Responsibility and the New Testament Church

 by W.H.H. Marsh

The autonomy of the New Testament church is not absolute. It is spiritual, not secular in nature and purpose. This differentiates it radically from all other organizations. It is not merely a voluntary association of individuals. This needs to be emphasized, for the present is an era of many kinds of organizations for a great variety of purposes; church-members and ministers are in them. Hence, churches and ministers often are looked upon by the world as existing for objects of a similar nature, and the tendency of this is to secularize the conception of the church. This is true, irrespective of forms of polity. In every denomination it is inimical to vital piety. In all it has a subtle influence in the administration of government, but it obviously may be most inimical to autonomy. It begets a spirit which perverts the divinely vested rights of autonomy, because it makes those rights vehicles for secular ends and methods, instead of being, as they were designed, the means by which the Holy Spirit gives expression to the divine will through the church. When a church thus becomes a law to itself, individualism asserts it self; each will do what is right in his own eyes, regardless alike of church authority, or of any accepted doctrinal or ethical standard, and Christ's immediate authority, while nominally acknowledged, will be practically repudiated. This often is the fact in autonomous churches. What is called independence and the right of private judgment is often a caricature of the self-government that was established in the apostolic churches, for the New Testament contains no provision allowing a church to go off on a tangent of liberalism from the orbit of apostolic faith and practice. It knows nothing of a freedom of thought and a latitude of belief, or rather of non-belief, allowing either a faction or an individual to work within a church for the subversion of the truth of which it is to be the pillar and the ground. Autonomy, therefore, is not absolute; it has its limitations. These inhere in the nature and purpose of the New Testament church. In its highest conception it is a witness to the resurrection. It would never have been if Christ had not risen from the dead, if he were not enthroned as mediatorial sovereign.

In such facts as these lie the limitations of autonomy, determining the sphere of its responsibility. Some phases of it are as follows:

(a) Responsibility for obedience to the Holy Spirit. He seeks to influence and guide a church as a body; as such the church must be responsive and submissive. Its corporate action is either declarative of this, or else is an act of rebelliousness. The individual may "grieve" and "quench" the Holy Spirit; so may a church. It is more than probable that these admonitions were addressed to the church rather than to individuals. Sometimes it is more necessary for the church to bear witness for Christ than it is specially obligatory upon the individual, for there are many things in which the testimony of the body is effective, when that of an individual or of a number of isolated individuals could scarcely be. There is never any question involving doctrine or ethics upon which some members of a church are not right, and in which they are not loyally obeying the dictates of the Holy Spirit and following the teachings of the divine word; but the effectiveness of their testimony is nullified by the failure of the church as a whole to act with fearlessness and promptness. In all such cases the responsibility lies with the church. The church at Sardis had a few names who had not defiled their garments, but it was held responsible for its unfaithfulness; as a church they were not loyal to Christ and his truth. Where does the church stand? is always a more vital question than, Where do some members of the church stand? Sometimes there are questions involving doctrines or ethics or the interests of society and the nation, in which, it is impossible that the testimony of individuals could be as effective as that of the whole church would be. In fact the testimony of such individuals is often nullified by the supineness or opposition of the church as a whole. In this way churches "grieve" and "quench" the Holy Spirit, strive against him, rebelliously refuse to obey him. Nor is allegiance to Christ possible where there is not obedience to the Holy Spirit.

The culminating sin of the Jews was not the crucifixion of Christ, it was the resistance of the Holy Spirit. This they had done throughout their history. It was Stephen's specific charge against them. It was not individual, but corporate. This is the only way in which a church can sin against the Holy Spirit. Peter's language to Ananias and Sapphira is suggestive: "How is it that ye have agreed together (sunefw nhqh) to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" As the Greek implies, it was a thing they had deliberately planned to do. In this plan the wife was privy to the husband's sin. The guilt of confederates is greater than the guilt of an individual. This is true of a church. The disloyal church tempts "the Spirit of the Lord." It may do this either from moral cowardice or to be popular with the world, but it lies before the Lord. Grieved, the Holy Spirit may graciously plead for a while, but too long unheeded he may depart. Then a church has power neither with God nor men; it does not testify as it ought either to God's truth or against the sins of men.

