible church is bound to be distinguishable from unregenerate

humanity, and its inner principle of association inevitably leads

to organization.

Dr. Wm. Reid, Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled, 79‐143, attributes to

the sect the following Church‐principles: (1) the church did not

exist before Pentecost; (2) the visible and the invisible church

identical; (3) the one assembly of God; (4) the presidency of the

Holy Spirit; (5) rejection of a one‐man and man‐made ministry; (6)

the church is without government. Also the following heresies: (1)

Christ’s heavenly humanity; (2) denial of Christ’s righteousness,

as being obedience to law; (3) denial that Christ’s righteousness

is imputed; (4) justification in the risen Christ; (5) Christ’s

non‐atoning sufferings; (6) denial of moral law as rule of life;

(7) the Lord’s day is not the Sabbath; (8) perfectionism; (9)

secret rapture of the saints,—caught up to be with Christ. To

these we may add; (10) premillennial advent of Christ.

On the Plymouth Brethren and their doctrine, see British Quar.,

Oct. 1873:202; Princeton Rev., 1872:48‐77; H. M. King, in Baptist

Review, 1881:438‐465; Fish, Ecclesiology, 314‐316; Dagg, Church

Order, 80‐83; R. H. Carson, The Brethren, 8‐14; J. C. L. Carson,

The Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren; Croskery, Plymouth

Brethrenism; Teulon, Hist. and Teachings of Plymouth Brethren.

B. The theory that the form of church organization is not definitely

prescribed in the New Testament, but is a matter of expediency, each body

of believers being permitted to adopt that method of organization which

best suits its circumstances and condition.

The view under consideration seems in some respects to be favored by

Neander, and is often regarded as incidental to his larger conception of

church history as a progressive development. But a proper theory of

development does not exclude the idea of a church organization already

complete in all essential particulars before the close of the inspired

canon, so that the record of it may constitute a providential example of

binding authority upon all subsequent ages. The view mentioned exaggerates

the differences of practice among the N. T. churches; underestimates the

need of divine direction as to methods of church union; and admits a

principle of ’church powers,’ which may be historically shown to be

subversive of the very existence of the church as a spiritual body.

Dr. Galusha Anderson finds the theory of optional church

government in Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, and says that not

until Bishop Bancroft was there claimed a divine right of

Episcopacy. Hunt, also, in his Religious Thought in England, 1:57,

says that Hooker gives up the divine origin of Episcopacy. So

Jacob, Eccl. Polity of the N. T., and Hatch, Organization of Early

Christian Churches,—both Jacob and Hatch belonging to the Church

of England. Hooker identified the church with the nation; see

Eccl. Polity, book viii, chap. 1:7; 4:6; 8:9. He held that the

state has committed itself to the church, and that therefore the

church has no right to commit itself to the state. The assumption,

however, that the state has committed itself to the church is

entirely unwarranted; see Gore, Incarnation, 209, 210. Hooker

declares that, even if the Episcopalian order were laid down in

Scripture, which he denies, it would still not be unalterable,

since neither “God’s being the author of laws for the government

of his church, nor his committing them unto Scripture, is any

reason sufficient wherefore all churches should forever be bound

to keep them without change.”

T. M. Lindsay, in Contemp. Rev., Oct. 1895:548‐563, asserts that

there were at least five different forms of church government in

apostolic times: 1. derived from the seven wise men of the Hebrew

village community, representing the political side of the

synagogue system; 2. derived from the ἐπισκόπος, the director of

the religious or social club among the heathen Greeks; 3. derived

from the patronate (προστάτης, προῖστάμενος) known among the

Romans, the churches of Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, being of this

sort; 4. derived from the personal preëminence of one man, nearest

in family to our Lord, James being president of the church at

Jerusalem; 5. derived from temporary superintendents (ἡγούμενοι),

or leaders of the band of missionaries, as in Crete and Ephesus.

Between all these churches of different polities, there was

intercommunication and fellowship. Lindsay holds that the unity

was wholly spiritual. It seems to us that he has succeeded merely

in proving five different varieties of one generic type—the

generic type being only democratic, with two orders of officials,

and two ordinances—in other words, in showing that the simple N.

T. model adopts itself to many changing conditions, while the main

outlines do not change. Upon any other theory, church polity is a

matter of individual taste or of temporary fashion. Shall

missionaries conform church order to the degraded ideas of the

nations among which they labor? Shall church government be

despotic in Turkey, a limited monarchy in England, a democracy in

the United States of America, and two‐headed in Japan? For the

development theory of Neander, see his Church History, 1:179‐190.

On the general subject, see Hitchcock, in Am. Theol. Rev.,

1860:28‐54; Davidson, Eccl. Polity, 1‐42; Harvey, The Church.

2. The nature of this organization.

The nature of any organization may be determined by asking, first: who

constitute its members? secondly: for what object has it been formed? and,

thirdly: what are the laws which regulate its operations?

The three questions with which our treatment of the nature of this

organization begins are furnished us by Pres. Wayland, in his

Principles and Practices of Baptists.

A. They only can properly be members of the local church, who have

previously become members of the church universal,—or, in other words,

have become regenerate persons.

Only those who have been previously united to Christ are, in the

New Testament, permitted to unite with his church. See _Acts

2:47_—“_And the Lord added to them day by day those that were

being saved_ [Am. Rev.: ‘_those that were saved_’]”; _5:14_—“_and

believers were the more added to the Lord_”; _1 Cor. 1:2_—“_the

church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified

in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the

name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and

ours._”

From this limitation of membership to regenerate persons, certain results

follow:

(_a_) Since each member bears supreme allegiance to Christ, the church as

a body must recognize Christ as the only lawgiver. The relation of the

individual Christian to the church does not supersede, but furthers and

expresses, his relation to Christ.

_1 John 2:20_—“_And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye

know all things_”—see Neander, Com., _in loco_—“No believer is at

liberty to forego this maturity and personal independence,

bestowed in that inward anointing [of the Holy Spirit], or to

place himself in a dependent relation, inconsistent with this

birthright, to any teacher whatever among men..... This inward

anointing furnishes an element of resistance to such arrogated

authority.” Here we have reproved the tendency on the part of

ministers to take the place of the church, in Christian work and

worship, instead of leading it forward in work and worship of its

own. The missionary who keeps his converts in prolonged and

unnecessary tutelage is also untrue to the church organization of

the New Testament and untrue to Christ whose aim in church

training is to educate his followers to the bearing of

responsibility and the use of liberty. Macaulay: “The only remedy

for the evils of liberty is liberty.” “Malo periculosam

libertatem”—“Liberty is to be preferred with all its dangers.”

