02.4. CHAPTER 4. BAPTISTS BELIEVE THAT A SCRIPTURAL CHURCH IS A LOCAL CONGREGATION OF ...

CHAPTER 4. BAPTISTS BELIEVE THAT A SCRIPTURAL CHURCH IS A LOCAL CONGREGATION OF BAPTIZED BELIEVERS INDEPENDENT, UNDER CHRIST, OF THE STATE AND OF EVERY OTHER CHURCH, HAVING IN ITSELF AUTHORITY TO DO WHATEVER A CHURCH CAN OF RIGHT DO.

TT requires but little reflection to see that the principle here announced is peculiar to Baptists. No other religious denomination holds it certainly not in its entirety. The important question, however, is whether the New Testament sustains this principle; for if it does not, the principle possesses no value. It will be observed that my reference is to the New Testament, for it would be absurd to go to the Old Testament to ascertain the nature of a Christian Church. In the matter of church-building, as well as in other things, Jesus said to the apostles, “Teaching them [the disciples] to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

SECTION I. A scriptural church a local congregation of baptized believers. The Greek term ekklesia translated “church” more than a hundred times in the New Testament (rendered “assembly “three times) is compounded of two words literally meaning “to call out of.” I shall not attempt to show how this meaning received a practical illustration when assemblies were called out among the Greeks. My present purpose is answered by the statement that in apostolic times a church was composed of persons who had been called out from the world, even as Christ chose his apostles “out of the world.” They had been called from the bondage of sin into the liberty of the gospel; from spiritual darkness into the light of salvation; from the dominion of unbelief into the realm of faith from an heirship of wrath to an heirship of glory. This was true of the members of the first churches. Brought by the Holy Spirit into a new relation to God through Christ, they were prepared for church-relations and church-membership. This preparation was moral, consisting of “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” But repentance and faith are exercises of the mind, and are consequently invisible. They are private transactions between God and the soul. The world knows not of them. Churches, however, are visible organizations. This being the case, there must be some visible ceremonial qualification for membership. This qualification is baptism. There can, according to the Scriptures, be no visible church without baptism. An observance of this ordinance is the believer’s first public act of obedience to Christ. Regeneration, repentance, and faith are private matters that take place in the unseen depths of the heart. They involve internal piety, but of this piety there must be an external manifestation. This manifestation is made in baptism. This is “the good profession” made by a most significant symbolic act. The penitent, regenerate believer is baptized “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” There is a visible, symbolic expression of a new relation to the three Persons of the Godhead a relation really entered into in repentance, faith, and regeneration. That baptized believers are the only persons eligible to church-membership is clear from the whole tenor of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Apostolic Epistles. Everywhere it is seen that baptism preceded church-relations; nor is there an intimation that it was possible for an unbaptized person to be a church-member. On this point, however, there is no controversy between Baptists and Pedobaptists, for both believe in the priority of baptism to church-membership. The difference between them is on the question, What is baptism? The Baptist answer to this question has been given in the preceding part of this volume. According to that answer, baptism is the immersion in water of a believer in Jesus Christ. If, then, a church is a congregation of baptized believers, ‘it is a congregation of immersed believers. An unimmersed congregation, therefore, even if a congregation of believers, is not a New Testament church. Baptists do not deny that there are pious men and women in Pedobaptist churches, so called, but they do deny that these churches are formed according to the New Testament model. They are without baptism, and, to use the words of a very distinguished Pedobaptist, Dr. E. D. Griffin, “where there is no baptism, there are no visible churches.” [Note: His celebrated Letter on Communion, reviewed by Dr. Ripley, may be seen in the Boston edition of J. G. Fuller On Communion also in the American Baptist Marine for September, 1829.] Even if Pedobaptists practised immersion, and immersion only, the introduction of the infant element into their churches would vitiate their claim to recognition as New Testament churches. The infant element must predominate over the adult element, in obedience to the law of increase in population which law renders children more numerous than parents. Surely, as Pedobaptists practise an uncommanded ceremony instead of baptism on unscriptural subjects instead of on believers their churches can lay no claim to conformity to the New Testament standard of church organization. They are not congregations of baptized believers. There can be no ecclesiastic fellowship between them and Baptists, for the latter hold most tenaciously that a scriptural church is a local congregation of baptized believers. That a church is a local congregation needs no elaborate proof. The fact is sufficiently indicated by the use of the word in both its singular and its plural form. We read of “the church at Jerusalem,” “the church of God which is at Corinth,” “the church of the Thessalonians,” “the church of Ephesus,” “the church in Smyrna,” etc. Nor is it to be supposed that it required a large number of persons to constitute a church. Paul refers to Aquila and Priscilla and “the church that is in their house,” to Nymphas and “the church which is in his house;” while in his letter to Philemon he says, “to the church in thy house.” A congregation of saints organized according to the New Testament, whether that congregation is large or small, is a church. The inspired writers, too, use the term “churches” in the plural; and, as if forever to preclude the idea of a church commensurate with a province, a kingdom, or an empire, they say “the churches of Galatia,” “the churches of Macedonia” “the churches of Asia,” “the churches of Judea.” In reference to an organization in a city or town or house, the singular “church” is used; but when regions of country are mentioned, we have “churches,” in the plural. Wherever Christianity prevailed in apostolic times, there was a plurality of churches.

SECTION II. The Lord’s Supper observed by local churches. The churches composed, as they are, of Christ’s baptized disciples meet for the worship of their Lord. “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” is the language addressed to Christians in apostolic times. Among the duties and the privileges of a congregation of baptized believers in Christ is included a commemoration of his death at his Table. Every local church is required to observe this ordinance. Its obligation to do so is inseparable from its independence; and the doctrine of church independence will be developed in future sections of this chapter. The ordinances of the gospel are placed by Christ in the custody of his churches. They dare not change them in any respect; to change them would be disloyalty to their Lord. They have no legislative power; they are simply executive democracies required to carry into effect the will of their Head. Who but his churches can be expected to preserve the integrity and the purity of the ordinances of the Lord Jesus? These ordinances are to be kept as they were delivered to the churches and received by them. This is indispensable to the maintenance of gospel order.

What Paul writes to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:20-34) clearly indicates the necessity of coming together “to eat the Lord’s Supper.” True, he refers to certain irregularities, which he severally condemns; but when he asks, “Despise ye the church of God?” he refers to its members, not in their individual, but in their collective, capacity the congregation of God. So, in verses 33, 34, the words “when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another,” and “that ye come not together unto condemnation,” show beyond doubt that the assembling of the church was requisite to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. It is a church ordinance, and therefore Baptists oppose any and every attempt to administer it privately to individuals without church sanction.

What was true of the Corinthian church as to the “coming together” of its members to commemorate the death of Christ was doubtless true of all other churches of that period. It would be absurd to suppose that there was a capricious diversity in the customs of the churches. We may therefore assume that there was uniformity. With regard to the Lord’s Supper there are different views held by different religious denominations. Roman Catholics believe in what they call Transubstantiation that is, that by the consecration of the priest the bread and the wine are changed into the real body and the real blood of Christ. This doctrine defies all reasonable credence, and can be accepted only by a voracious credulity. It requires a renunciation of common sense to believe that when Jesus took bread into his hands, that bread became his body; so that he held his body in his hands! The statement of such a dogma is its sufficient exposure.