(b) Responsibility for the character and fitness of the men it selects for office. In every organization the selection of men fitted for official trust is of greatest importance. Success or failure depends upon it. Efficient officers inspire confidence in their leadership. Their integrity of character becomes the strength of their leadership. Unity, cooperation, and the vigorous prosecution of the work of the organization is sure to follow. Of no other organization is this so true as of a church, because of the nature of a church and of its work. Hence properly qualified persons for church officers are not easily found under any form of polity. But if the Holy Spirit abide in a church, and his guidance be sought in all things, there will be found in every church some men qualified by him to fill such offices as may be necessary to its efficient development.

The Corinthian church is censured by Paul because some of its members litigated certain differences before pagan tribunals instead of peaceably adjusting these things among themselves. "Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?" He speaks ironically, and probably because some in that church boasted of their wisdom and gifts. But he does not mean that they had no person competent to adjudicate such difficulties; rather he means that if they had sought for such persons they would have found them in their membership. Underneath the irony is the spirit of Christ's teaching as to private offenses, but there is much more than this. The responsibility of the church to select out of her membership persons competent to give wise suggestions, and if possible effect reconciliation in all such cases, is clearly implied. The general principle is that when the Holy Spirit calls out of the world the constituency of a church, some are called who, by natural gifts and richness of spiritual endowments, will possess character and fitness for official positions in the church. Such men were found in the apostolic churches. They were not aspirants for office; they doubtless were unconscious of qualifications for special official service; they became known to the churches only as prayer was offered for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that guidance was obediently followed. This is a truth of vital moment to every church, but one usually overlooked, or worse, ignored. God knows the need of a church in this respect as well as in all others. It is inconceivable that he would call a church into existence and not provide in its constituency men of fitness for the officers its organization needs. If there be no such persons, it is questionable whether it should have been organized. If a church through strife or worldliness become so depleted or unspiritual that it has no one qualified for office, there is no sufficient reason why it should continue to exist. In such a church there is no evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Besides, when strife and worldliness dominate a church, men full of faith and wisdom from above are not sought for official position, even if some are left; and never is Ichabod more legibly written upon a church than when either it has no men qualified for office, or selects its officers because of wealth or social position or any adventitious reason or merely conventional consideration. If a church approximates the New Testament ideal, the men possessing requisite character and fitness for official position will be found in its constituency.

If the apostles defined the qualifications for office they placed the entire responsibility of electing the properly qualified persons upon the churches. Of the first difficulty of which we have record it has been said: "The apostles throw the whole question back upon the church, even though it is in a disturbed and disquieted state." But there is no hint that the apostles allowed the church at Jerusalem a special privilege, or tolerated from considerations of expediency an innovation on their authority. They instruct the church what to do, then subsequently ratify what the church did. Besides this they do nothing. If entrusted with this responsibility in the presence of such difficulties as then existed in the church at Jerusalem, it is a just inference that the election of all officers was left to the responsibility of the apostolic churches.

For there is no instance in which the apostles assumed anything beyond what they did in this, in the election of church officers. They restrict themselves to the qualifications, and those of bishops and deacons are given, but nothing is said of the method of their election. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and in view of the way in which "the seven" were elected, the decided presumption is that they were elected by the churches. Their qualifications are stated so succinctly that no church in the apostolic era, nor of our day, could have difficulty in deciding as to the proper character and fitness of the men they elect to these offices. We need not recite the qualifications. "A novice" must not be chosen, "lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil." If churches do not know what the qualifications are, the fault is their own; or it may be primarily that of the ministry in not instructing the churches. It is certain that the great responsibility of the churches in this is not understood; it is often not felt. This is lamentably the fact as to the induction of men into the ministry and thus into the pastorate. We now refer to officers other than pastors, any persons it may be necessary for the church to elect to conduct departments of its work. Tested by the scriptural standard, men wholly unfit are often elected by the management of interested friends, or are allowed to press themselves into office. The church suffers and is powerless, because it did not properly meet its responsibility when it could and ought to have done so. Nothing is more fraught with disaster to a church than the hasty, inconsiderate, and unwise methods by which its officers are frequently elected. We know that infallibility is not possible. With greatest care unfit men will be elected sometimes. Demetrius and Diotrephes probably were officers of the same church. The former had "good report of all men;" the latter loved to have the preeminence in the church, and cast out whom he would. But in the Epistles we read of but one Diotrephes, while we read of many having the spirit and consecration of Demetrius. If churches, feeling their responsibility and seeking divine guidance, selected properly qualified men for office, officials like Diotrephes would be as exceptional now as they were in the apostolic churches. Men of the spirit of Demetrius would bless our churches everywhere. God would raise up such men, and guided by the Holy Spirit the churches would find them. If the work of our churches is to be done as God requires, their responsibility in selecting officers must be more deeply felt.