Edwin Burritt Smith: “There is one thing better than good

government, and that is self‐government.” By their own mistakes, a

self‐governing people and a self‐governing church will finally

secure good government, whereas the “good government” which keeps

them in perpetual tutelage will make good government forever

impossible.

_Ps. 144:12_—“_our sons shall be as plants grown up in their

youth._” Archdeacon Hare: “If a gentleman is to grow up, it must

be like a tree: there must be nothing between him and heaven.”

What is true of the gentleman is true of the Christian. There need

to be encouraged and cultivated in him an independence of human

authority and a sole dependence upon Christ. The most sacred duty

of the minister is to make his church self‐governing and self‐

supporting, and the best test of his success is the ability of the

church to live and prosper after he has left it or after he is

dead. Such ministerial work requires self‐sacrifice and self‐

effacement. The natural tendency of every minister is to usurp

authority and to become a bishop. He has in him an undeveloped

pope. Dependence on his people for support curbs this arrogant

spirit. A church establishment fosters it. The remedy both for

slavishness and for arrogance lies in constant recognition of

Christ as the only Lord.

(_b_) Since each regenerate man recognizes in every other a brother in

Christ, the several members are upon a footing of absolute equality (Mat.

23:8‐10).

_Mat. 23:8‐10_—“_But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your

teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on

the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven_”;

_John 15:5_—“_I am the vine, ye are the branches_”—no one branch

of the vine outranks another; one may be more advantageously

situated, more ample in size, more fruitful; but all are alike in

kind, draw vitality from one source. Among the planets “_one star

differeth from another star in glory_” (_1 Cor. 15:41_), yet all

shine in the same heaven, and draw their light from the same sun.

“The serving‐man may know more of the mind of God than the

scholar.” Christianity has therefore been the foe to heathen

castes. The Japanese noble objected to it, “because the

brotherhood of man was incompatible with proper reverence for

rank”. There can be no rightful human lordship over God’s heritage

(_1 Pet. 5:3_—“_neither as lording it over the charge allotted to

you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock_”).

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.

Protestants err in denying the reference in _Mat. 16:18_ to Peter;

Christ recognizes Peter’s _personality_ in the founding of his

kingdom. But Romanists equally err in ignoring Peter’s

_confession_ as constituting him the “_rock_.” Creeds and

confessions alone will never convert the world; they need to be

embodied in living personalities in order to save; this is the

grain of correct doctrine in Romanism. On the other hand, men

without a faith, which they are willing to confess at every cost,

will never convert the world; there must be a substance of

doctrine with regard to sin, and with regard to Christ as the

divine Savior from sin; this is the just contention of

Protestantism. Baptist doctrine combines the merits of both

systems. It has both personality and confession. It is not

hierarchical, but experiential. It insists, not upon abstractions,

but upon life. Truth without a body is as powerless as a body

without truth. A flag without an army is even worse than an army

without a flag. Phillips Brooks: “The truth of God working through

the personality of man has been the salvation of the world.”

Pascal: “Catholicism is a church without a religion; Protestantism

is a religion without a church.” Yes, we reply, if church means

hierarchy.

Secondly,—If Peter had such authority given him, there is no evidence that

he had power to transmit it to others.

Fisher, Hist. Christian Church, 247—“William of Occam (1280‐1347)

composed a treatise on the power of the pope. He went beyond his

predecessors in arguing that the church, since it has its unity in

Christ, is not under the necessity of being subject to a single

primate. He placed the Emperor and the General Council above the

pope, as his judges. In matters of faith he would not allow

infallibility even to the General Councils. ‘Only Holy Scripture

and the beliefs of the universal church are of absolute

validity.’ ” W. Rauschenbusch, in The Examiner, July 28, 1892—“The

age of an ecclesiastical organization, instead of being an

argument in its favor, is presumptive evidence against it, because

all bodies organized for moral or religious ends manifest such a

frightful inclination to become corrupt.... Marks of the true

church are: present spiritual power, loyalty to Jesus, an

unworldly morality, seeking and saving the lost, self‐sacrifice

and self‐crucifixion.”

Romanism holds to a transmitted infallibility. The pope is

infallible: 1. when he speaks as pope; 2. when he speaks for the

whole church; 3. when he defines doctrine, or passes a final

judgment; 4. when the doctrine thus defined is within the sphere

of faith or morality; see Brandis, in N. A. Rev., Dec. 1892: 654.

Schurman, Belief in God, 114—“Like the Christian pope, Zeus is

conceived in the Homeric poems to be fallible as an individual,

but infallible as head of the sacred convocation. The other gods

are only his representatives and executives.” But, even if the

primacy of the Roman pontiff were acknowledged, there would still

be abundant proof that he is not infallible. The condemnation of

the letters of Pope Honorius, acknowledging monothelism and

ordering it to be preached, by Pope Martin I and the first Council

of Lateran in 649, shows that both could not be right. Yet both

were _ex cathedra_ utterances, one denying what the other

affirmed. Perrone concedes that only one error committed by a pope

in an _ex cathedra_ announcement would be fatal to the doctrine of

papal infallibility.

Martineau, Seat of Authority, 139, 140, gives instances of papal

inconsistencies and contradictions, and shows that Roman

Catholicism does not answer to either one of its four notes or

marks of a true church, _viz._: 1. unity; 2. sanctity; 3.

universality; 4. apostolicity. Dean Stanley had an interview with

Pope Pius IX, and came away saying that the infallible man had

made more blunders in a twenty minutes’ conversation than any

person he had ever met. Dr. Fairbairn facetiously defines

infallibility, as “inability to detect errors even where they are

most manifest.” He speaks of “the folly of the men who think they

hold God in their custody, and distribute him to whomsoever they

will.” The Pope of Rome can no more trace his official descent

from Peter than Alexander the Great could trace his personal

descent from Jupiter.

Thirdly,—There is no conclusive evidence that Peter ever was at Rome, much

less that he was bishop of Rome.

Clement of Rome refers to Peter as a martyr, but he makes no claim

for Rome as the place of his martyrdom. The tradition that Peter

preached at Rome and founded a church there dates back only to

Dionysius of Corinth and Irenæus of Lyons, who did not write

earlier than the eighth decade of the second century, or more than

a hundred years after Peter’s death. Professor Lepsius of Jena

submitted the Roman tradition to a searching examination, and came

to the conclusion that Peter was never in Italy.