Lutherans, while they dissent from the Romish view, advocate what they call Consubstantiation. By this they mean that in the Lord’s Supper the body and the blood of Christ are really present in the bread and the wine. While this view differs from the Romish, it is equally mysterious and scarcely less incredible; for it demands the impossible belief that the body of Christ is not only present in many places on earth at the same time, but that it is also in heaven. Surely the body of Christ is not omnipresent.

Episcopalians and Methodists, as well as Romanists and Lutherans, receive kneeling the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper. The posture is an unnatural one, and the custom of kneeling no doubt has an historical connection with Transubstantiation that is to say, when the dogma was accepted as true, the bread and the wine were considered suitable objects of adoration. Hence the kneeling attitude was assumed by Romanists, transmitted by them to Episcopalians, and from them inherited by Methodists. It is strange, in view of the idolatrous origin of the custom of kneeling, that it is continued by those who abjure idolatry. This by the way.

There is one thing in the service of Episcopalians and Methodists which must ever impress Baptists as very strange: The minister, in delivering the bread to each person, says, “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.” In giving the cup he says, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.” [Note: The Methodist “Discipline” transposes the terms “body” and “soul”.] This may not be, but it seems to be, a prayer offered to the body and the blood of Christ, which are invoked to preserve unto everlasting life the body and the soul of the person addressed. Prayer to Christ is eminently proper, for it is justified by the example of the dying Stephen; but prayer to the body and the blood of Christ is utterly indefensible.

Presbyterians are nearer right in their views of the Lord’s Supper than are the denominations to which I have referred. They do not kneel and they make prominent the commemorative feature of the ordinance. True, they call it a “sealing ordinance;” and these words Baptists vainly try to understand. What is sealed? “The covenant of grace,” they say. How is this? They say also that “baptism seals” it. Has it two seals? Among men covenants are invalid without seals. Is the covenant of grace invalid for purposes of salvation unless the seals of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are appended to it? Presbyterians will hardly answer in the affirmative. The truth is the New Testament never refers to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “sealing ordinances,” and for the best reason: It teaches that believers are “sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption.” If the Holy Spirit seals, there is security; and there is something wrong in the theology which makes baptism and the Lord’s Supper “sealing ordinances.”

Baptists hold that, as the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, the supreme prerequisite to it is church-membership. Baptism, it is true, is often referred to as a prerequisite, and so it is, but only in the sense that it is a prerequisite to church-membership. The members of every local church can claim it as a right to come to the Lord’s Table” in that church, but in no other. They may, through fraternal courtesy, be admitted to the Lord’s Supper in sister-churches, but to demand admittance as a right would be an assault on church independence. This is a matter so plain that it is needless to dwell on it. It sometimes creates a smile when it is said that Baptists are more liberal in their views and practice in regard to the Lord’s Supper than are any other people; but it is true. It is true in the sense that they believe that all whom they baptize and receive into church-membership are entitled to seats at the Lord’s Table; and it is true in the sense that they welcome to that Table all whom they baptize. They dare not sever from each other the two ordinances of the gospel. Of what other denomination can this be said? I refer to the denominations of Protestant Christendom. Among Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists baptism and the Lord’s Supper are put asunder that is to say, this is true of “baptized children” as distinguished from “communicants.” With Episcopalians and Lutherans these “baptized children,” so called, are kept from the Lord’s Table until they receive the rite of “Confirmation.” It is not possible to give a good reason for this practice; for if through “sponsors “they are entitled to baptism, they are also entitled to the Lord’s Supper. Presbyterians require in the “baptized children “evidence of personal piety before they are allowed to come to the Lord’s Table, and Methodists, to say the least, insist that there shall be “a desire to flee from the wrath to come.” The argument against inviting infants is that infants cannot “discern the body and blood of the Lord Jesus.” This is doubtless true; but it is equally true that they cannot discern the spiritual significance of baptism. If the inability to “discern” is a bar to the Lord’s Table, it should also be a bar to the Lord’s baptism. There can be no good reason for severing the ordinances of the gospel. Those who are entitled to baptism are entitled to the Lord’s Supper. There is an interference with scriptural order whenever the two ordinances are disjoined. The interference cannot be justified. Baptists, therefore, say that the Lord’s Supper is not scripturally observed among Pedobaptists. They have neither scriptural baptism nor scriptural church-membership, and there cannot be a scriptural administration of the Lord’s Supper. In addition to this, they withhold from a large number perhaps a majority of those who, in their judgment, are baptized the Lord’s Supper. This is a great inconsistency. It must be said, however, that if the ordinances were not sundered that is, if all baptized by Pedobaptists were permitted to come to the Lord’s Supper the service would be vitiated by the presence of a majority composed of unbelievers and of those incapable of believing. In view of such considerations as these, it will readily be seen why Baptists believe that Pedobaptists fail to observe the Lord’s Supper according to the New Testament, even as they fail to administer New Testament baptism. On the other hand, it is a distinctive Baptist principle that a scriptural church is a congregation of baptized believers in Christ, whose duty and privilege it is “to eat the Lord’s Supper.” All the members of such a church are required to commemorate their Lord’s death. They are united to him by faith in his name, and through him, by spiritual ties, to one another, while their baptism has incorporated them into one body, and their partaking of “one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17) is a symbol of their unity.

Baptists detach from the Lord’s Supper every idea of Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, ritual efficacy, sealing virtue, etc., and consider it a memorial of Christ’s death. Its commemorative office is that which constitutes its supreme distinction. Everything else connected with it is secondary and incidental. “This do in remembrance of me,” said Jesus in instituting the ordinance on the night of the betrayal. In the eating of the broken bread he requires that his crucified body be remembered; in the drinking of the cup he enjoins a remembrance of his blood. That the faculty of memory is specially exercised concerning the death of Christ in the sacred Supper is manifest from 1 Corinthians 11:26 : “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” We do not show his birth or baptism or burial or resurrection or ascension, but his death. If ever the tragedy of Calvary should engross the thoughts of the Christian to the exclusion of every other subject, it is when he sits at the Table of the Lord. Then memory must reproduce the scenes of the crucifixion and so hold them up to the mind that Christ is “evidently set forth crucified.” Then in the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup the body and the blood of the Lord are “spiritually discerned,” and the ordinance, by the presence of the Holy Spirit, becomes a rich blessing to the soul. It becomes the means of strengthening faith in Christ and of increasing love to him; while memory goes back to his death, and hope looks to his second coming, when his personal presence will supersede the necessity of any symbol to promote a remembrance of him.

SECTION III.

Definition of church independence.

There are three prominent forms of church-government, indicated by the terms Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Independency.

Episcopacy recognizes the right of bishops to preside over districts of country, and one of its fundamental doctrines is that a bishop is officially superior to an elder. Of course, in that church, a modern bishop has under his charge the “inferior clergy” as well as “the laity” for it is insisted that the “ordaining power” and the “right to rule” belong to the episcopal office. The apostolic times “bishop” and “pastor” were terms of equivalent import. The elders of the church of Ephesus are styled (Acts 20:28) “overseers” in the original, episeopoi, the word generally translated “bishop,” if, indeed, “bishop” may be called a translation. It is so evident from the Scriptures that bishops and elders are identical that it is the greatest folly to call it in question. This, however, is not the place to enlarge on the topic.

