government of the church, as in all other realms of church life, has also suffered much corruption, the corruption of it beginning even before the close of the apostolic age. The earliest recorded corruption of the government of the church was recorded by the Apostle John in his third epistle, verses 9-10. "I wrote unto the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Therefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church."

Here we have the first church despot, the first tendency toward an episcopal hierarchy, the first church to lose its autonomy. Since this time many churches have gone this same path, but it is still just as wrong as it was then.

It is certain that there was a definite form of government in the churches from the very beginning, although this is denied by some. Dr. Mosheim, for example, says:

However, Dr. Mosheim goes on to essentially reverse his position, and shows the early churches to have a definite form of government, and that form to be congregational.

How much stronger could the congregational authority and absolute sovereignty of the church be expressed than Dr. Mosheim here does? It would seem that in many cases when present day writers claim that there was no definite polity in the early churches, they simply wish to obscure the fact that the polity which is clearly found in the New Testament churches is not that which is presently practiced in their own denomination. It may be said of this matter as J. B. Gambrell says of the Great Commission.

A definite form of government in the church is implied in the command, "Let all things be done decently and in order," (1 Cor. 14:40). Government in the church is necessary to prevent anarchy and confusion. God’s order to ancient Israel was, "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes," (Deut. 12:8.) And during the period of one of Israel’s lowest ebbs when anarchy reigned supreme, it is recorded that, "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes," (Judges 17:6). Lack of government makes for anarchy and confusion, and every evil work. Not so did the Lord leave His church.

The church is to be sovereign and independent. It is to brook no outside interference. It is autonomous-self-ruling. But this does not mean that it is free to do as it pleases. It is only free to do as its Head pleases. Every member of every church needs to recognize that so far as the Lord is concerned, the church is to be an absolute monarchy: Christ is at once the King, Law-giver and Judge. All too many churches reject this in practice, if not in actual profession.

As to whether there was a definite governmental polity in the churches in New Testament times, we answer in the words of Henry G. Weston, who says:

From the human standpoint, there are four principle forms of church government practiced in the world today. It will be our duty to consider these in the light of Scripture to see which most nearly meets the divine pattern for the Lord’s churches. These four are: the Papal, the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, and the Congregational.

1. The Papal form of government is, in many ways, the same as the Episcopal, and is actually an outgrowth of it. Yet, there are a number of differences in the two also. The Papal form of church government moves upon the assumption that: (i) Authority was originally given to Peter as the head of the

church, and that he is the vicar of Christ upon the earth. (ii) This authority was passed on to his successors after him, who also are entitled to bear the name of Apostle and Vicar of Christ. (iii) Peter was bishop over the church at Rome. (iv) The church at Rome had supremacy over other churches. (v) There was an unbroken succession of authority since that time.

The term "Papal" comes from the Latin "papa," pope or father. Hence, it is the form of government which vests all authority in the Pope as the supreme head over the church. Though the rest of the government of the Roman Catholic church resembles, to a great degree, the Episcopal form, yet the hierarchy is still subject to the Pope in the final analysis, and therefore, must be regarded as a distinct form of government. A. H. Strong says of this form of government:

As we have seen before, the authority which was committed to Peter was: (1) Subsequently committed to the whole church in the person of her representatives, the apostles, (Matt. 18:18). (2) The authority was not of the nature of unlimited authority, but was: (a) Relative to church discipline only, (b) Subject to certain limitations, chiefly that it must be in accordance with the revealed will of God, and (c) It was only "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," not to heaven itself. It dealt primarily with church matters as the representative and manifestation of the kingdom of heaven. (3) Peter himself, manifestly denies the Romish pretensions when he terms himself "also an elder," and declares that the elders are to "feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind: neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensample to the flock," (1 Pet. 5:1-3).

As to a succession from the apostolic office, the Scriptures emphatically deny this, since it was required of an apostle that he must have seen the Lord personally (1 Cor. 9:1): "Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" Not only so, but even before the book of Revelation was written, men had begun to try to pass themselves off as apostles, but had been proven false apostles. "Thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars," (Rev. 2:2). Paul had warned the church at Ephesus of these much earlier when he said, "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse thing, to draw away disciples after them," (Acts 20:29-30). And what better way could it be done, than by claiming to be an apostle?