(c) Responsibility for the administration of discipline. The Latin disciplina, from which our word discipline comes, means "instruction, learning in its widest sense." In earlier ecclesiastical usage its primary signification was retained, but is now virtually obsolete. It is defined by Webster as "the enforcement of methods of correction against one guilty of ecclesiastical offenses; reformative or penal action toward a church-member." This is its current usage. The broadest meaning includes the doctrinal and ethical training of the church. We now restrict ourselves to its corrective and punitive phases. These, however, are closely related to the confirmation of the church in doctrinal belief and ethical obligations, for a church is not more obligated to admonish those out of the way, and, if incorrigible, excommunicate them, than to disfellowship for heresy or expel for immorality. The one practically includes the other.

But all offenses are not to be made immediately the subject of investigation and action by the church. Private offenses are to be adjusted by the parties themselves with the least possible publicity; final appeal to the church is to be made only after the steps for reconciliation have been taken, and the offender found incorrigible. We are here concerned with that appeal, "Let him tell it unto the church." But why tell it to the church? If the church has no jurisdiction or responsibility in the case, it were better the church should know nothing about it. Such appeal would serve only to give publicity to a scandal which otherwise would be known to but a few. But the church is given judicial and final authority. The phrase, "if he refuse to hear the church also," clearly assumes this. Then responsibility is transferred from the individual to the church. If Christ imperatively requires the first steps to be taken he does not less demand that after they have been taken the case be laid before the church for final adjudication. Because of this the word ekklhsia, church, in the verse under consideration, is perplexing to those holding either Prelacy or Presbyterianism to be the New Testament polity, for it obviously means the local church, but when ecclesiastical prepossessions are put aside, both concede that the local church is meant. Alford says: "It cannot mean the church as represented by her rulers. "Bloomfield concedes that the reference is "to the particular congregation" of which the parties are members. Barnes, always alert to defend the Presbyterian polity, admits that the local church may be meant. Lange is unequivocal; he says the term ekklhsia used here "must always be understood as referring to the Christian church, or meeting of believers, whether large or small." Olshlusen says that "the ekklhsia here, is the assemblage of all believers in one place, to which assembly the separate individual belongs as a member." None of the authorities cited belong to denominations of which autonomy is the polity. The testimony of many other eminent exegetes could be cited. Unbiased exegesis admits no other interpretation. The conclusion is that in this verse Christ anticipated the administration of discipline by the local church, and this conclusion is confirmed by evidence from the Epistles that discipline was a prerogative of the local church. The passages we now adduce either imply or assert this prerogative.

To the Romans Paul writes: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine which ye learned, and turn away from them." It is probable that these disturbers were Judaizers, relentless antagonists of Paul, who had gone to Rome from either Asia Minor or Jerusalem. The word scopew in classical usage, means "to look about, to spy from a high place or watch tower." In the New Testament it means to observe closely. It is rendered, take heed, consider, and look. This is what Paul exhorts the church at Rome to do. These Judaizers evidently had a following at Rome. There was danger, and he warned the church. He designed his warning to take practical form. The church was to "turn away from them." This certainly placed responsibility on the church, it was the initiation of discipline. If necessary this church would be not less obligated to disfellowship those Judaizers and those who followed them, than the Corinthian church was to exclude the incestuous person.

In an epistle to the Corinthians, not extant, Paul wrote to them "not to company with fornicators." They had misapprehended his meaning. They had construed it to be '"a prohibition of association with fornicators among those who were not Christians." This Paul tells them would be an impossibility, "For then ye must needs go out of the world." Vincent says "company" is an inadequate translation of the Greek, "but cannot perhaps be bettered." He adds that it denotes "not only close but habitual intercourse." Evidently Paul means they were not to have Christian fellowship in the church with the dissolute and openly wicked. If the church knowingly retained such persons in its fellowship, then it became responsible. The purity and influence of a church depends on its corporate life and unction. If it keeps "company" with unworthy persons, it mixes with them by every act of church fellowship. It becomes responsible for all the dishonor and shame caused by its refusal to sever relations with the vile and the wicked.