A. A. Hodge, in Princetoniana, 129—“Three unproved assumptions: 1.

that Peter was primate; 2. that Peter was bishop of Rome; 3. that

Peter was primate _and_ bishop of Rome. The last is not

unimportant; because Clement, for instance, might have succeeded

to the bishopric of Rome without the primacy; as Queen Victoria

came to the crown of England, but not to that of Hanover. Or, to

come nearer home, Ulysses S. Grant was president of the United

States and husband of Mrs. Grant. Mr. Hayes succeeded him, but not

in both capacities!”

On the question whether Peter founded the Roman Church, see Meyer,

Com. on Romans, transl., vol. 1:23—“Paul followed the principle of

not interfering with another apostle’s field of labor. Hence Peter

could not have been laboring at Rome, at the time when Paul wrote

his epistle to the Romans from Ephesus; _cf._ _Acts 19:21; Rom.

15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16._” Meyer thinks Peter was martyred at Rome,

but that he did not found the Roman church, the origin of which is

unknown. “The Epistle to the Romans,” he says, “since Peter cannot

have labored at Rome before it was written, is a fact destructive

of the historical basis of the Papacy” (p. 28). See also Elliott,

Horæ Apocalypticæ, 3:560.

Fourthly,—There is no evidence that he really did so appoint the bishops

of Rome as his successors.

Denney, Studies in Theology, 191—“The church was first the company

of those united to Christ and living in Christ; then it became a

society based on creed; finally a society based on clergy.” A. J.

Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 130—“The Holy Spirit is the real

‘Vicar of Christ.’ Would any one desire to find the clue to the

great apostasy whose dark eclipse now covers two thirds of nominal

Christendom, here it is: The rule and authority of the Holy Spirit

ignored in the church; the servants of the house assuming mastery

and encroaching more and more on the prerogatives of the Head,

till at last one man sets himself up as the administrator of the

church, and daringly usurps the name of the Vicar of Christ.” See

also R. V. Littledale, The Petrine Claims.

The secret of Baptist success and progress is in putting truth

before unity. _James 3:17_—“_the wisdom that is from above is

first pure, then peaceable._” The substitution of external for

internal unity, of which the apostolic succession, so called, is a

sign and symbol, is of a piece with the whole sacramental scheme

of salvation. Men cannot be brought into the kingdom of heaven,

nor can they be made good ministers of Jesus Christ, by priestly

manipulation. The Frankish wholesale conversion of races, the

Jesuitical putting of obedience instead of life, the

identification of the church with the nation, are all false

methods of diffusing Christianity. The claims of Rome need

irrefragible proof, if they are to be accepted. But they have no

warrant in Scripture or in history. Methodist Review: “As long as

the Bible is recognized to be authoritative, the church will face

Romeward as little as Leo X will visit America to attend a

Methodist campmeeting, or Justin D. Fulton be elected as his

successor in the Papal chair.” See Gore, Incarnation, 208, 209.

Fifthly,—If Peter did so appoint the bishops of Rome, the evidence of

continuous succession since that time is lacking.

On the weakness of the argument for apostolic succession, see

remarks with regard to the national church theory, below. Dexter,

Congregationalism, 715—“To spiritualize and evangelize Romanism,

or High Churchism, will be to Congregationalize it.” If all the

Roman Catholics who have come to America had remained Roman

Catholics, there would be sixteen millions of them, whereas there

are actually only eight millions. If it be said that the remainder

have no religion, we reply that they have just as much religion as

they had before. American democracy has freed them from the

domination of the priest, but it has not deprived them of anything

but external connection with a corrupt church. It has given them

opportunity for the first time to come in contact with the church

of the New Testament, and to accept the offer of salvation through

simple faith in Jesus Christ.

“Romanism,” says Dorner, “identifies the church and the kingdom of

God. The professedly perfect hierarchy is itself the church, or

its essence.” Yet Moehler, the greatest modern advocate of the

Romanist system, himself acknowledges that there were popes before

the Reformation “whom hell has swallowed up”; see Dorner, Hist.

Prot. Theol., Introd., _ad finem_. If the Romanist asks: “Where

was your church before Luther?” the Protestant may reply: “Where

was your face this morning before it was washed?” Disciples of

Christ have sometimes kissed the feet of Antichrist, but it

recalls an ancient story. When an Athenian noble thus, in old

times, debased himself to the King of Persia, his fellow‐citizens

at Athens doomed him to death. See Coleman, Manual on Prelacy and

Ritualism, 265‐274; Park, in Bib. Sac., 2:451; Princeton Rev.,

Apr., 1876:265.

Sixthly,—There is abundant evidence that a hierarchical form of church

government is corrupting to the church and dishonoring to Christ.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 131‐140—“Catholic writers

claim that the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, is the only

mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost. But the Spirit has been given to the

church as a whole, that is, to the body of regenerated believers,

and to every member of that body according to his measure. The sin

of sacerdotalism is, that it arrogates for a usurping few that

which belongs to every member of Christ’s mystical body. It is a

suggestive fact that the name κλῆρος, ‘_the charge allotted to

you_,’ which Peter gives to the church as ‘_the flock of God_’ (_1

Pet. 5:2_), when warning the elders against being lords over God’s

heritage, now appears in ecclesiastical usage as ’the clergy,’

with its orders of pontiff and prelates and lord bishops, whose

appointed function it is to exercise lordship over Christ’s

flock.... But committees and majorities may take the place of the

Spirit, just as perfectly as a pope or a bishop.... This is the

reason why the light has been extinguished in many a

candlestick.... The body remains, but the breath is withdrawn. The

Holy Spirit is the only Administrator.”

Canon Melville: “Make peace if you will with Popery, receive it

into your Senate, enshrine it in your chambers, plant it in your

hearts. But be ye certain, as certain as there is a heaven above

you and a God over you, that the Popery thus honored and embraced

is the Popery that was loathed and degraded by the holiest of your

fathers; and the same in haughtiness, the same in intolerance,

which lorded it over kings, assumed the prerogative of Deity,

crushed human liberty, and slew the saints of God.” On the

strength and weakness of Romanism, see Harnack, What is

Christianity? 246‐263.

(_b_) The national‐church theory, or the theory of provincial or national

churches.—This holds that all members of the church in any province or

nation are bound together in provincial or national organization, and that

this organization has jurisdiction over the local churches. We reply:

First,—the theory has no support in the Scriptures. There is no evidence

that the word ἐκκλησία in the New Testament ever means a national church

organization. 1 Cor. 12:28, Phil. 3:6, and 1 Tim. 3:15, may be more

naturally interpreted as referring to the generic church. In Acts 9:31,

ἐκκλησία is a mere generalization for the local churches then and there

existing, and implies no sort of organization among them.

_1 Cor. 12:28_—“_And God hath set some in the church, first

apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then

gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues_”;

_Phil. 3:6_—“_as touching zeal, persecuting the church_”; _1 Tim.