However, there is a less technical usage of the word "apostle" in the New Testament in which it simply has the meaning of one who is sent out (the literal meaning of the Greek word apostolos)—a messenger. In this sense it is used in 2 Corinthians 8:23; Philippians 2:25, and perhaps, Acts 14:14.

It is, according to the apostle Paul, the mark of those ministers of Satan who endeavor to deceive unsuspecting people, to transform themselves into, and claim to actually be, the apostles of Christ, (2 Cor. 11:12-15).

As to Peter ever being pastor of the church at Rome, this is a tradition, which, while going back to an early date, is still nothing but a tradition, and should not be treated otherwise. Eusebius (260?-?340) (Ecclesiastical History, lib. II, chap. XIV) is the oldest extant source of this tradition. There is no Scripture to substantiate this idea, although it has been claimed by some that 1 Peter 5:13 does so. This verse says: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you..." This is claimed by Eusebius (H. E., lib. II, chap. XV) to be a reference to Rome, yet even Eusebius acknowledges that this is "an unusual trope (figure of speech)." However, it is more likely that this refers to the literal Babylon, since there is no reason whatsoever to hide the truth under figures of speech, and it is evident from what Eusebius says, that this was not a common designation for the city of Rome.

Even if this referred to Rome, it would still prove nothing except that Peter was there, which has long been a tradition held by much of the religious world. In any case, Rome did not achieve supremacy over other churches for several centuries. Nor, indeed, did she even endeavor to do so before the end of the Second Century when Victor, Bishop of Rome, excommunicated some of the Asiatic churches because they did not observe the pagan festival of Easter on the same date as the Roman church did. In the first quarter of the Third Century, Callixtus, Bishop of Rome, claimed supremacy over other churches, but he was withstood by Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, which was almost under Rome’s shadow, which hardly sounds like Rome’s supremacy was known and acknowledged universally at that time.

This Hippolytus, together with Tertullian and Novatian, was responsible for defending and strengthening the doctrine of the Trinity which was under fire from Callixtus and other liberal theologians. These three men all held beliefs and practices which are distinctive Baptist beliefs and practices today.

Whether one believes that Peter was once bishop of Rome or not, one thing is certain, later bishops of Rome were of a totally different character than Peter. And many of the heresies concerning the person and work of Christ originated with, or were propagated by these, and the honor of withstanding these, and defending the orthodox faith goes to our Baptist forefathers, not to Rome.

Rome has long sought to exalt itself over the other churches, and though it did not attain the place where it could exert such power until after 325, and did not achieve the height of this power until 606, nonetheless it was seeking to do so as early as the last decade of the Second Century.

The Papal form of government looks to the Pope as the head, and the final word in all religious matters, but it has Archbishops, Bishops, and Archdeacons which are responsible for electing each new pope, formulating new doctrines, etc. Though Rome claims the motto semper idem—always the same—her whole history has been one of change, reversal of former statements of faith and practice, and formulation of new doctrinal concepts—a history of departure from Bible Truth.

All that will be necessary to the refutation of this form of church government will be the consideration of the New Testament teaching relative to church polity, which will be considered shortly. Papal government is a development of recent centuries, and episcopacy antedates it by many centuries.

2. The Episcopal form of government takes its name from the Greek word episcopos, bishop or overseer, and as such, it designates that form of church government wherein all major decisions are made by the bishop or archbishop over a given area. Preacher rule, as we have before noticed, was one of the earliest corruptions of church government, and as church history bears out, it soon achieved almost universal acceptance in the more theologically liberal churches of the Second, Third and following Centuries. This form of church government is popular with many church leaders, because it gives opportunity to pride and self-exaltation, something that every person, even saved individuals have in excessive quantities, and with which we must strive if we would rightly serve the Lord.

Though the pastors or overseers of the churches of the New Testament played a prominent part in church life, there is nothing to indicate that the Lord ever intended, or that they every were, any thing more than the leaders and servants of the churches. As is stated by Peter (from whom many advocates of Episcopacy claim to have their example and authority), the overseers of the flock are not to be "lords over God’s heritage, but ensamples to the flock," (1 Pet. 5:3). The Greek word used here (katakurieuo) is used four times in the New Testament, each time in a bad sense. This is the negative aspect—what the overseer is not to be to the church.