Presbyterianism recognizes two classes of elders preaching elders and ruling elders. The pastor and the ruling elders of a congregation constitute what is called the “Session of the church.” The “Session” transacts the business of the church, receives, dismisses, and excludes members. From the decision of a Session there is an appeal to Presbytery, which is composed of preaching and ruling elders. From the action of a Presbytery there lies an appeal to Synod, and from the adjudications of Synod there is an appeal to the General Assembly, whose decrees are final and irresistible. These Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies are often termed “church courts,” “judicatories of the church.” The friends of Presbyterianism, no doubt, deem their form of government most expedient and satisfactory j but to prove it scriptural must be as difficult as to show that baptism has been substituted for circumcision. Where is it intimated in the Scriptures that there is an appeal from the lower to the higher “church courts”? While Presbyterians, therefore, talk and write about the expediency of their form of government, they ought to say nothing of its scripturalness. It is unquestionably a better government than the Episcopal, but it is not the government established by Jesus Christ. It is easily seen that Episcopacy and Presbyterianism imply that many local congregations enter representatively into the composition of what is called “the church.” We, therefore, often hear of the “Episcopal Church of the United States of America,” the “Presbyterian Church of the United States.” The local religious communities in all parts of the nation where Episcopacy prevails are considered as constituting the “Episcopal Church.” So of Presbyterianism and Methodism. The Baptist Church of the United States is a form of expression which ought never to be used which can never be used with propriety. There are more than twenty thousand Baptist churches in the United States, but they do not constitute one great Baptist Church of the United States. They differ materially and fundamentally from Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches. They are all independent of the state.

This, however, is true of all religious denominations in this country; for the genius of our republic does not tolerate “Union between Church and State.” But it deserves special notice that Baptists, with their views of the spirituality of New Testament churches, could not, under any form of government, enter into an alliance with the state. Episcopacy is established by law in England, Presbyterianism in Scotland, Lutheranism in Germany and Sweden and Denmark. When Jesus stood before Pilate, he said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The view which Baptists have of these words is entirely hostile to the doctrine of a state church. Their appreciation of “soul-liberty” is so great that they can allow no interference with it. They are the friends of civil government, and believe any form of government better than anarchy. They pray for civil rulers, whether they be presidents or kings, but deny the right of the civil power to intrude into the spiritual realm of conscience. Their blood, often shed by their persecutors, has often testified to the sincerity of their belief. Their views find expression in the stanza:

“Let Caesar’s dues be ever paid
To Caesar and his throne;
But consciences and souls were made
For God, the Lord, alone.”

Churches formed according to the New Testament model are not only independent of the state, but in matters pertaining to government they are independent of one another. They are interdependent only in the sense involved in mutual fellowship; and their mutual influence is not to be lightly esteemed, for it answers valuable purposes. But it must not be forgotten that every local congregation of baptized believers united in church worship and work is as complete a church as ever existed, and is perfectly competent to do whatever a church can of right do. It is as complete as if it were the only church in the world.

It follows from the doctrine of church independence that no church is at liberty to interfere with the internal affairs of another. Every Baptist church is an independent and a pure democracy. The idea of independence should be earnestly cherished, while that of consolidation should be as earnestly deprecated. Agreeably to the view now presented, we read in the New Testament of “the churches of Judea,” “the churches of Galatia,” “the churches of Macedonia,” but we never read of the church of Judea and of other provinces. There is not the remotest reference to a church commensurate with a province, with a kingdom, or with an empire. This view of church extension and consolidation was post-apostolic manifestly so.

There are no people who recognize more fully than do Baptists the fact that the phrase “kingdom of Christ” implies that he is King, Monarch, Autocrat. In ordaining the laws of his kingdom he did not allow the impertinent interference of men. There is no human legislation in the kingdom of Christ. Churches organized according to the New Testament are required to execute the laws of Christ. To do this they must first decide what those laws are. It may be said, therefore, that the churches of Christ are invested with judicial and executive power, but they have no legislative power. Ecclesiastical legislation such as is permitted in many Pedobaptist organizations is abhorrent to the spirit of the gospel. Churches are executive democracies organized to carry out the sovereign will of their Lord and King. The Baptist view of this matter is forcibly expressed in the language of the late J. M. Peck, D. D. Referring to Baptists, he says:

“Their theory of church government embraces two great and apparently opposite principles.

“First. That the kingdom of Christ, in its visible form on earth, is a pure monarchy. Christ is King and Lawgiver. He needs not the aid of man, nor will he endure human legislation in any form. He has not merely given a few vague and general rules, and left his people to work out all the discordant plans of government that prevail at this moment in Christendom. Both by precept and in the inspired records of the primitive churches there are examples for every class of cases that necessity ever requires. The legislation in his kingdom is all divine.

“Secondly. His kingdom, in its organized state of small communities, each managing its own affairs in its own vicinage, is a pure democracy. THE PEOPLE THE WHOLE PEOPLE in each community choose their own officers, receive and expel members, conduct all business as a body politic, decide on all questions of discipline,-and observe all the institutions of Christ. Were they to institute a representative or any other form of government, they would depart from the law-book and soon be involved in as many difficulties as their neighbors.” [Note: Christian Repository (1853), vol. 2, pp. 47, 48.] In accordance with these principles, the governmental power of churches is, under Christ, with the members, including pastors and deacons. These officers, however, can do nothing without the concurrence of the membership. It results of necessity from church independence that a majority must rule, that the power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated, and that church action is final. The power of a church cannot be delegated. There may be messengers of a church, but not delegates. No church can empower any man or anybody of men to do anything which will impair its independency.

These are highly-important principles; and, while the existence of the independent form of church government depends on their recognition and application, it is an inquiry of vital moment, Does the New Testament recognize these principles? For if it does not, whatever may be said in commendation of them they possess no binding force. I refer to the New Testament, because it would be unjustifiable to go to the Old to ascertain the form of government established for Christian churches. Jesus Christ, in instructing the apostles how to train the baptized disciples, says, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). He does not say “all things that Moses commanded,” but “all things whatsoever I have commanded.” The apostles enjoyed his teaching during his ministry, and the “forty days” between his resurrection and his ascension he employed in speaking to them of “the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). It may be said that Paul was not with Christ during his ministry, and that he did not enjoy the advantage of the “forty days” instruction. This is true; but his deficiencies, as compared with those of the other apostles, were evidently supplied by direct revelations from heaven. It will be seen, therefore, that the apostles themselves had no discretionary power. They were to teach the observance of all things their Lord and Master had “commanded” no more, no less. Whatever they taught under the influence of inspiration must have accorded with the teachings of Christ. Whatever they did as inspired men may be considered as done by him.

SECTION IV. The churches of the New Testament received, excluded, and restored members. In proof and in illustration of this proposition the following facts are submitted. In Romans 14:1 it is written: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” What is the meaning of the first clause of this verse? Its import is obviously this: Receive into your fellowship, and treat as a Christian, the man who is weak in faith. The paraphrase of Mr. Barnes is, “Admit to your society or fellowship, receive him kindly.” There is unquestionably a command: “RECEIVE YE.” To whom is this command addressed? To bishops? It is not. To the “Session of the church,” composed of the pastor and the “ruling elders”? No. To whom, then? To the very persons to whom the Epistle was addressed; and it was written “to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7). No ingenuity can torture this language into a command given to the officers of the church in Rome. The members of the church whose designation was “saints” were addressed, and they were commanded to “receive the weak in faith” It was their business to decide who should be admitted into their brotherhood j and Paul, under the impulses of inspiration, says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” It was, of course, their duty to withhold their fellowship from those who had no faith. The right of the apostolic churches to withdraw their fellowship from unworthy members (2 Thessalonians 3:6) plainly implies their right to receive persons of proper qualifications into their fellowship. It is inconceivable that they had the authority to exclude, but not to receive, members.