Condemning the Judaizers in energetic language, Paul writes to the Galatians: "I would they which unsettle you would even cut themselves off." The Greek scarcely permits a literal rendering into English. The reader, if acquainted with Greek, should consult Ellicott and Lightfoot. The irony of Paul, as expressed in the original, is terribly severe. It shows the intensity of his desire that the churches everywhere would rid themselves of these insidious subverters of the gospel, but he asserts no authority to excommunicate and anathematize those Judaizers. If in the intensity of his indignation he could have exercised authority and cut them off; we may be sure he would have done so. Evidently he had no such authority. The meaning is that he wishes they were excluded from the churches. But intensely as he desires it he leaves the responsibility with the churches. Neither Paul nor any of the apostles, in any case, ever ventures to supersede the province of the churches in discipline.

Our last citations are from First and Second Thessalonians and from Titus. Those from the two former exhort the brethren to "admonish the disorderly;" and commands them "in the name of the Lord Jesus" to withdraw themselves "from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition" which they received front the apostles. The first of these two refers to insubordination, the second to doctrine. He also commanded certain "busybodies" that "with quietness they work and eat their own bread." Possibly by "busybodies" he means both the insubordinate and the heretical. In the last one he says, "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped," doubtless referring to the same class as in Thessalonians. The church at Thessalonica evidently is to deal with disturbers and disputants. The word atactos, disorderly, is a military term. It meant "not in battle order – not in ones place in the battle" Its military usage illustrates its force in the three instances in which it is employed in the New Testament. A disorderly soldier is one who disobeys his commander. A disorderly citizen is one who disregards established civil regulations. A disorderly church-member is one who disregards the authority of the church. The commanding officer must enforce military discipline; the civil authorities must maintain the supremacy of law; the church at Thessalonica therefore must exercise self-government by admonishing the insubordinate and factious. If this fail it must excommunicate such members. "Their mouths must be stopped" is the positive instruction to Titus. Personal admonition must be first employed and repeated; if this did not silence and win them, they were to be rejected. But there is no hint that the apostle empowered Titus to pronounce the final excommunication. He was to instruct the churches under his care what to do; this done they were to act.

There is no evidence that the final act of discipline was in the hands of either the apostles, or a board of officials designated by the church, or of any organization to which the churches were subject. The function of councils called to advise in special cases will be considered in its place. The local church is always the sovereign body in the final act of discipline. Many years after the martyrdom of Paul, the church at Ephesus is commended for the exercise of discipline. The most recent authority on Presbyterian polity tacitly concedes that this was done by the church alone and in meeting its responsibility. (McGill, "Church Government," p.42) The proof of our position does not rest upon the isolated case at Corinth. Every allusion to the disciplinary functions of the church from that to the action of the Ephesian church, confirms it. Clement, of Rome, does not question the right of the community to remove its officers if it sees fit." Polycarp concedes the absolute authority of the church in excommunication and restoration. The distinction between clergy and laity transferred the government of the churches to the former. This included the transfer of authority in the administration of discipline, nor can apostolic discipline be restored unless the apostolic principle and spirit of its administration be reasserted, i.e., the responsibility of the churches for the character and influence of their membership. "Christ desired his church on earth to be holy in her membership, and not an indiscriminate congregation of righteous and unrighteous men, of believers and infidels, of Christians and reprobates." (Bruce, "Training of the Twelve," p. 204.) Brave words and true! We need men and women to strive and if need be endure persecution to make them true as they ought to be in all evangelical churches. Alas! they are not. Too frequently "the various religious bodies value members still more than morality or high-toned Christian virtue; and they fear lest by discipline they lose one or two names from their communion roll. Alas! the fear is well founded. Fugitives from discipline are always sure of an open door and a hearty welcome from some quarter." All this is humiliating. but it is painfully true. None need to ponder it more seriously than Baptists. If they neglect discipline the sin cannot be laid at the door of a church session. Even the Pastor, if he has been faithful in laying before the church its duty, is exonerated by God and good men; the church alone is responsible and forfeits its influence.