3:15_—“_that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves

in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the

pillar and ground of the truth_”; _Acts 9:31_—“_So the church

throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being

edified._” For advocacy of the Presbyterian system, see

Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:514‐556; McPherson,

Presbyterianism. _Per contra_, see Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T.,

9—“There is no example of a national church in the New Testament.”

Secondly,—It is contradicted by the intercourse which the New Testament

churches held with each other as independent bodies,—for example at the

Council of Jerusalem (Acts. 15:1‐35).

_Acts 15:2, 6, 13, 19, 22_—“_the brethren appointed that Paul and

Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem

unto the apostles and elders about this question.... And the

apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this

matter.... James answered ... my judgment is, that we trouble not

them that from among the Gentiles turn to God ... 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._”

McGiffert, Apostolic Church, 645—“The steps of developing

organization were: 1. Recognition of the teaching of the apostles

as exclusive standard and norm of Christian truth; 2. Confinement

to a specific office, the Catholic office of bishop, of the power

to determine what is the teaching of the apostles; 3. Designation

of a specific institution, the Catholic church, as the sole

channel of divine grace. The Twelve, in the church of Jerusalem,

had only a purely spiritual authority. They could advise, but they

did not command. Hence they were not qualified to transmit

authority to others. They had no absolute authority themselves.”

Thirdly,—It has no practical advantages over the Congregational polity,

but rather tends to formality, division, and the extinction of the

principles of self‐government and direct responsibility to Christ.

E. G. Robinson: “The Anglican schism is the most sectarian of all

the sects.” Principal Rainey thus describes the position of the

Episcopal Church: “They will not recognize the church standing of

those who recognize them; and they only recognize the church

standing of those, Greeks and Latins, who do not recognize them.

Is not that an odd sort of Catholicity?” “Every priestling hides a

popeling.” The elephant going through the jungle saw a brood of

young partridges that had just lost their mother. Touched with

sympathy he said: “I will be a mother to you,” and so he sat down

upon them, as he had seen their mother do. Hence we speak of the

“incumbent” of such and such a parish.

There were no councils that claimed authority till the second

century, and the independence of the churches was not given up

until the third or fourth century. In Bp. Lightfoot’s essay on the

Christian Ministry, in the appendix to his Com. on Philippians,

progress to episcopacy is thus described: “In the time of

Ignatius, the bishop, then _primus inter pares_, was regarded only

as a centre of unity; in the time of Irenæus, as a depositary of

primitive truth; in the time of Cyprian, as absolute vicegerent of

Christ in things spiritual.” Nothing is plainer than the steady

degeneration of church polity in the hands of the Fathers.

Archibald Alexander: “A better name than Church Fathers for these

men would be church babies. Their theology was infantile.” Luther:

“Never mind the Scribes,—what saith the Scripture?”

Fourthly,—It is inconsistent with itself, in binding a professedly

spiritual church by formal and geographical lines.

Instance the evils of Presbyterianism in practice. Dr. Park says

that “the split between the Old and the New School was due to an

attempt on the part of the majority to impose their will on the

minority.... The Unitarian defection in New England would have

ruined Presbyterian churches, but it did not ruin Congregational

churches. A Presbyterian church may be deprived of the minister it

has chosen, by the votes of neighboring churches, or by the few

leading men who control them, or by one single vote in a close

contest.” We may illustrate by the advantage of the adjustable

card‐catalogue over the old method of keeping track of books in a

library.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 137, note—“By the

candlesticks in the Revelation being seven, instead of one as in

the tabernacle, we are taught that whereas, in the Jewish

dispensation, God’s visible church was one, in the Gentile

dispensation there are many visible churches, and that Christ

himself recognizes them alike” (quoted from Garratt, Com. on Rev.,

32). Bishop Moule, Veni Creator, 131, after speaking of the unity

of the Spirit, goes on to say: “Blessed will it be for the church

and for the world when these principles shall so vastly prevail as

to find expression from within in a harmonious counterpart of

order; a far different thing from what is, I cannot but think, an

illusory prospect—the attainment of such internal unity by a

previous exaction of exterior governmental uniformity.”

Fifthly,—It logically leads to the theory of Romanism. If two churches

need a superior authority to control them and settle their differences,

then two countries and two hemispheres need a common ecclesiastical

government,—and a world‐church, under one visible head, is Romanism.

Hatch, in his Bampton Lectures on Organization of Early Christian

Churches, without discussing the evidence from the New Testament,

proceeds to treat of the post‐apostolic development of

organization, as if the existence of a germinal Episcopacy very

soon _after_ the apostles proved such a system to be legitimate or

obligatory. In reply, we would ask whether we are under moral

obligation to conform to whatever succeeds in developing itself.

If so, then the priests of Baal, as well as the priests of Rome,

had just claims to human belief and obedience. Prof. Black: “We

have no objection to antiquity, if they will only go back far

enough. We wish to listen, not only to the fathers of the church,

but also to the grandfathers.”

Phillips Brooks speaks of “the fantastic absurdity of apostolic

succession.” And with reason, for in the Episcopal system, bishops

qualified to ordain must be: (1) baptized persons; (2) not

scandalously immoral; (3) not having obtained office by bribery;

(4) must not have been deposed. In view of these qualifications,

Archbishop Whately pronounces the doctrine of apostolic succession

untenable, and declares that “there is no Christian minister

existing now, who can trace up with complete certainty his own

ordination, through perfectly regular steps, to the time of the

apostles.” See Macaulay’s Review of Gladstone on Church and State,

in his Essays, 4:166‐178. There are breaks in the line, and a

chain is only as strong as its weakest part. See Presb. Rev.,

1886:89‐126. Mr. Flanders called Phillips Brooks “an Episcopalian

with leanings toward Christianity.” Bishop Brooks replied that he

could not be angry with “such a dear old moth‐eaten angel.” On

apostolic succession, see C. Anderson Scott, Evangelical Doctrine,

37‐48, 267‐288.

Apostolic succession has been called the pipe‐line conception of

divine grace. To change the figure, it may be compared to the

monopoly of communication with Europe by the submarine cable. But

we are not confined to the pipe‐line or to the cable. There are

wells of salvation in our private grounds, and wireless telegraphy

practicable to every human soul, apart from any control of

corporations.