I now proceed to show that the New Testament churches exercised the right of excluding unworthy members. In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 we read as follows: “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 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.”

It is quite worthy of remark that, while Paul “judged” that the incestuous member ought to be excluded from the church, he did not exclude him. He had no right to do so, and did not claim the right. The same apostle said to the “churches of Galatia,” “I would they were even cut off which trouble you” (Galatians 5:12); but he did not cut them off, though he desired it to be done and advised that it should be done.

It is worthy of notice too that the members of the Corinthian church could not, in their individual capacity, exclude the incestuous man. It was necessary to their action in the premises that they should be “gathered together.” They must assemble as a church and exemplify the doctrine of a pure democracy. Thus assembling, “the power of our Lord Jesus Christ” was to be with them. They were to act by his authority and to execute his will; for he makes it incumbent on his churches to administer discipline. In the last verse of the chapter referred to, Paul says: “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Here is a command, given by an inspired man, requiring the exclusion of an unworthy member of the church at Corinth. To whom was the command addressed? To the official members of the church?

No, but “unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.” The right of a church to exclude disorderly persons from its fellowship is recognized in these words: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). This command was addressed “to the church of the Thessalonians.” To “withdraw” from a “disorderly brother” is the same thing as to exclude him. There is a cessation of church-fellowship.

I have not referred to Matthew 18:17, because I shall notice it in another place. The reader will see on examination that the passage clearly shows the power of “the church” to perform the act of excommunication by which the member cut off becomes “as a heathen man and a publican.”

It is not more evident that New Testament churches received and excluded members than that they restored excluded members who gave satisfactory evidence of penitence. In 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 the “incestuous man” is again referred to, as follows: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.”

Paul manages this case with the greatest delicacy and tenderness. He refers to the excluded member without the least allusion to the disgraceful offence for which he was excluded. “Sufficient,” says he, “is this punishment” that is, the object of the exclusion had been accomplished. The church had shown its determination not to connive at sin, and the excluded member had become penitent. But the point under consideration is that the apostle advised the restoration of the penitent offender. Paul could no more restore him to the church than he could exclude him from it; but he says, “I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.” The power and the right to restore were with the church, and Paul solicits an exercise of the power and of the right. The great apostle, in saying “I beseech you,” bows to the majesty of the doctrine of church independence. He virtually admits that nothing could be done unless the church chose to act. In this connection one fact should be carefully observed: The power of the Corinthian church to restore this excluded member is unquestionable. The fact which deserves special notice and emphasis is that the power, in apostolic churches, to restore excluded members implies the power of receiving members, and also of expelling the unworthy. Without a first reception there could be no exclusion, and without exclusion there could be no subsequent restoration. Thus the act of restoration irresistibly implies the two previous acts of reception and exclusion. Now, if the New Testament churches had the power and the right to do these three things, they must have had the power and the right to transact any other business coming before them. Nothing can be of more vital importance to the welfare, and even to the existence, of a church than the reception, the exclusion, and the restoration of members. There are no three acts whose influence on the organic structure and prosperity of a church is so great; and these acts the churches of the New Testament undoubtedly performed.

Here I might let the foundation principle of church independency rest; but there is other proof of the New Testament recognition of that principle.

SECTION V. The churches of the New Testament appointed their officers. In Acts 1:1-26 there is an account of the election of Matthias to the apostleship. He was to succeed Judas the traitor. The most natural inference is that Matthias was chosen by the “one hundred and twenty disciples” mentioned in Acts 1:15. These “disciples” were, no doubt, the church to which the three thousand converts were added on the day of Pentecost. The brethren must have been held in high estimation by Peter if called on, in conjunction with the apostles themselves, to elect a successor to Judas. In Acts 6:1-15 : there is reference to the circumstances which originated the office of deacon, and also to the manner in which the first deacons were appointed. We read as follows: “And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to 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 Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them.”

It will be seen from this narrative that the apostles referred the matter of grievance to “the multitude of the disciples;” directed the “brethren to look out seven men;” that “the saying pleased the whole multitude;” that “they chose Stephen” and the others. The democracy of the whole arrangement is as clear as the light of day. The people, the whole membership of the church at Jerusalem, were recognized as the responsible source of authority, and they were required to make selection of suitable men. Large as was the number of church-members, they did not, for the sake of convenience, or for any other reason, delegate to a representative few the power to act for them. They knew nothing of a delegation of power. The whole multitude acted. In Acts 14:23 there is mention made of the ordination of elders in every church, as follows: “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed.” Some think that William Tyndale’s translation comes nearer to the meaning of the original. With the spelling modernized, it is as follows: “And when they had ordained them seniors by election, in every congregation, after they had prayed and fasted, they commended them to God, on whom they believed.” The word in the original here translated “ordained” literally means “to stretch forth the hand,” as is the custom in Baptist churches when a vote is taken. Tyndale puts in the words “by election,” believing, as he did, that the New Testament churches elected their elders by the votes of the members. He also states in his Rights of the Church as quoted by Lyman Coleraan in his Apostolical and Primitive Church (p. 63) that the Greek word referred to (cheirotoneo, from cheir, “the hand,” and teino, “to stretch forth”) is interpreted as he interprets it “by Erasmus, Beza, Diodati, and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, and even English, Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out the words, f by election,’ as well as the marginal notes, which affirm that the apostles did not thrust pastors into the church through a lordly superiority, but chose and placed them there by the voice of the congregation.”

Every one can imagine why the “Episcopal correction” was made. The words “by election” would give the “laity” an agency and an influence which the “Episcopal clergy” would not willingly allow. The word cheirotoneo is used but twice in the New Testament in the passage under consideration and in 2 Corinthians 8:19. In the latter it is translated “chosen,” and the choice was “by the churches.” In the former it certainly means that elders were chosen, appointed, not without, but by means of, the suffrages of the churches. Mr. Barnes, in his notes on the passage, well remarks: “It is said, indeed, that Paul and Barnabas did this. But probably all that is meant by it is that they presided in the assembly when the choice was made. It does not mean that they appointed them without consulting the church; but it evidently means that they appointed them in the usual way of appointing officers by the suffrages of the people.” In view of the facts now presented, it is plain that according to the New Testament the officers of a church are chosen by the church. No one church has the right to choose officers for another. No combination of churches has the right. Every church is as independent in its action as if it were the only church in the world. It will not be forgotten that “elders were ordained in every church.” There was, of course, uniformity of custom: all the churches of apostolic times were formed after the same model. That there was diversity in their formation is utterly incredible. In further support of the principle of Independency, I state the following facts without elaborating them: In the Jerusalem Council of which we are informed in Acts 15, “the whole church,” the “brethren,” are named in connection with the “apostles and elders:” “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men;” “And they wrote letters by them after this manner: The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting.” The members of the church at Jerusalem acted, as well as the apostles and the elders. The churches of apostolic times sent forth ministers on missionary-tours. When Antioch received the word of God, the church at Jerusalem “sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch” (Acts 11:22). His labors were successful “much people was added to the Lord” and at a subsequent period the church in Antioch sent out Saul and Barnabas, who made a long journey, performed much labor, returned, and reported to the church “all that God had done with them.” They “gathered the church together” before they gave an account of their labors. [Note: See Acts 13:1-3; Acts 14:26-27.] With what deferential respect did these ministers treat the church that sent them forth! Their example is worthy of imitation by ministers of all generations. The apostles, so far from exercising lordship over the churches, did not control their charities. This is seen in Acts 5:4; Acts 11:29-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 9:7. The churches, too, selected messengers to convey their charities. [Note: See 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:18-19; Php 2:25; Php 4:18.] Surely, if they chose those whom they put in charge of their pecuniary contributions, they appointed those to whom they committed their spiritual interests. In view of all the considerations now presented, the position held by Baptists namely, that the New Testament churches appointed their officers is established beyond successful denial. I term this the position of Baptists; for they alone hold it in the fulness of its significance. Certainly no other religious denomination in this country so holds it. There is among Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists no local church that has exclusive authority to appoint its minister or pastor. No rector is placed over an Episcopal congregation without the action of a bishop. With Lutherans, what is called the “Ministerium,” which is “composed of ministers only,” has the right of “licensing and ordaining ministers.” Among Presbyterians, whatever a local church may do, the action of Presbytery is necessary in licensing and ordaining men to preach. With Methodists, pastors are settled over local churches by the appointment of bishops. Even the office of “local preacher” cannot be conferred by a local congregation. The action of a “Quarterly Conference” is necessary in granting license to preach. Of these four large denominations it has to be said that their regulations with regard to the appointment of ministers are in conflict with the New Testament principle of church independence. This principle is violated when a local church is denied the right of appointing its own officers. Congregationalists are generally supposed to agree with Baptists as to the appointment of ministers; but they do not. Their theory may be correct; but if so, their practice is a departure from it. They have what they call “Consociations” and “Associations” the former chiefly in Connecticut. With regard to these, Dr. Dexter admits that there are in them “Presbyterian tendencies;” while of Associations he says: “As a matter of convenience, advantage has been taken of these regular assemblages of the pastors, by candidates for the pulpit, to present themselves, after thorough training, for examination for a certificate of approval in common parlance, ‘for licensure.’” [Note: Dexter On Congregationalism, p. 225, edition of 1865.]