(d) Responsibility for the reception of members. The Epistles do not contain even an allusion to accessions to the churches, though we have no doubt they had many accessions. The preaching of the word faithfully and fully was the great work of the apostles. While men are saved through the preaching of the gospel, loyalty to Christ requires faithful witnessing to the truth, and this often repels men from the gospel; but further, nothing is said in the Epistles urging the churches to seek numerical increase as the great object for which they exist. Loyalty to Christ is always their first duty, and that means the truest loyalty to the souls of men. In this way the edification and increase of the apostolic churches went forward together. It is the divine plan. Whatever in theory or method separates them, is perilous to churches today.

Hence beyond profession of faith and baptism in the name of the Trinity, we have no detailed information as to how persons were received into the apostolic churches. We refer especially to examination and instruction before baptism, but it does not follow that there were neither, and there is evidence to the contrary. Those awakened on the day of Pentecost were not baptized and admitted to the fellowship of believers on superficial knowledge or merely because they wished to be, for Peter did very much more than exhort those inquirers to "repent and be baptized." He put first what has been aptly termed "the change of ethical disposition as the moral condition of being baptized." It was sufficient to give them some conception of salvation, but it was not an adequate explanation of the way of salvation; hence, he "proceeds to exhibit the firm foundation of that hope," which must have been awakened in their hearts by what he had exhorted them to do. "And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation." He is not now, as the words we have italicized show, addressing the congregation generally, but only those, inquiring for the way of life. Instruction as to that evidently filled out the ellipses in this verse. Not until such instruction had been given, were they received for baptism, and "added to the fellowship of the already existing followers of Christ." Then they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine. But what doctrine? Evidently that given in the instruction received before their baptism, whatever be the reference to their subsequent and fuller instruction. Bloomfield translates, "And they thereupon gladly receiving his word, were baptized." Whether all who asked, What shall we do? were baptized is not said. But it is significantly said, all who gladly received this instruction were baptized. Their obedience was "in consequence of Peter's exhortation." Guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostles deemed so much instruction necessary to their intelligent confession of personal faith in Christ. Here then clearly is apostolic precedent for the examination and instruction of candidates for baptism and church membership, if we have the example of their procedure for anything. Nor is there reason to think the apostles were less thorough at this time than Philip subsequently was when he carefully examined and instructed the eunuch before baptizing him. The just inference is that when the organization of the first church was effected, and the apostles placed upon it the responsibility of self-government, the responsibility for the examination and instruction of candidates for baptism and membership was included.

What the apostles did in establishing churches certainly did not cease to be necessary afterward, or even subsequently to the death of the apostles. Somewhere there must have been authority in this. If the apostles devolved disciplinary authority upon the churches, as we have seen they did, the authority to determine who should or should not be received to membership must have been vested in them also, for it is absurd to say that an organization has authority to arraign, try, and expel a member, and then assert that it has no jurisdiction in the administration of members. Authority in the one case assumes corresponding authority in the other. Furthermore, a church maintaining discipline usually is careful in the reception of members, but if indifferent to discipline and tolerant of bad men and notorious offenses, a church is not spiritually qualified to judge as to the fitness of persons for membership. It may zealously seek accessions, but it has no real concern for the salvation of souls. Not so when Paul "assayed to join himself to the disciples" at Jerusalem. They feared to receive him. They were ignorant of his conversion, though he claimed to be one of them. Barnabas had to attest his conversion. Then he was admitted, and "was with them, coming in and going out at Jerusalem." This is a typical fact. There is not a hint in the New Testament that any man is to be the sole judge of his fitness for membership in the church; the church must judge. Its spiritual condition ought always to be such as fits it for the proper exercise of this high prerogative. This is not a conclusion based in the least on the argumentum ad silentio of itself may be used sometimes as a basis for any desired inference, but not so here. These three facts predetermine what the just inference is in this case.

