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 in

terferes 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 govern

ment. 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 in

dependence 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. Every one 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.