Much of the supposed scriptural foundation for this form of government is taken from the relationship of the apostles over the early churches, as, for example, (2 Cor. 11:28): "besides those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches." But this does not of necessity imply any authority, but only an anxious care and concern for the churches.

Although there are passages which could be cited wherein Paul seems to exercise authority over the churches, this cannot have application to pastoral authority today because: (1) Paul was not, in the strict sense, an overseer over any given church. He was, sometimes for brief periods, a missionary pastor, but his regular office was that of Apostle to the Gentiles, and as such, he was to make known God’s will to all the Gentile churches. (2) He, as an apostle, had authority which belonged to none else but apostles, and which died out with the apostolic office. (3) Even though Paul and the other apostles had this authority, they almost always spoke only in an advisory capacity, and left the actual judicial and executive authority to be exercised by the local congregation. Paul therefore says, "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 an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh..." (1 Cor. 5:35).

Such passages as Titus 1:5: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee," implies nothing more than Paul’s apostolic power, if, indeed, it implies this much. Another plausible meaning is that when Paul left, by mutual consent Titus was to stay behind to continue preaching and teaching the new converts, and to ordain elders in each city as a need arose for them. In any case, there is no evidence here of episcopal authority.

Much of the supposed proof of an episcopal form of government goes back to the supposed Petrine authority, which we have already seen is nothing more than a popish superstition based upon a misinterpretation.

Paul’s words to the Hebrews are sometimes cited as proof of episcopal rule. "Remember them which have the rule over you...Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves..." (Heb. 13:7, 17). But the word "rule" might be better translated "guide" or "lead the way," which is the Godgiven duty of every overseer. And the word for "submit" might as well be translated "to give way, yield to authority and admonition." And the word for "obey" is peithesthe, "to be personally persuaded" (the middle voice is reflexive). Therefore we may paraphrase this passage as follows: "Be personally persuaded (concerning what is preached, whether it is scriptural or not) toward those who are leading the way (or who have the overseership over you) and yield to the authority and admonition (of their preaching) for they watch for your souls..." There is no room for episcopal despotism here.

The theory of an episcopal form of government was the logical outgrowth of making a distinction between the bishop or overseer (Greek episcopos) and the elders (Greek presbuteros), and of making them distinct offices as began to be done in the Second Century. But this we will discuss more at length in the chapter on the Officers of the Church.

It is ever true that the most efficient method of dealing with people is to lead them, not to try to drive them.

3. The Presbyterian form of church government is that in which the authority resides in a presbytery, or a council of elders. This form of government falls midway between that of episcopacy and congregationalism. Whereas in episcopacy, the authority is entirely in the hands of the clergy, and in congregationalism it is entirely in the hands of the lay people, in presbyterianism the governing is by a council of elders, but the laity are allowed a voice in some of the church matters.

It is not to be denied that there were presbyteries in the New Testament, but that there were presbyteries which exercised rule or authority over any church is denied. Not one instance is to be found. The word "presbytery" is found only three times in the Greek Testament, and of these, only that in 1 Timothy 4:14 is used in the sense of a Christian presbytery. Those in Luke 22:66 and Acts 22:5 have reference to the body of Jewish elders. This one Christian presbytery refers only to the group of elders which ordained Timothy to the ministry.

However, other instances of the work of a presbytery besides that of the laying on of hands in Timothy’s case, may be inferred from Scripture. The reference in Acts 14:23 manifests congregational action, not authoritative presbyterial action. They "ordained for them" (Note the dative case of "them"). Certainly it was the action of Paul and Barnabas, and possibly others, and these probably composed a presbytery, as in the case of Timothy. But it is still manifestly by the authority of the churches at Lystra, Iconium and Antioch of Pisidia in each case.