(e) Responsibility for co-operation with sister churches. The principle underlying this is that the local church is but one of many, all creations of the Holy Spirit, holding the same faith and assumed to be working together for the same objects. Hence the local church has no more right to do what grieves other churches with which it is in fellowship, than individuals or a faction have to grieve or distract the church of which they are members. No church has the right to so construe its prerogative of self-government as to justify itself in antagonizing the principles and practices of the body with which it is affiliated, and with which it is pledged to cooperate. It is dishonorable. It is a breach of mutual confidence. It may be treason to the cause of Christ, for a church is never truer to itself than when most loyal in allegiance to the denomination it represents. Nor is such allegiance restrained. It infringes in no way on the legitimate functions of autonomy; on the contrary, it is this responsibility for cooperation with sister churches that gives the full definition and real scope to self-government. This has an application to other forms of polity, but to none as it has to autonomy; therefore none are bound by considerations so high and so strong to weigh carefully their corporate action in its relation to the denomination. The action of a Baptist church does not terminate upon itself. It is as true of the affiliation of Baptist churches as of individuals in a local church, that if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it. Churches insubordinate to the denomination have wrought great harm to the cause, not only where they were located, but throughout whole Associations, and sometimes far beyond. Often the action of Baptist churches would be greatly modified or else would never have been taken, if they had considered the interests of the denomination. For what they do or fail to do is, more than they often realize, for the denomination as well as for themselves. The election of fit men of office in a church has a good influence for the denomination at large. By the election of unfit men evil repute is brought upon it. Discipline rids the denomination as well as the local church of unworthy members. Care in receiving members, both as to credible evidence of regeneration and doctrinal soundness, gives character and influence to the denomination everywhere. Responsibility for co-operation with sister churches is not less a wholesome check on the perversion of autonomy, than it is a means of its self-consistent and effective development.

The five phases of the responsibility of autonomy which have been considered, are all we need dwell upon. The obligation to provide for the financial needs of a church, or to respond to the various calls upon churches for the prosecution of Christian work, is common to churches of all forms of polity. Nor have we inquired as to the means by which a church may seek information necessary to final action in any case. Circumstances must determine such matters. But in maintaining its proper sovereignty in this, autonomy must insist that officers, committees, all who act for and in the name of the church, must be held directly responsible to it; hence the church has the right, and must imperatively demand the submission to itself of all the facts in every case before final action is taken. This right inheres in autonomy; it cannot be delegated to any committee of investigation. Before final action no class of the membership is to be denied information. An intelligent and just vote cannot be reached without such information. When they "of the circumcision" at Jerusalem arraigned Peter because he went in to men uncircumcised and ate with them, "he rehearsed to the apostles and brethren that were in Jaded," the whole story of the conversion of Cornelius. So Paul and Barnabas told the church at Antioch how God "had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." A full statement of all the circumstances was given to the churches at Jerusalem and Antioch. Such facts are evidence that the divine plan is that the whole church shall have knowledge of whatever concerns its corporate condition and work, or its co-operation with sister churches. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with secret conclaves in the manipulation of church affairs. They are an abomination before the Lord. They are always an evil in churches. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with factions and parties; his presence in the church is for the good of the whole. A church perils its very existence when it is blind to the schemes of ambitious men, or tolerates the cunning devices of bad men. Fewer would be the occasions of strife, and seldom would there be roots of bitterness in a church, if before final action its membership understood the facts, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit were sought.

Existing tendencies are strongly toward the disparagement of the authority of the church. This is true irrespective of polity. In none is the sense of responsibility in church-members what it ought to be, and not what it would be if the church were felt to be a "divine institution." The churchly feeling and conviction is with none what it ought to be. It has deteriorated, is often sneered at. Some think this a sign of progress and liberality; rather it is an evidence of disloyalty to Christ and his cause, and of the consequent secularization of the churches and the ministry. The churchly feeling needs to be revived, but not to foster denominational pride and sectarian bigotry. It is necessary that churches may reassert their distinctive mission and inherent self-sufficiency in Jesus Christ for their distinctive work. None need this more than Baptists; they have never cultivated the churchly feeling as they should. Their convictions as to the dignity of the church have never been strong; often they are lacking in intelligence as to the purpose of its visible organization. But autonomy requires the churchly feeling as no other polity does, because the dignity, influence, and character of an autonomous church are things for which every member, in the nature of the case, is responsible. Wisdom, consecration, piety, and activity in the constituency will always secure a healthful and helpful churchly feeling, without either bigotry or an offensive denominationalism.