We see leanings toward the world‐church idea in Pananglican and

Panpresbyterian Councils. Human nature ever tends to substitute

the unity of external organization for the spiritual unity which

belongs to all believers in Christ. There is no necessity for

common government, whether Presbyterian or Episcopal; since

Christ’s truth and Spirit are competent to govern all as easily as

one. It is a remarkable fact, that the Baptist denomination,

without external bonds, has maintained a greater unity in

doctrine, and a closer general conformity to New Testament

standards, than the churches which adopt the principle of

episcopacy, or of provincial organization. With Abp. Whately, we

find the true symbol of Christian unity in “_the tree of life,

bearing twelve manner of __ fruits_” (_Rev. 22:2_). _Cf._ _John

10:16_—γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἶς ποιμήν—“_they shall become one

flock, one shepherd_” = not one fold, not external unity, but one

flock in many folds. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 130;

Dexter, Congregationalism, 236; Coleman, Manual on Prelacy and

Ritualism, 128‐264; Albert Barnes, Apostolic Church.

As testimonies to the adequacy of Baptist polity to maintain sound

doctrine, we quote from the Congregationalist, Dr. J. L. Withrow:

“There is not a denomination of evangelical Christians that is

throughout as sound theologically as the Baptist denomination.

There is not an evangelical denomination in America to‐day that is

as true to the simple plain gospel of God, as it is recorded in

the word, as the Baptist denomination.” And the Presbyterian, Dr.

W. G. T. Shedd, in a private letter dated Oct. 1, 1886, writes as

follows: “Among the denominations, we all look to the Baptists for

steady and firm adherence to sound doctrine. You have never had

any internal doctrinal conflicts, and from year to year you

present an undivided front in defense of the Calvinistic faith.

Having no judicatures and regarding the local church as the unit,

it is remarkable that you maintain such a unity and solidarity of

belief. If you could impart your secret to our Congregational

brethren, I think that some of them at least would thank you.”

A. H. Strong, Sermon in London before the Baptist World Congress,

July, 1905—“Coöperation with Christ involves the spiritual unity

not only of all Baptists with one another, but of all Baptists

with the whole company of true believers of every name. We cannot,

indeed, be true to our convictions without organizing into one

body those who agree with us in our interpretation of the

Scriptures. Our denominational divisions are at present

necessities of nature. But we regret these divisions, and, as we

grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, we strive, at

least in spirit, to rise above them. In America our farms are

separated from one another by fences, and in the springtime, when

the wheat and barley are just emerging from the earth, these

fences are very distinguishable and unpleasing features of the

landscape. But later in the season, when the corn has grown and

the time of harvest is near, the grain is so tall that the fences

are entirely hidden, and for miles together you seem to see only a

single field. It is surely our duty to confess everywhere and

always that we are first Christians and only secondly Baptists.

The tie which binds us to Christ is more important in our eyes

than that which binds us to those of the same faith and order. We

live in hope that the Spirit of Christ in us, and in all other

Christian bodies, may induce such growth of mind and heart that

the sense of unity may not only overtop and hide the fences of

division, but may ultimately do away with these fences

altogether.”

2. Officers of the Church.

A. The number of offices in the church is two:—first, the office of

bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and, secondly, the office of deacon.

(_a_) That the appellations “bishop,” “presbyter,” and “pastor” designate

the same office and order of persons, may be shown from Acts

20:28—ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν (cf. 17—πρεσβυτέρους); Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1,

8; Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2—πρεσβυτέρους ... παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος

... ποιμάνατε ποίμνιον ... ἐπισκοποῦντες. Conybeare and Howson: “The terms

‘bishop’ and ‘elder’ are used in the New Testament as equivalent,—the

former denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the

latter the rank, of the office.” See passages quoted in Gieseler, Church

History, 1:90, note 1—as, for example, Jerome: “Apud veteres iidem

episcopi et presbyteri, quia illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc ætatis. Idem

est ergo presbyter qui episcopus.”

_Acts 20:28_—“_Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in

which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops_ [marg.

‘_overseers_’], _to feed_ [lit. ‘_to shepherd_,’ ‘_be pastors

of_’] _the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own

blood_”; _cf._ _17_—“_the elders of the church_” are those whom

Paul addresses as bishops or overseers, and whom he exhorts to be

good pastors. _Phil. 1:1_—“_bishops and deacons_”; _1 Tim. 3:1,

8_—“_If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good

work.... Deacons in like manner must be grave_”; _Tit. 1:5,

7_—“_appoint elders in every city.... For the bishop must be

blameless_”; _1 Pet. 5:1, 2_—“_The elders therefore among you I

exhort, who am a fellow‐elder.... Tend_ [lit. ‘_shepherd_,’ ‘_be

pastors of_’] _the flock of God which is among you, exercising the

oversight_ [acting as bishops], _not of constraint, but __

willingly, according to the will of God._” In this last passage,

Westcott and Hort, with Tischendorf’s 8th edition, follow א and B

in omitting ἐπισκοποῦντες. Tregelles and our Revised Version

follow A and אc in retaining it. Rightly, we think; since it is

easy to see how, in a growing ecclesiasticism, it should have been

omitted, from the feeling that too much was here ascribed to a

mere presbyter.

Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, 95‐99—“It is a fact now generally

recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the

language of the N. T. the same officer in the church is called

indifferently ‘_bishop_’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘_elder_’ or

‘_presbyter_’ (πρεσβύτερος).... To these special officers the

priestly functions and privileges of the Christian people are

never regarded as transferred or delegated. They are called

stewards or messengers of God, servants or ministers of the

church, and the like, but the sacerdotal is never once conferred

upon them. The only priests under the gospel, designated as such

in the N. T., are the saints, the members of the Christian

brotherhood.” On _Titus 1:5, 7_—“_appoint elders.... For the

bishop must be blameless_”—Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 150, remarks:

“Here the word ‘_for_’ is quite out of place unless bishops and

elders are identical. All these officers, bishops as well as

deacons, are confined to the local church in their jurisdiction.

The charge of a bishop is not a diocese, but a church. The

functions are mostly administrative, the teaching office being

subordinate, and a distinction is made between teaching elders and

others, implying that the teaching function is not common to them

all.”

Dexter, Congregationalism, 114, shows that bishop, elder, pastor

are names for the same office: (1) from the significance of the

words; (2) from the fact that the same qualifications are demanded

from all; (3) from the fact that the same duties are assigned to

all; (4) from the fact that the texts held to prove higher rank of

the bishop do not support that claim. Plumptre, in Pop. Com.,

Pauline Epistles, 555, 556—“There cannot be a shadow of doubt that

the two titles of Bishop and Presbyter were in the Apostolic Age

interchangeable.”

(_b_) The only plausible objection to the identity of the presbyter and

the bishop is that first suggested by Calvin, on the ground of 1 Tim.