That there was a progression from total congregational action to other forms of church government in the early centuries of the Christian era, A. H. Strong remarks as follows:

Those who practice a presbyterian form of government have their general assemblies at regular intervals, at which each local congregation is represented by two or more of its elders. Of these delegates, one is elected to be the president or moderator over the assembly for a year, or some other stated term. The local congregations are all subject to the laws and decrees of the national "church," which is what the general assembly is considered to be. Such a form of government requires the surrender of the autonomy and independence of the local body, and disregards the scriptural teaching and example concerning the nature of a New Testament church.

Probably the one New Testament passage which comes nearer to sustaining the idea of a presbyterial form of church government than any other, is that which deals with the church council held at Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question," (Acts 15:1-2).

The problem which had come up was such as affected all of Christianity. It dealt with one of the most basic of doctrines: was salvation to be all of grace, or was the law to enter in and make it of works also? This was the problem that must be settled. Hence, the Antioch church sent several of its members to Jerusalem to hear what the apostles had to say about it. Paul, as the apostle of the Gentiles, could have spoken authoritatively on the subject and settled matters as far as they affected the Antioch church. But since these Judaizers had come from the Jerusalem church, professing to have the approval of the twelve apostles in what they were teaching, every error which they propagated reflected back on

the Jerusalem church and the apostles. It was needful therefore that the matter be settled once and for all, whether circumcision was binding upon the Gentiles believers. If this was not settled, it would have a corrupting influence over the whole of Christianity, and it would be a countermanding, in effect, of the Gospel.

There is certainly nothing wrong with a church calling for a council to seek to determine the Lord’s will in a matter, and especially was it in order to call for apostolic deliberation and declaration. The wrong in many modern councils is that those who go up to them have delegated authority to transact business for the local congregation. This is unscriptural!

But this was not the case here. The Antioch church sent members up to Jerusalem simply to find out from the Twelve what the situation was. Were these who went up to Jerusalem messengers? In one sense, yes! But not in the sense that is employed in many religious bodies today. These had no authority from the Antioch church to transact any business. They did nothing but declare the matter, and how God has used them in the preaching of the Gospel. There was a conflict of teaching. The Judaizers had taught that salvation depended partly upon grace, and partly upon keeping the Law, and they professed to have received this doctrine from the apostles. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that it be determined if the Twelve held a contrary doctrine to that of the apostle Paul, who had disputed with the Judaizers.

The decision of the council showed that the Twelve apostles and the apostle Paul stood shoulder to shoulder in this matter. And so, it was decreed by the whole Jerusalem church that letters should be written declaring the teaching of the Judaizers to be false and without authority from them, vv. 19-29. The problem had originated with members of the Jerusalem church, and it was their responsibility to correct the problem as much as they could. The decrees mentioned in 16:4 were simply for the purpose of counteracting the false teachings of the Judaizers who had gone out from Jerusalem claiming to have authority for their teachings. These had doubtless passed as far as the churches at Derbe and Lystra, and so, the Jerusalem church’s decision needed to be sent out as far as the error had gone.

In not one place in the New Testament do we find an interchange of authority by one church to another. Nor is there the least evidence of an encroachment by any church upon the sovereignty of another. Paul had no authority to do anything at Jerusalem except to learn the position of the church there in this matter. Neither did the Jerusalem church exert any influence or authority upon any but their own members. They only made public their repudiation of the false teachings of these misguided disciples of circumcision. In the whole course of the council and the attendant results, there was nothing but congregational action. No presbytery decreeing what should be done. No episcopal decrees. No papal bulls. Nothing but sovereign, local church action, and its publication among the sister churches. Brethren, you can’t improve upon the Lord’s way of doing things.

The action of the presbytery in the New Testament is advisory only. In no case do we find them exercising authority over any church. Conversely, we find them acting in an advisory capacity for a church, and ordaining elders for the church, if the recommendation of the presbytery is accepted. It is to be granted that in some things, those who have a presbyterian form of government also practice congregational government. That is, certain aspects of their church life proceeds upon a congregational plane. But this only means that they have proceeded partly toward the scriptural plan of church polity. It in no ways excuses their continued adherence to the presbyterian form. This form of government moves upon the assumption that the lay members of the church are either morally, spiritually, or mentally unfit to rule themselves, and that only the elite of the church are to rule it. A. H. Strong rightly says:

4. The teaching of the New Testament is preponderantly in favor of a congregational form of government for the Lord’s churches, and we believe that reason decrees also that this is the only equitable way of conducting a religious society.

