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

It may be said, there

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. fore, 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." *

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 any body of men to do anything which will impair its independency.

* Christian Repository (1853), vol. ii., pp. 47, 48.

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" (Matt. xxviii. 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 i. 3). It ray 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 Mas

ter 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 Rom. xiv. 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 tc be saints" (i. 7). No ingenuity can torture this langnage into a command given to the officers of the church in Rome. The members of the church-whose