5:17. But this text only shows that the one office of presbyter or bishop

involved two kinds of labor, and that certain presbyters or bishops were

more successful in one kind than in the other. That gifts of teaching and

ruling belonged to the same individual, is clear from Acts 20:28‐31; Eph.

4:11; Heb. 13:7; 1 Tim. 3:2—ἐπίσκοπον διδακτικόν.

_1 Tim. 5:17_—“_Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of

double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in

teaching_”; Wilson, Primitive Government of Christian Churches,

concedes that this last text “expresses a diversity in the

exercise of the Presbyterial office, but not in the office

itself”; and although he was a Presbyterian, he very consistently

refused to have any ruling elders in his church.

_Acts 20:28, 31_—“_bishops, to feed the church of the Lord ...

wherefore watch ye_”; _Eph. 4:11_—“_and some, pastors and

teachers_”—here Meyer remarks that the single article binds the

two words together, and prevents us from supposing that separate

offices are intended. Jerome: “Nemo ... pastoris sibi nomen

assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit.” _Heb.

13:7_—“_Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake

unto you the word of God_”; _1 Tim. 3:2_—“_The bishop must be ...

apt to teach._” The great temptation to ambition in the Christian

ministry is provided against by having no gradation of ranks. The

pastor is a priest, only as every Christian is. See Jacob, Eccl.

Polity of N. T., 56; Olshausen, on 1 Tim. 5:17; Hackett on _Acts

14:23_; Presb. Rev., 1886:89‐126.

Dexter, Congregationalism, 52—“Calvin was a natural aristocrat,

not a man of the people like Luther. Taken out of his own family

to be educated in a family of the nobility, he received an early

bent toward exclusiveness. He believed in authority and loved to

exercise it. He could easily have been a despot. He assumed all

citizens to be Christians until proof to the contrary. He resolved

church discipline into police control. He confessed that the

eldership was an expedient to which he was driven by

circumstances, though after creating it he naturally enough

endeavored to procure Scriptural proof in its favor.” On the

question, The Christian Ministry, is it a Priesthood? see C.

Anderson Scott, Evangelical Doctrine, 205‐224.

(_c_) In certain of the N. T. churches there appears to have been a

plurality of elders (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5). There is, however,

no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality

which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the

churches for which these elders cared. The N. T. example, while it permits

the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not

require a plural eldership in every case; nor does it render this

eldership, where it exists, of coördinate authority with the church. There

are indications, moreover, that, at least in certain churches, the pastor

was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number.

_Acts 20:17_—“_And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to

him the elders of the church_”; _Phil. 1:1_—“_Paul and Timothy,

servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that

are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons_”; _Tit. 1:5_—“_For

this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order

the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as

I gave thee charge._” See, however, _Acts 12:17_—“_Tell these

things unto James, and to the brethren_”; _15:13_—“_And after they

had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken

unto me_”; _21:18_—“_And the day following Paul went in with us

unto James; and all the elders were present_”; _Gal. 1:19_—“_But

other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother_”;

_2:12_—“_certain came from James._” These passages seem to

indicate that James was the pastor or president of the church at

Jerusalem, an intimation which tradition corroborates.

_1 Tim. 3:2_—“_The bishop therefore must be without reproach_”;

_Tit. 1:7_—“_For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward_”;

_cf._ _1 Tim. 3:8, 10, 12_—“_Deacons in like manner must be

grave.... And let these also first be proved; then let them serve

as deacons, if they be blameless.... Let deacons be husbands of

one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well_”—in all

these passages the bishop is spoken of in the singular number, the

deacons in the plural. So, too, in _Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18 and 3:1,

7, 14_, “_the angel of the church_” is best interpreted as meaning

the pastor of the church; and, if this be correct, it is clear

that each church had, not many pastors, but one.

It would, moreover, seem antecedently improbable that every church

of Christ, however small, should be required to have a plural

eldership, particularly since churches exist that have only a

single male member. A plural eldership is natural and

advantageous, only where the church is very numerous and the

pastor needs assistants in his work: and only in such cases can we

say that New Testament example favors it. For advocacy of the

theory of plural eldership, see Fish, Ecclesiology, 229‐249; Ladd,

Principles of Church Polity, 22‐29. On the whole subject of

offices in the church, see Dexter, Congregationalism, 77‐98; Dagg,

Church Order, 241‐266; Lightfoot on the Christian Ministry,

appended to his Commentary on Philippians, and published in his

Dissertations on the Apostolic Age.

B. The duties belonging to these offices.

(_a_) The pastor, bishop, or elder is:

First,—a spiritual teacher, in public and private;

_Acts 20:20, 21, 35_—“_how I shrank not from declaring unto you

anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from

house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance

toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.... In all

things I gave you an example, that so laboring ye ought to help

the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he

himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive_”; _1

Thess. 5:12_—“_But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that

labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you_”;

_Heb. 13:7, 17_—“_Remember them that had the rule over you, men

that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of

their life, imitate their faith.... Obey them that have the rule

over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your

souls, as they that shall give account._”

Here we should remember that the pastor’s private work of

religious conversation and prayer is equally important with his

public ministrations; in this respect he is to be an example to

his flock, and they are to learn from him the art of winning the

unconverted and of caring for those who are already saved. A

Jewish Rabbi once said: “God could not be every where,—therefore

he made mothers.” We may substitute, for the word ’mothers,’ the

word ’pastors.’ Bishop Ken is said to have made a vow every

morning, as he rose, that he would not be married that day. His

own lines best express his mind: “A virgin priest the altar best

attends; our Lord that state commands not, but commends.”

Secondly,—administrator of the ordinances;

_Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the

nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son

and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things

whatsoever I commanded_”; _1 Cor. 1:16, 17_—“_And __ I baptized

also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I

baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to

preach the gospel._” Here it is evident that, although the pastor

administers the ordinances, this is not his main work, nor is the

church absolutely dependent upon him in the matter. He is not set,

like an O. T. priest, to minister at the altar, but to preach the

gospel. In an emergency any other member appointed by the church

may administer them with equal propriety, the church always

determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, and

constituting him their organ in administering them. Any other view

is based on sacramental notions, and on ideas of apostolic

succession. All Christians are “_priests unto ... God_” (_Rev.

1:6_). “This universal priesthood is a priesthood, not of

expiation, but of worship, and is bound to no ritual, or order of

times and places” (P. S. Moxom).

Thirdly,—superintendent of the discipline, as well as presiding officer at

the meetings, of the church.

Superintendent of discipline: _1 Tim. 5:17_—“_Let the elders that

rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who

labor in the word and in teaching_”; _3:5_—“_if a man knoweth not

how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of

God?_” Presiding officer at meetings of the church: _1 Cor.