It is easy enough to understand how some denominations would reject the congregational form of church government, when we consider that they accept infants as church members, and as these achieve adulthood without ever being born again, many, if not all of them, are therefore unqualified to render a spiritual decision in a church matter, and hence must be governed by those who supposedly have reached a higher level spiritually. But in a church which receives members only upon a credible confession of their repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, every member is supposedly able to render a decision in accordance with the mind of the Spirit Who indwells them. If they do not, it is because fleshly desires predominate, or because of ignorance of the will of the Lord, or because their faith and profession are spurious and there is no substance to their salvation. That some churches do not seek the mind of the Lord is admitted, but a good thing should not be cast away because some ignorant or rebellious person will not use it.

The very principles of church government in the New Testament are such that every form of church government except congregational is in hopeless antagonism against the Scriptures.

It is held by some that the democratic polity of the church was patterned after that of the synagogues, and we recognize that there were some definite parallels, as, for instance, in the officers, their duties, their election, etc. But there were also contrasts between the churches and the synagogues which were probably as great as, if not greater than, the parallels.

For one thing, there is nothing to indicate that the synagogues were anything more than mere human institutions, though they probably accomplished much good since they gave the Jewish people access to the reading and expounding of the Old Testament Scriptures. These also prepared the Jewish people for the New Testament church. And they afforded place and opportunity for the Lord, and afterward, His disciples, to preach to Jewish congregations. However, at the same time, the Jewish synagogue was the instrument of propagating the traditions of the Rabbis, which were often anti-scriptural, and it was the means of persecution on several occasions, so that it stands in contradistinction to the church rather than in parallel.

James uses the word synagogue in reference to the assembly of Jewish Christians in James 2:2: "For if there come into your synagogue a man," as the Greek text reads. On the other hand, the Lord uses the term to designate false religious assemblies when he speaks to the seven churches of Asia, and warns of "the synagogue of Satan," (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). There are also certain parallels to be found between the polity of the Greek Civil ekklesia and the New Testament church, yet few would be so foolish as to hold that the latter was an outgrowth of the former.

Certainly the all-wise God did not have to copy any organization of man, and since the church existed as a mystery in the mind of God from before the world, it seems that it would be safer to say that the Lord suffered man to institute the synagogues in order to prepare the minds of the Jewish people to receive such an organization as the New Testament church when it should come on the scene. It was needful that there should be a buffer between the hierarchal polity of the temple, and the congregational, democratic polity of the church. The synagogue constituted such a transitional form of government.

That the original and apostolic polity of the church was congregational, even many of those who do not practice such a government in their churches, readily admit. J. A. Seiss, a Lutheran, without fear of contradiction, says:

Not only was this so in the apostolic age, but also for many years afterward there were none but local, independent churches, each practicing the congregational form of church government. Dr. Mosheim says that in the Second Century:

Here, then, was the beginning of the destruction of the congregational form of government in the churches, and the beginning of the episcopal form. But it was a hundred years and more too late to be apostolic in origin. However, whatever the witness of history may be to a given doctrine or practice, the thing which should regulate our acceptance or rejection of it is the place which it occupies in the Word of God. The condition and practices of the churches in the New Testament were vastly different to that of the churches of the Second and Third Centuries. J. B. Gambrell says:

That the polity of the New Testament churches was congregational is proven from a number of things. 1. From Jesus’ own words in Matthew 20: "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant," vv. 26-27. And again, Matthew 23:8: "But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren." This certainly leaves no room for any believer to practice over-lordship over another brother.

2. From the teaching of the Apostles. Even an apostle could not lord it over another believer. "Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand." (2 Cor. 1:24).

3. From the responsibilities which are committed to the churches. (i) The responsibility to administer the ordinances, to keep and safeguard them, implies congregational action. By comparing the different accounts of the commissioning of the church, we find that there were three separate and distinct commissions given. The one in Matthew 28:18-20 was the second one, and the one at which "above five hundred" of the brethren were present, (1 Cor. 15:6). This command, if indeed not all three of them, was addressed to the whole church, not just to the apostles.