It is easy to see that Dr. Dexter does not approve this method of “licensure;” but it is difficult to see how he can help it. The practice seems to be established, [Note: To show the correctness of this view, I may state that Adoniram Judson was “licensed to preach” in the year 1810 by an ‘‘Association of Congregationalist Ministers.” (See Wayland’s of Judson, Vol. 1, p. 51,)] In proof of this, I may quote from what The Congregationalist of April 13, 1881, says of the meeting of the Manhattan Association: “The principal business was the examination of four seniors of Union Seminary, who passed creditably and were licensed to preach.” Among the examiners were Drs. Wm. M. Taylor, R. S. Storrs, and Ray Palmer—quite renowned names. These distinguished men have thus given their sanction to the plan of licensing ministers, not by churches, but by Associations. Baptists stand alone in insisting that the right to license and ordain ministers is a right, under Christ, resident in a local church. It exists nowhere else. If exercised by bishops, Ministeriums, Consociations, or Associations, there is usurpation; and, of course, there is a violation of the order of the New Testament. Baptists believe that God calls men to preach the gospel, and that the churches recognize his call. They cannot make a minister, but they can approve what God has done at least, what they believe he has done. This is all a church does in voting for the ordination of one of its members to the pastoral office. Believing him to be divinely called to the office, the church, by its vote, recognizes the call; and this vote of recognition is the essence of ordination. Such, a vote must precede a Council of ordination, and the Council is called by the church of which the brother is a member. Andrew Fuller well remarks: “The only end for which I join in an ordination is to unite with the elders of that and other churches in expressing my brotherly concurrence in the election, which, if it fell on what I accounted an unsound or unworthy character, I should withhold. Though churches are so far independent of each other as that no one has a right to interfere in the concerns of another without their consent, unless it be as we all have a right to exhort and admonish one another, yet there is a common union required to subsist between them for the good of the whole; and, so far as the ordination of a pastor affects this common or general interest, it is fit that there should be a general concurrence in it. It was on this principle, I conceive, rather than as an exercise of authority, that the apostles, whose office was general, took the lead in the primitive ordinations. When the churches increased they appointed such men as Timothy and Titus to do what they would have done themselves had they been present; and when all extraordinary officers ceased, the same general object would be answered by the concurrence of the elders of the surrounding churches.” [Note: Works of Andrew Fuller, vol. 3, p. 494.] No action of an ordaining Council can in any way impair the integrity or independence of the church which calls such Council. When a Council recognizes and approves what a church has done, its moral influence, though it can impart no grace, is promotive of the usefulness of the pastor ordained and of the church over which he presides. If, however, a Council should withhold its recognition and approval, and if by its advice, the church should revoke its former action, there would be nothing in all this conflicting in the least with the doctrine of church independence.

SECTION VI.

Church action is final. The independence of a church implies the right of a majority of its members to rule in accordance with the laws of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 2:6 it is written: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.” A literal translation of the words rendered “of many” would be “by the more” that is, by the majority. The rendering of Macknight, and also of Davidson in his Revision, is “by the greater number.” If, as has been shown, the governmental power of a church is with the members, it follows that a majority must rule that is to say, either the majority or the minority must govern. But it is absurd to refer to the rule of the minority. That a majority must rule is so plain a principle of Independency, and so plain a principle of common sense, that it is needless to dwell upon it.

It has been stated on a preceding page that the power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated. From this fact results the finality of church action. The church at Corinth could not transfer her authority to the church at Philippi, nor could the church at Antioch convey her power to the church at Ephesus; nor could all the apostolic churches delegate their power to an Association, a Synod, a Conference, or a Convention. The power of a church is manifestly inalienable, and, this being true, church action is final. That there is no tribunal higher than that of a church is evident from Matthew 18:15-17 : “Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.”

Here the Saviour lays down a rule for the settlement of grievances among brethren. If the offender, when told of his fault, does not give satisfaction, the offended party is to take with him “one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” But if the offender “shall neglect to hear them,” what is to be done? “Tell it to the church.” What church? The aggregate body of the redeemed? This is equally impossible and absurd. I ask again, What church? Evidently the local congregation to which the parties belong. If the offender does not hear the church, what then and finally? “Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” that is, let the offender no longer be held in church-fellowship, but let him occupy the place of “a heathen man and a publican.” There is to be an end to Christian fellowship and association. This idea cannot be more fully emphasized than by the reference to “a heathen man [a Gentile] and a publican,” the most unworthy character, in Jewish estimation, to be found among Gentiles. But can there be no appeal from the action of a single local church to an “Association” or a “Presbytery” or a “Conference”? No; there is no appeal. Shall an Association or a Presbytery or a Conference put the offender back in church-fellowship, when the church by its action classed him with heathens and publicans? This is too preposterous. What kind of fellowship would it be, when the church had declared the excluded member unworthy of its fellowship? Will it be asked, What is to be done if the action of a church does not give satisfaction to all concerned? I answer, Do what is done when the action of a Presbyterian General Assembly or a Methodist General Conference or an Episcopal General Convention does not give satisfaction. Do nothing. There must be a stopping-place; there must be final action. Baptists say, with the New Testament before them, that the action of each local congregation of baptized believers is final. [Note: The above reasoning takes it for granted that the excluded member is justly excluded. If so, he must give evidence of penitence, in order to his restoration. If unjustly excluded, and the church does not, when the injustice is shown, annul its action, the excluded member may apply for admission into a sister-church, which may, in the exercise of its independence, receive him without encroaching on the independence of the excluding church. The opposite view would imply that the excluding church has a monopoly of independence, which is absurd.] Let those who oppose the Baptist form of church government show anywhere in the Scriptures the remotest allusion to an appeal from the decision of a church to any other tribunal. It cannot be done. There were, in apostolic times, no tribunals analogous to modern Synods, Conferences, Conventions. Let those who affirm that there were such “courts of appeal” adduce the evidence. On them rests the burden of proof. Baptists deny that there is such proof, and say that for any man to furnish it is as difficult as for “a camel to go through the eye of a needle.” The view which I have presented of the independence of the first churches is in such full historical accordance with the facts in the case that many distinguished Pedobaptists have been obliged to concede it. They have done this while giving their practical sanction to other forms of church government. Hence Mosheim, a Lutheran and a bitter opponent of Baptists, in referring to the first century, says: “The churches, in those early times, were entirely independent, none of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed by its own rulers and its own laws; for, though the churches founded by the apostles had this particular deference shown to them, that they were consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no juridical authority, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for them.” [Note: Maclaine’s Mosheim, Baltimore edition, vol. 1, p. 39.]