12:28_—“_governments_”—here κυβερνήσεις, or “_governments_,”

indicating the duties of the pastor, are the counterpart of

ἀντιλήψεις, or “_helps_,” which designate the duties of the

deacons; _1 Pet. 5:2, 3_—“_Tend the flock of God which is among

you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly,

according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a

ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you,

but making yourselves ensamples to the flock._”

In the old Congregational churches of New England, an authority

was accorded to the pastor which exceeded the New Testament

standard. “Dr. Bellamy could break in upon a festival which he

deemed improper, and order the members of his parish to their

homes.” The congregation rose as the minister entered the church,

and stood uncovered as he passed out of the porch. We must not

hope or desire to restore the New England _régime_. The pastor is

to take responsibility, to put himself forward when there is need,

but he is to _rule_ only by moral suasion, and that only by

guiding, teaching, and carrying into effect the rules imposed by

Christ and the decisions of the church in accordance with those

rules.

Dexter, Congregationalism, 115, 155, 157—“The Governor of New York

suggests to the Legislature such and such enactments, and then

executes such laws as they please to pass. He is chief ruler of

the State, while the Legislature adopts or rejects what he

proposes.” So the pastor’s functions are not legislative, but

executive. Christ is the only lawgiver. In fulfilling this office,

the manner and spirit of the pastor’s work are of as great

importance as are correctness of judgment and faithfulness to

Christ’s law. “The young man who cannot distinguish the wolves

from the dogs should not think of becoming a shepherd.” Gregory

Nazianzen: “Either teach none, or let your life teach too.” See

Harvey, The Pastor; Wayland, Apostolic Ministry; Jacob, Eccl.

Polity of N. T., 99; Samson, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 261‐288.

(_b_) The deacon is helper to the pastor and the church, in both spiritual

and temporal things.

First,—relieving the pastor of external labors, informing him of the

condition and wants of the church, and forming a bond of union between

pastor and people.

_Acts 6:1‐6_—“_Now in these days, when the number of the disciples

was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews

against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the

daily ministration. And the twelve called the multitude of the

disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should

forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore,

brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the

Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But

we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the

word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose

Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip,

and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus

a proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the apostles: and

when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them_”; _cf._

_8‐20_—where Stephen shows power in disputation; _Rom. 12:7_—“_or

ministry_ διακονίαν, _let us give ourselves to our ministry_”; _1

Cor. 12:28_—“_helps_”—here ἀντιλήψεις, “_helps_,” indicating the

duties of deacons, are the counterpart of κυβερνήσεις,

“_governments_,” which designate the duties of the pastor; _Phil.

1:1_—“_bishops and deacons._”

Dr. E. G. Robinson did not regard the election of the seven, in

_Acts 6:1‐4_, as marking the origin of the diaconate, though he

thought the diaconate grew out of this election. The Autobiography

of C. H. Spurgeon, 3:22, gives an account of the election of

“elders” at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. These “elders”

were to attend to the spiritual affairs of the church, as the

deacons were to attend to the temporal affairs. These “elders”

were chosen year by year, while the office of deacon was

permanent.

Secondly,—helping the church, by relieving the poor and sick and

ministering in an informal way to the church’s spiritual needs, and by

performing certain external duties connected with the service of the

sanctuary.

Since deacons are to be helpers, it is not necessary in all cases

that they should be old or rich; in fact, it is better that among

the number of deacons the various differences in station, age,

wealth, and opinion in the church should be represented. The

qualifications for the diaconate mentioned in _Acts 6:1‐4_ and _1

Tim. 3:8‐13_, are, in substance: wisdom, sympathy, and

spirituality. There are advantages in electing deacons, not for

life, but for a term of years. While there is no New Testament

prescription in this matter, and each church may exercise its

option, service for a term of years, with re‐election where the

office has been well discharged, would at least seem favored by _1

Tim. 3:10_—“_Let these also first be proved; then let them serve

as deacons, if they be blameless_”; _13_—“_For they that have

served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and

great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus._”

Expositor’s Greek Testament, on _Acts 5:6_, remarks that those who

carried out and buried Ananias are called οἱ νεώτεροι—“_the young

men_”—and in the case of Sapphira they were οἱ νεανίσκοι—meaning

the same thing. “Upon the natural distinction between πρεσβύτεροι

and νεώτεροι—elders and young men—it may well have been that

official duties in the church were afterward based.” Dr. Leonard

Bacon thought that the apostles included the whole membership in

the “_we_,” when they said: “_It is not fit that we should forsake

the word of God, and serve tables_.” The deacons, on this

interpretation, were chosen to help the whole church in temporal

matters.

In _Rom. 16:1, 2_, we have apparent mention of a deaconess—“_I

commend unto you Phœbe our sister, who is a servant_ [marg.:

‘_deaconess_’] _of the church that is at Cenchreæ ... for she

herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self_.”

See also _1 Tim. 3:11_—“_Women in like manner must be grave, not

slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things_”—here Ellicott and

Alford claim that the word “_women_” refers, not to deacons’

wives, as our Auth. Vers. had it, but to deaconesses. Dexter,

Congregationalism, 69, 132, maintains that the office of

deaconess, though it once existed, has passed away, as belonging

to a time when men could not, without suspicion, minister to

women.

This view that there are temporary offices in the church does not,

however, commend itself to us. It is more correct to say that

there is yet doubt whether there _was_ such an office as

deaconess, even in the early church. Each church has a right in

this matter to interpret Scripture for itself, and to act

accordingly. An article in the Bap. Quar., 1869:40, denies the

existence of any diaconal rank or office, for male or female.

Fish, in his Ecclesiology, holds that Stephen was a deacon, but an

elder also, and preached as elder, not as deacon,—_Acts 6:1‐4_

being called the institution, not of the diaconate, but of the

Christian ministry. The use of the phrase διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, and

the distinction between the diaconate and the pastorate

subsequently made in the Epistles, seem to refute this

interpretation. On the fitness of women for the ministry of

religion, see F. P. Cobbe, Peak of Darien, 199‐262; F. E. Willard,

Women in the Pulpit; B. T. Roberts, Ordaining Women. On the

general subject, see Howell, The Deaconship; Williams, The

Deaconship; Robinson, N. T. Lexicon, ἀντιλήψις. On the Claims of

the Christian Ministry, and on Education for the Ministry, see A.

H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 269‐318, and Christ in

Creation, 314‐331.

C. Ordination of officers.

(a) What is ordination?