When addressing the church at Corinth relative to the disorders at the Lord’s Table, Paul spoke to the whole church, which certainly implies that the responsibility rested upon the whole congregation. Peter’s action in addressing the six brethren from the Joppa church in regard to the baptism of the household of Cornelius connotes congregational authority for the administration of baptism, (Acts 10:44-48; 11:12).

(ii) The responsibility of each church to elect its own officers. "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty)...Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias...And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles," (Acts 1:15, 21-23, 26).

As one of my teachers, Don N. Kitch, used to say, "This was choice, not chance." It was simply a matter of voting for the one which the disciples felt was the Holy Spirit’s choice for the office of apostle to replace Judas. Long before this, God had declared that He would make determinations through the use of lots, (Prov. 16:33). Notice that "they gave forth their lots," or in other words, they cast votes, and it matters not whether the lot was a pebble, a potsherd, or whatever. That does not make it any the less a matter of voting. This was apparently a unanimous vote for Matthias, for whereas they cast "lots," it was "the lot" (singular) which fell upon Matthias. O that the Spirit had such sway over the decisions of our churches today!

We have already had occasion to cite Acts 14:23 as a congregational act of electing elders, whom Paul and certain others ordained "for them"—for the church that chose them. The Didache, that ancient church manual which was written late in the First Century, or early in the Second, gives the following directions: "Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, not avaricious, and true and approved: for they too minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers."—Chapter XV, 1. The Greek word here translated "elect" means to elect by show of hands, and is the selfsame word found in Acts 14:23.

The choosing of the deacons as recorded in Acts 6 is another clear example of congregational choice of men for the officers of the church. "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...And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose..." (vv. 3, 5). The apostles "appointed" or ordained these to their office, v. 6, but it was only after the whole congregation had chosen them and set them aside for this office.

The same sort of action may be seen in the setting aside of those whom the Holy Spirit had called to do mission work: "And as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away," (Acts 13:2-3). The "they" here is clearly the "church that was at Antioch," (v. 1). Hence, again we find congregational action.

And, it was by congregational action by the show of hands that the messengers were chosen to take the Gentile churches’ benevolence offering up to Jerusalem, (2 Cor. 8:19). There is no gainsaying these things. It is by congregational government all the way. Who will deny it? Who will produce any evidence to the contrary? Nor is this all. Congregational government is obvious in:

(iii) The responsibilities of each church to discipline its unruly members: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together...To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh..." (1 Cor. 5:4, 5). "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican," (Matt. 18:17). Notice that here there is no room left for supposing that an appeal from this decision could be made to a bishop, archbishop, pope, presbytery, council, or whatever. The church is the final source of appeal upon the earth. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them," (Rom. 16:17). "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us," (2 Thess. 3:6).

It is noteworthy that these are all addressed to the church. Never to the bishop or other church officials, nor to any presbytery or council. It is time that a lot of churches wake up to the fact that their congregational polity is being devoured by church parasites.

(iv) From the responsibility of each church to teach and bear witness to the truth of God, both as regards its members, and the world. "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," (1 Tim. 3:15). "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God," (Eph. 3:10). "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ," (Eph. 4:11-12). This ministry of teaching is lodged in the church, not merely in her officers, and it is the duty of every member of every congregation to be witnesses of the truth and power of God.

4. Proof of congregational government is to be found in the words which are used to describe the choosing of church officers, and the language admonishing the disciplining of disorderly church members. (1) At the election of Matthias to the apostolate: "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with (Greek sunkatapsephizo) the eleven apostles," (Acts 1:26). Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives the following meaning to this word: "1. By depositing (kata) a ballot in the urn (i.e., by voting for) to assign one a place among (sun), to vote one a place among; 2. mid. To vote against with others, i.e. to condemn with others." It was the practice of people in those times to use small stones or pebbles (Greek psephos) in voting. A white stone counted for, and a black against a person. Our English expression to black-ball someone came from this practice.