Archbishop Whately, a dignitary of the Church of “England, referring to the New Testament churches, says: “They were each a distinct, independent community on earth, united by the common principles on which they were founded, and by their mutual agreement, affection, and respect, but not having any one recognized head on earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty of one of these societies over others.” Again: “A CHURCH and a DIOCESE seem to have been for a considerable time coextensive and identical. And each church or diocese (and consequently each superintendent), though connected with the rest by ties of faith and hope and charity, seems to have been (as has been already observed) perfectly independent, as far as regards any power of control.” [Note: Kingdom of Christ, Carter’s edition, pp. 36, 44. 18] This is strong testimony from a Lutheran and an Episcopalian. They would have given a different account of the matter if they could have done so consistently with truth. They virtually condemned their denominational organizations in writing what I have quoted. I might refer to Neander, and to many other Pedobaptists of distinction who have expressed themselves in substance as Mosheim and Whately have done; but it is needless. Baptists are not dependent on the testimony of church historians. They make their appeal to the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If all the church histories in the world said the monarchical or aristocratic form of church, government was maintained from the death of the apostle John onward, they would not be moved by it while the New Testament represents every church as a democracy fully competent to transact its own business. “To the law and to the testimony;” “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Baptists have ever regarded every church as complete in itself, independent, so far as its government is concerned, of every other church under heaven. They have watched with jealous eye all encroachments on church independence. For their views on baptism its subjects and its act a regenerated church-membership, and the independent form of church government, they have been persecuted, tortured, put to death. Their blood has flowed like water. From their ranks have been taken martyrs who, having endured “much tribulation,” are now before the throne of God. But the principles of Baptists still live, and will live; for they are indestructible divinely vital cannot die.

SECTION VII.

Superior advantages of Independency.

If the form of church government advocated in this chapter is in accordance with the New Testament, it follows that it has advantages superior to those of all other forms of government. Some of these advantages will now be pointed out. Of church independence it may be said:

1. It is best suited to every form of civil government. In monarchies, whether absolute or limited, there is no reason why the churches of Jesus Christ should not be independent. Monarchies have to do with men as civil subjects, but not in their relations to God. The power of the monarch is a secular power, and cannot be rightfully exercised outside of the realm of secular jurisdiction; while Christianity belongs to the spiritual realm and confines itself to it. But even when monarchy transcends its proper limits and interferes with spiritual concerns, there is no reason why the independent form of church government should be exchanged for any other. In proof of this I need only refer to the fact that the apostolic churches were independent while the tyrant Nero reigned at Rome and caused the weight of his sceptre to be felt in all the provinces of his empire. The churches even then, wherever permitted to meet for worship, transacted whatever business claimed their attention.

“What has been said of monarchies may, of course, be said with greater emphasis of aristocratic forms of civil government. Under the legitimate operation of such governments there is no encroachment on the rights of churches, and the doctrine of church independence can be exemplified without collision with the civil authority.

What is true of monarchies and aristocracies may be said with supreme emphasis of republics; for the latter recognize the people as the source of governmental power. This recognition accords with the philosophy of independent church government. If in monarchies, where the people are supposed to exist for the purpose of carrying into effect the monarch’s will; if in aristocracies, where the people are reduced, comparatively, to ciphers churches can flourish in their independence, much more is this independence cherished under the auspices of republican government. Truly, then, may it be said that church independence is best suited to every form of civil government.

2. It is in accord with the tendencies of the age. The most superficial observer of men and things is aware that the democratic element has occasionally, at least indicated its existence in Europe for some centuries, while in recent years it has increased in strength. The colloquial remark has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson whether truly or not I cannot say that “the former European doctrine was that the great mass of men were born with saddles on their backs, while a few were born with boots and spurs on, and that the purpose of Divine Providence was for those with the boots and spurs to ride those having the saddles on them.”

If this absurd doctrine has not been exploded, it is certainly in a process of explosion. Oppressed humanity, under the burdens imposed by monarchy and aristocracy, is everywhere restless and waiting for a suitable opportunity to assert its rights. The tendencies of the age are in favor of bringing the democratic element out of obscurity and exalting it to prominence. It is fast becoming an axiom that the people are the source of power, and that sovereignty inheres in them not in kings and aristocracies, but in the people. How much the practical workings of church independence have had to do in developing the doctrine of popular rights it is impossible to say, but there is every reason to believe that they have promoted the development. Hence it may be said without hesitation that church independence is in accord with the tendencies of the age.

3. It gives suitable prominence to the membership of a church. This is seen in the fact that without the agency of a church nothing can be done. Pastor and deacons are powerless if a church declines to act. Their official business is to do that for which they are elected by the suffrages of the church of which they are members. They are responsible, under Christ, to the church from which they receive not only official authority, but official existence. In the forms of government preferred by Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists there is only an indirect recognition of the body of the members as the source of power. The recognition is more decided among Presbyterians than among the rest, but it is not complete. The constitution of their “highest court,” the General Assembly, is proof of this. The tribunal of last appeal is composed of ministers and ruling elders in equal numbers. This equality indicates a very partial concession of rights to the members. Everyone can see this who will take the trouble to learn how much greater is the number of members than of ministers. With regard to Episcopalians, it will be seen how powerless the members are, even in connection with the “inferior clergy,” when it is stated that in their General Conventions nothing can be done without the concurrence of the “House of Bishops.” That the people are comparatively ignored by Lutheranism appears in the fact that a “Ministerium,” that “licenses ministers,” is composed entirely of ministers, and that the Synod, the highest tribunal, from which there is no appeal, is formed by an equal number of “clerical and lay delegates.” Among Methodists the “lay element” is conspicuous by its absence. Within the memory of many persons now living it was entirely absent; for Annual and General Conferences were made up exclusively of “preachers.” In some sections of the country this rigid rule is now somewhat relaxed, but how meagre is “lay representation” in any Conference! In opposition to all these aristocratic forms of church government, and in practical condemnation of them all, the independent form presents itself, inviting examination and challenging admiration for what it does in giving suitable prominence to the members of a church. They are not ciphers, but the depositaries of the governmental power that Christ has conferred. Independency accepts this fact and claims it as one of its superior advantages.