Ordination is the setting apart of a person divinely called to a work of

special ministration in the church. It does not involve the communication

of power,—it is simply a recognition of powers previously conferred by

God, and a consequent formal authorization, on the part of the church, to

exercise the gifts already bestowed. This recognition and authorization

should not only be expressed by the vote in which the candidate is

approved by the church or the council which represents it, but should also

be accompanied by a special service of admonition, prayer, and the laying‐

on of hands (Acts 6:5, 6; 13:2, 3; 14:23; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22).

Licensure simply commends a man to the churches as fitted to preach.

Ordination recognizes him as set apart to the work of preaching and

administering ordinances, in some particular church or in some designated

field of labor, as representative of the church.

Of his call to the ministry, the candidate himself is to be first

persuaded (1 Cor. 9:16; 1 Tim. 1:12); but, secondly, the church must be

persuaded also, before he can have authority to minister among them (1

Tim. 3:2‐7; 4:14; Titus 1:6‐9).

The word “ordain” has come to have a technical signification not

found in the New Testament. There it means simply to choose,

appoint, set apart. In _1 Tim. 2:7_—“_whereunto I was appointed_

[ἐτέθην] _a preacher and an apostle ... a teacher of the Gentiles

in faith and truth_”—it apparently denotes ordination of God. In

the following passages we read of an ordination by the church:

_Acts 6:5, 6_—“_And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and

they chose Stephen ... and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and

Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus ... whom they set before the

apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon

them_”—the ordination of deacons; _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_”; _14:23_—“_And when they had appointed

for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they

commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed_”; _1 Tim.

4:14_—“_Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee

by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery_”;

_5:22_—“_Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other

men’s sins._”

Cambridge Platform, 1648, chapter 9—“Ordination is nothing else

but the solemn putting of a man into his place and office in the

church whereunto he had right before by election, being like the

installing of a Magistrate in the Commonwealth.” Ordination

confers no authority—it only recognizes authority already

conferred by God. Since it is only recognition, it can be repeated

as often as a man changes his denominational relations. Leonard

Bacon: “The action of a Council has no more authority than the

reason on which it is based. The church calling the Council is a

competent court of appeal from any decision of the Council.”

Since ordination is simply choosing, appointing, setting apart, it

seems plain that in the case of deacons, who sustain official

relations only to the church that constitutes them, ordination

requires no consultation with other churches. But in the

ordination of a pastor, there are three natural stages: (1) the

call of the church; (2) the decision of a council (the council

being virtually only the church advised by its brethren); (3) the

publication of this decision by a public service of prayer and the

laying‐on of hands. The prior call to be pastor may be said, in

the case of a man yet unordained, to be given by the church

conditionally, and in anticipation of a ratification of its action

by the subsequent judgment of the council. In a well‐instructed

church, the calling of a council is a regular method of appeal

from the church unadvised to the church advised by its brethren;

and the vote of the council approving the candidate is only the

essential completing of an ordination, of which the vote of the

church calling the candidate to the pastorate was the preliminary

stage.

This setting apart by the church, with the advice and assistance

of the council, is all that is necessarily implied in the New

Testament words which are translated “ordain”; and such

ordination, by simple vote of church and council, could not be

counted invalid. But it would be irregular. New Testament

precedent makes certain accompaniments not only appropriate, but

obligatory. A formal publication of the decree of the council, by

laying‐on of hands, in connection with prayer, is the last of the

duties of this advisory body, which serves as the organ and

assistant of the church. The laying‐on of hands is appointed to be

the regular accompaniment of ordination, as baptism is appointed

to be the regular accompaniment of regeneration; while yet the

laying‐on of hands is no more the substance of ordination, than

baptism is the substance of regeneration.

The imposition of hands is the natural symbol of the

communication, not of grace, but of authority. It does not make a

man a minister of the gospel, any more than coronation makes

Victoria a queen. What it does signify and publish, is formal

recognition and authorization. Viewed in this light, there not

only can be no objection to the imposition of hands upon the

ground that it favors sacramentalism, but insistence upon it is

the bounden duty of every council of ordination.

Mr. Spurgeon was never ordained. He began and ended his remarkable

ministry as a lay preacher. He revolted from the sacramentalism of

the Church of England, which seemed to hold that in the imposition

of hands in ordination divine grace trickled down through a

bishop’s finger ends, and he felt moved to protest against it. In

our judgment it would have been better to follow New Testament

precedent, and at the same time to instruct the churches as to the

real meaning of the laying‐on of hands. The Lord’s Supper had in a

similar manner been interpreted as a physical communication of

grace, but Mr. Spurgeon still continued to observe the Lord’s

Supper. His gifts enabled him to carry his people with him, when a

man of smaller powers might by peculiar views have ruined his

ministry. He was thankful that he was pastor of a large church,

because he felt that he had not enough talent to be pastor of a

small one. He said that when he wished to make a peculiar

impression on his people he put himself into his cannon and fired

himself at them. He refused the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and

said that “D. D.” often meant “Doubly Destitute.” Dr. P. S. Henson

suggests that the letters mean only “Fiddle Dee Dee.” For

Spurgeon’s views on ordination, see his Autobiography, 1:355 _sq._

John Wesley’s three tests of a call to preach: “Inquire of

applicants,” he says, “1. Do they know God as a pardoning God?

Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire and see

nothing but God? And are they holy, in all manner of conversation?

2. Have they gifts, as well as grace, for the work? Have they a

clear sound understanding? Have they a right judgment in the

things of God? Have they a just conception of salvation by faith?

And has God given them any degree of utterance? Do they speak

justly, readily, clearly? 3. Have they fruit? Are any truly

convinced of sin, and converted to God, by their preaching?” The

second of these qualifications seems to have been in the mind of

the little girl who said that the bishop, in laying hands on the

candidate, was feeling of his head to see whether he had brains

enough to preach. There is some need of the preaching of a “trial

sermon” by the candidate, as proof to the Council that he has the

gifts requisite for a successful ministry. In this respect the

Presbyteries of Scotland are in advance of us.

(b) Who are to ordain?

Ordination is the act of the church, not the act of a privileged class in

the church, as the eldership has sometimes wrongly been regarded, nor yet

the act of other churches, assembled by their representatives in council.

No ecclesiastical authority higher than that of the local church is

recognized in the New Testament. This authority, however, has its limits;

and since the church has no authority outside of its own body, the

candidate for ordination should be a member of the ordaining church.

Since each church is bound to recognize the presence of the Spirit in

other rightly constituted churches, and its own decisions, in like manner,

are to be recognized by others, it is desirable in ordination, as in all

important steps affecting other churches, that advice be taken before the

candidate is inducted into office, and that other churches be called to

sit with it in council, and if thought best, assist in setting the

candidate apart for the ministry.

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.”