(2) The election of the seven deacons: "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose (Greek eklego) Stephen..." etc., (Acts 6:5). This Greek word signifies to "choose, to select; to pick out." And in the middle voice, "To choose for one’s self." It is similar, in meaning as well as in phonetic, to our English word elect, which may have originally been derived from it. In any case, it manifests a deliberate and decided choice on the part of the Jerusalem church. (3) The election of elders for the churches of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch of Pisidia. "And when they had ordained (Greek cheirotoneo) them elders in every church..." etc., (Acts 14:23). "Cheirotoneo, extending the hand, cheir, hand, and teino, to stretch, is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of hands, finally to appoint with the approval of the assembly that chooses as in (2 Cor. 8:19)."—A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. III, p. 216. (4) The language used relative to disciplining of disorderly members of the church also speaks of congregational action. "...When ye are gathered together...to deliver such an one..." (1 Cor. 5:4-5).

5. Proof of congregational government of the church is clear from the relationship of church members one to another: (1) The New Testament views all members of the church in the same light, therefore with equal rights and privileges. "...for we are members one of another," (Eph. 4:25). "For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member he honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular," (1 Cor. 12:24-27). "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28). (2) There is an equal duty laid upon all church members to strive to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, (Eph. 4:1-4). "Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be thankful," (Col. 3:13-15). (3) All believers are considered priests in God’s sight, (1 Pet. 2:5), and have the responsibility of offering "the sacrifice of praise to God continually," (Heb. 13:15), and being equal in God’s sight, should not be subordinated to a caste system within the church. "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren," (Matt. 23:8). See also 1 Peter 5:5.

Proof of congregational polity of the church is also manifested in the charges to pastors. (1) To the Ephesian elders Paul said, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed (Greek poimainein, to shepherd or tend) the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," (Acts 20:28). The pastor is not to be a despot, but is to "tend" the flock. (2) Peter’s commission to pastor the Jerusalem church admits nothing of episcopal rule in the church: "He saith unto him, Feed my lambs...Feed (Greek poimainein, Tend, a different word from the foregoing) my sheep (Greek probatia, different from lamb, arnia, in verse 15...Feed my sheep (Greek boske, to feed as a herdsman, as in verse 15)." He was deputed to shepherd and to feed the flock, but not a word about ruling them. The passages most often cited to prove that the bishop is to exercise authority or to rule over the church are: 1 Timothy 5:17: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor..." But this word for rule is proistemi, to superintend or have the care over. (Cf. I Tim. 3:5): "take care of the church." The word for "rule" in Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, is hegeomai, to lead or guide. In neither case does it condone pulpit dictators or those who want "to run the church." Sadly enough, many churches blindly obey such egotistical dictators without realizing that they corrupt their church polity in so doing. Unfortunately also, there are some preachers who must rule a church, or they will ruin it in trying. (3) In his first epistle, Peter gives the scriptural way for the elder to exercise his office. "The elders which are among you I exhort...Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock," (1 Pet. 5:1-3). Some pastors are more interested in "bleeding" the flock, than in "feeding" it.

The congregational form of church government, being a democratic form, is the only form of government, either civil or ecclesiastical, which is just and equitable toward everyone holding membership or citizenship within the society. Adolph Harnack says of the early churches:

This has been a characteristic of Baptist churches in every age. Numerous examples could be cited, but for the time being, we pass over them, expecting, as we do, to set forth these, together with other things, in a future chapter on the Perpetuity of the church.

Our own American form of government is based upon this, and it is recorded that several of the Fathers of the American Constitution were greatly influenced by the Baptists and their form of church government. Recent finds among the personal letters of George Washington indicates that in his last years he became a member of a Baptist Church. Thomas Jefferson, though a deist, was a frequent visitor at a Baptist church near his home, and from the democratic polity of Baptist Churches he conceived the idea that this would be the best form of government for the American Colonies. Hence, when the Declaration of Independence was written, these things were incorporated in it through his efforts. James Madison was a friend of the Baptists, and, in fact, his brother was a Baptist, and he was influenced by the Baptists. G. P. Fisher records of the efforts of the Baptists:

To this present day, the democratic principle of government is still the best to be found among men, whether for the state or for the church. There is but one sort that is better: that is a pure Theocracy—a rule by God—which the Lord has promised to give upon the earth some day. May the Lord grant that we shall earnestly desire, and look forward to that time. Until then, let us strive with all that is in us to promote the Lord’s church, which he has left in the world for His glory.