4. Another advantage is seen in the appointment of church officers.

These officers are of two classes pastors and deacons. The former are in special charge of the spiritualties, and the latter of the temporalities, of the churches. Who can be so competent to choose these officers as the churches themselves? “With the scriptural qualifications for the two offices as given by inspired men, cannot the churches best decide who among them should fill those offices? Can they not tell who are men of such Christian integrity and sanctified common sense as will most probably, if not most certainly, “use the office of a deacon well”? So also as to pastors. These are to “watch for souls as they that must give account,” and who are so well qualified to select the men to preside as the churches to be presided over? Shall they not decide who shall watch for their souls and for the souls of the impenitent around them? Are they not best prepared to say who among them possess the moral and the spiritual requisites, as enumerated by Paul, for the office of bishop? As to the intellectual qualification implied in the words “apt to teach,” who can so satisfactorily tell that a man is apt to teach as those who have been taught by him? The independence of the churches, as illustrated in the appointment of their officers, must commend itself to the common sense of all unprejudiced persons. The advantage of this form of government over every other must be apparent. The great thing, however, to be said for it is that it accords with the New Testament.

5. It furnishes the most effectual preservative from doctrinal error.

Doubtless many persons will at once dissent from this view. They suppose that a consolidated church, embracing a province or a kingdom, is the best protection from the inroads of heresy. They think that the very compactness of such a church must resist the subtle influences of error, however penetrating those influences may be. Is this so? Has it been historically true? Was it true of the Church of England when Lord Chatham said that it had “a Calvinistic creed, a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy”? Is it true now, when various false doctrines receive not only toleration, but encouragement, and when the mere existence of what are termed “Broad Church” views implies that the very foundations of orthodoxy are disturbed? No; the Church of England with its u Thirty-Nine Articles,” more than three centuries old, is vulnerable to the assaults of false doctrine. Its strong ecclesiastic bands, riveted by Parliamentary enactments, create a compactness which gives greater facility to the infectious diffusion of error. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” This is true whether the lump be large or small; but the danger is greater where there is one large mass than where there are many that are small. Far be it from me to say that a church with the independent form of government may not become corrupted by heretical doctrines. History would falsify such a statement; but the corruption of one such church would have no necessary connection with the corruption of another. Indeed, the very independence of the churches might be, and if they were in a proper spiritual state would be, utilized in preventing the spread of the doctrinal corruption. On the other hand, a consolidated church, coextensive with a state or a kingdom, would furnish few if any facilities for arresting the tide of error when once set in. A local church, under a sense of its responsibility, is quick to detect the first appearance of vital heresy and to stamp it with censure. If the heretic sees his error, confesses it, and renounces it, the evil is at an end; if he persists in it, the church withdraws its fellowship from him and he becomes comparatively powerless for mischief. Suppose such a heretical minister to belong to the Presbyterian Church. He first disturbs the local congregation, then the Presbytery, then the Synod, and finally the General Assembly. Thus he has one opportunity after another to make known and to defend his false doctrines; so that the Presbyterian form of government, instead of preserving from doctrinal heresy, may, in the sense indicated, promote it. Who does not see that church independence is the best preservative from doctrinal error? Dr. Hodge is said to have expressed his wonder at the uniformity among Baptist ministers as to matters of doctrine, in view of the independence of Baptist churches. Perhaps his philosophical mind overlooked the fact that the uniformity is promoted by the independence.

I have referred to the withdrawal of fellowship on the part of a church from a heretic as a means of arresting the spread of doctrinal error. Another thing deserves mention: Where an entire church becomes heretical in doctrine or disorderly in practice, other churches, in the exercise of their independence, may withdraw their fellowship from it, and thus confine its injurious influence to its own narrow limits. Whether, therefore, we consider doctrinal error in connection with an individual church-member or in connection with a church itself, the independent form of government is the best security against its contagious encroachments. Nor is this all.

6. It secures, also, more satisfactory corrective discipline.

There is no perfection in this world. It may be sought more hopefully among the churches of the saints than elsewhere, but even there it will be sought in vain. All that is said in the New Testament about corrective church discipline implies the imperfection of church-members. This imperfection often shows itself in greater or less degrees. In its ordinary manifestations it must be borne with. Christian love and Christian forbearance require this. Sometimes, however, a church-member so violates his Christian obligations as to grieve his brethren, who admonish him and labor in the spirit of meekness to restore him. Ordinarily, they are successful and the offending brother is happily reclaimed. This is not always the case; in some instances it becomes the duty of a church to pass an act of exclusion. This, as we have seen, the New Testament not only authorizes, but requires. In a case of this kind the offender is arraigned and the charge or charges, with distinct specifications, are presented. The church sits as a Christian jury and hears all the testimony in the case. The arraigned brother has every opportunity to explain and rebut, if possible, the testimony against him. The church is disposed to give him the benefit of all doubts, but after a full hearing of the matter is convinced that the glory of God and the honor of his cause demand the exclusion of the brother. He is therefore excluded. The act of exclusion may offend him and not satisfy his kindred and partisan friends; but is it practicable to administer corrective discipline so satisfactorily in any other way? The man has been tried by his peers and found guilty. These peers, too, are of the “vicinage,” and fully competent to understand and appreciate all local circumstances bearing on the case. Does not the civil law mean something in providing for “a jury of the vicinage”? There is profound significance in the independence of each church, so far as the trial and the exclusion of a guilty member may be concerned. While, therefore, it cannot be said that the independent form of church government secures an absolutely satisfactory corrective church discipline, it may be said that the discipline so provided for is the most satisfactory that can be had.

7. It cherishes a sense of individual responsibility. This is a matter of great importance, for Christianity is an intensely personal thing. It has to do with men in their individual relations to God. There is no such thing as the regeneration of masses of men, nor is there regeneration by proxy. The great change takes place in the individual heart. Nothing is more personal than regeneration. When the materials of a Christian church are reduced to units, the units are found in regenerated persons. There is personal repentance, personal faith, personal baptism. In making a profession of Christianity, personal obligations are recognized and publicly assumed. Church relations do not impair, but intensify, a sense of individual responsibility. An impressive consciousness of this fact is indispensable to a proper performance of church duties. To show that the independent form of church government cherishes a sense of individual responsibility, it is sufficient to say that all matters coming before a church are decided by the votes of the members. They vote as individuals; and, as a majority rules, no one can tell but his vote may be decisive. Surely, then, every vote should be intelligently given; and this view of the case is a strong argument in favor of sanctified intelligence. Questions of great importance must be decided. These questions not only involve the spiritual welfare of the church itself, but often have an important bearing on the local interests of the community and the general interests of the kingdom of Christ. Church-officers are chosen by the suffrages of the members. How essential that the right man be appointed as pastor! In order to this, church-members must be acquainted with the purity of his Christian character, and also with his doctrinal soundness. A vote referring to two points so vital as these must be given under a sense of responsibility. The influence of deacons has much to do with the condition of a church, and therefore the best men should be appointed to the office. A church too must decide what objects of Christian work should receive its encouragement and patronage. These objects may be so numerous that all of them cannot receive attention, and if so, there must be a selection of those deemed most important. What shall be the proportion of pecuniary aid given to Home Missions, Foreign Missions, Publication Work, and Ministerial Education, the church must decide. The decision is no trivial matter. It calls for a union of knowledge and piety. One of the most painful duties of a church is to deal in a way of discipline with unworthy members. In all the proceedings in such cases the laws of Christ are to be sacredly observed. These laws, then, must be understood that they may be intelligently applied. A member who is guilty of “disorderly conduct,” and who fails to give satisfaction by penitence and reformation, must be excluded. It is a solemn thing to withdraw the hand of fellowship, and it must be done under a sense of responsibility. W T hen, according to apostolic command, “a heretic “is to be “rejected,” the act of rejection is to be performed by the church. A renunciation of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel demands this step. As a general thing, the members of a local church, having been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and justified by faith in Jesus Christ, are competent judges of sound doctrine. They may not understand many theological niceties, but they know the way of salvation. They “have an unction from the Holy One” (1 John 2:20). In view of all these considerations, showing what obligations rest on church-members and what duties are required at their hands, I affirm with strongest emphasis that the independent form of government cherishes a sense of individual responsibility. These who have to decide great questions by their votes are in a responsible position. This fact impresses them; they cannot ignore it; they would not if they could. Their responsibility as church members is to the Head of the church the Lord Jesus Christ and it is stamped with all the sacredness of the blood of his atoning sacrifice. Let the church-member take his stand by the cross, remembering that he has been individually redeemed by him who died thereon, and he will cherish a sense of individual responsibility. He will feel the weight of the personal obligations resting on him. The doctrine of church independency will deepen his consciousness of these obligations; for it will teach him that he is not a cipher, but a man A REDEEMED MAN, and ere long to be A GLORIFIED MAN.

