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.'

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. 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 "censed to preach." Among the examiners were Drs.

* Dexter On Congregationalism, p. 225, edition of 1865.

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 Memoir of Judson, vol. i., p. 51.)

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, tha. 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 tc 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." *

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 * Works of Andrew Fuller vol. iii., p. 494.

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 Cor. ii. 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;