CONCLUSION. The foregoing pages show that there is something distinctive in the principles of Baptists. They differ from all other denominations; and the difference is so great as not only to justify, but to demand, their separate existence as a people. They are God’s witnesses, and they are his only witnesses who “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” on the points referred to in this volume. Should their testimony be suppressed, in what religious denomination could “the whole truth” concerning the subjects of baptism be found? Not one. The question, Who should be baptized? would receive an answer in positive conflict with the teachings of the New Testament. Who but Baptists declare “the whole truth” with regard to the exclusive baptismal act and the symbolic import of the act? If there are others, where are they? We know not. Nor do we know of any people, besides Baptists, who maintain “the whole truth” on the subject of a regenerated church-membership, embracing, as it does, the vital point that we come to the church through Christ, and not to Christ through the church and its ordinances. Baptists proclaim in the audience of the whole world that persons have nothing to do with church relations and gospel ordinances till they are regenerated. Among whom, except Baptists, is the doctrine of church independency fully exemplified? Throughout this broad land we look in vain for the exemplification. Truly, Baptists are important witnesses; for they testify important things, and theirs is the only testimony on these important matters. In view of the facts to which attention has been called in this volume, there are certain duties incumbent on Baptists, such as the following:

1. They should acquaint themselves more thoroughly with Baptist principles. The Baptist Year-Book for 1882 reports more than two and a third millions of Baptists in the United States. This is a large number, but it is sad to think that there may be in it many persons who cannot give a satisfactory reason why they are Baptists. Honesty and veracity would possibly require some to say, “We are Baptists because our fathers and mothers were.” Some might have to say, “The Baptists were the leading people where we made profession of religion, and we joined them.” Others, in telling the truth of the matter, might be obliged to say, “We became Christians in time of revival, and, as most of the converts united with the Baptists, we did so too.” Others still would possibly find a suitable representative in the brother who said, “I liked the Baptist minister better than any other, and wished to be a member of his church.”

What reasons are these for being Baptists! It is not necessary to say that such reasons should have no influence, but they certainly should not be decisive. Proper reasons for becoming Baptists are to be found in the New Testament. They will be found without being specially sought that is to say, if the New Testament is faithfully and diligently studied, the principles which distinguish Baptists will be discovered. That these principles are in accordance with, and the outgrowth of, the teachings of Christ and the apostles is the conclusive reason why anyone should be a Baptist. Let these principles be understood and appreciated, and there will be decided Baptists. They will be Baptists because they can be nothing else. The plain teachings of Scripture will permit them to be nothing else. It is “a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation,” that any Baptists should have only a superficial acquaintance with the principles they profess. Such persons, whether few or many, need instruction that they may be intelligent Baptists, and that they may be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for their faith and practice.

2. Baptists should be more zealous in the propagation of their principles.

Good principles are good things, but they have no self-propagating power. Principles are powerless apart from the persons who hold them. Baptists sometimes forget this. They are so confident of the correctness of their principles as to feel that all will be well. They think that their views, without any effort on their part, will commend themselves to general acceptance. They suppose that a good cause may be left to take care of itself; but no cause, however good, takes care of itself* Its friends must advocate it, and by their advocacy secure its triumph. Baptists must not forget that they are “fellow helpers to the truth.” None of them should fail to give the “truth” their help. None should ever act as if they were ashamed of being Baptists. Their principles, when assailed, should never lack defence or vindication from them. Their silence, when they should speak, would be a culpable and an injurious silence. Baptists should be ready not only to meet and to repel attacks made on their principles, but should earnestly engage in the propagation of those principles. Leaving, on suitable occasions, their fortresses of defence, they should invade the domain of error and become actively aggressive. This is one fault of some of the Baptists of this generation that they do not zealously propagate their distinctive views. They should see to it that the truth as embodied in their distinctive principles is brought into direct, positive, constant, exterminating contact with the error opposed to those principles. What distinctive mission have Baptists, if this is not their mission? to present the truth in love on the matters wherein they differ from Pedobaptists. What is there but this that justifies their denominational existence and saves them from the reproach of being schismatics? If they have a right to denominational life, it is their duty to propagate their distinctive principles, without which that life cannot be maintained.

3. They should pray more earnestly for the success and triumph of their distinctive principles.

It is supposed by many that controversy drives away the spirit of prayer. Were this so, it would be very sad; for there would be no spirit of prayer. Controversy is a necessity, and will be so long as truth and error are in the world. There may not at all times be controversy going on in the technical sense, but really and truly there is always controversy when truth and error are in collision. God is on the side of truth. Baptists worthy of the name believe without a doubt that their distinctive principles are true. Hence they can in all good conscience appeal to God in prayer, and ask him to care for his own truth and vindicate it by giving it success. Active effort to inculcate and diffuse the truth should ever be preceded, accompanied, and followed by prayer. No principle is worth holding, the success and triumph of which cannot be consistently prayed for. Baptists, above all persons, should pray. Other denominations that capture infants in their cradles and claim them as “the baptized children of the church” are not so dependent on God for the continuance of their ecclesiastical life as are Baptists. For the latter there is no hope but in God no hope, unless he by his Spirit regenerates 20 individuals of accountable years and thus fits them for membership in the churches. While Baptists must never fail to use means to disseminate their distinctive principles, they must call earnestly on God in prayer to give to those principles the success and triumph to which their importance and their value entitle them. There is wonderful efficacy in prayer. Let Baptists test its efficacy in connection with their distinctive principles.

I present only one point more:

4. Pedobaptists should candidly examine the distinctive principles of Baptists.

These principles are not understood by multitudes in Pedobaptist communities. It is supposed that immersion as baptism is the only thing specially characteristic of Baptists. Nor is this view confined to persons of ordinary intelligence. I have it from a perfectly credible source that General R. E. Lee not many years before his death said that he had just heard concerning the Baptists what surprised him namely, that they did not baptize infants! If General Lee had not known this all his life, what is to be said of persons of inferior intelligence? The General was an Episcopalian. Pedobaptists should inform themselves as to what Baptists believe. It would do them good, for it would give them important ideas on the subject of scriptural churches and Christian ordinances. Many of them, too, would be led to make a personal profession of their faith in the act of Christian immersion. It was an examination of Baptist principles that influenced Adoniram Judson, Luther Rice, Horatio B. Hackett, Alexander Carson, Baptist W. Noel, N. M. Crawford, D. R. Campbell, Richard Fuller, and many others, to renounce the errors of Pedobaptism, and to illustrate the spirit of obedience to Christ by being “buried with him in baptism.”