The statements on "Congregationalism in the New Testament As I See It," contained within this pamphlet, originated from a resolution passed at the Annual Conference of Churches of Christ in Victoria and Tasmania in 1956. It was resolved that a public discussion be arranged on the subject of Congregational Government. It was hoped that some published statements would precede the discussion. Owing to various reasons this was found to be impracticable in the limited time available. The Conference Executive has now gathered these three statements, as presented at the discussion, and makes them available for wider use. R. T. Pittman was asked to furnish the Biblical material on which an opinion could be based. L. G. Burgin and L. E. Snow then addressed themselves to the general subject: "Congregationalism in the New Testament As I See It."

      When I was asked to prepare a statement for this meeting, I consented to do so on the understanding that I would confine my treatment to the Scriptural records without entering upon discussion as to modern applications of the teaching. My concern is to provide data upon which, in accordance with the plea for restoration, any theory or modern application must rest.

      "Congregationalism" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as a "form of church government in which each congregation is independent in the management of its own affairs--also called Independency."

      In approaching a study of government in the New Testament church, certain preliminary considerations may be mentioned:

      a. There is no record of any direction given by Christ during His earthly ministry as to the form of church government other than Matt. 18:15-20, where, in cases of offences among brethren when other measures fail, the matter was to be referred to the "church ecclesia." This teaching was given to the disciples before the Day of Pentecost. Although the word ecclesia is used in this passage, the reference seems to be an assembly of disciples united by their loyalty to Christ. The teaching given was probably carried over to church life after Pentecost. It is true, also, that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, and gave the Promise of the Holy Spirit as the Guide of the apostles. Still, in the Gospels, the only other mention of the ecclesia or church is the great statement of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi, where no reference to church government is made.

      b. In the New Testament there is no formulated statement of church government. The only satisfactory approach to the subject is by an induction drawn from the study of particular instances recorded in Scripture, especially from the practices of apostles and other leaders.

      c. There is evidence of development of organisation according to need. This applies to the history in "Acts," and also to particular instances such as Crete. Titus was instructed by Paul to appoint elders in every city, the inference being that churches had existed there for some time without such organisation, and a need was felt for it.

      d. For our purpose it will be desirable to mention some facts concerning the word ecclesia, translated generally by "church," but a full treatment of this would include a much wider reference than to the local assembly, and would demand a lengthy discussion.

      We proceed, then, to a study of

1. The Usage of the Word Ecclesia

      This Greek term is a noun related to a verb meaning "to call out," "to summon forth." Its use can be traced back to Homeric literature, where it was used of an assembly summoned for some special purpose. The word was also applied to assemblies held in various cities, but in Athens it took on a special significance.

      There it was applied to the political Assembly as distinct from the deliberative body, the Council. The Athenian assembly, the Ecclesia, was made up of citizens summoned for the conduct of the business of the City-State. It was democratic, for the citizens had the right to speak and vote. The Assembly met regularly, but could also be summoned in times of special urgency.

      In later times ecclesia was used of any gathering of people assembled by chance or tumultuously. This usage is found in Acts 19, where the narrative tells of a riotous crowd being in a state of confusion. In the same chapter reference is made to the official seeking to quell the disturbance by saying that the matter could be settled in a lawful ecclesia. These three references in Acts 19 are the only ones in the New Testament where the word ecclesia is translated in the Authorised Version by a term other than "church."

      It is clear, then, that there is a Greek background to the word ecclesia. The Ecclesia in the Old Testament, however, must also be taken into account. The Greek Version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, has numerous instances of the word ecclesia, from Deuteronomy onward. Cremer, in his great Lexicon, states that "the LXX transfers the designation to the congregation of the people of Israel, whether summoned or met for a definite purpose; or the community of Israel collectively regarded as a congregation." This use is carried over into the New Testament record in the speech of Stephen, where he refers to the "church" in the wilderness.

      Cremer also states that, in the New Testament, ecclesia is used of the New Testament community of the redeemed, in its twofold aspect--

      (1) "The entire congregation of all who are called by and to Christ, who are in fellowship of His salvation." A full statement of this would include reference to phrases such as the "household of faith" "body of Christ"; "temple or building of God"; "bride of Christ"; "the church of the firstborn"(Heb. 12:23); and "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16).

      (2) The second aspect is "the New Testament churches as confined to particular places."

      It is with this last statement that we are specially concerned, and so we proceed to

2. A More Intensive Study of the, Use of Ecclesia in Relation to the Local Assembly

      i. There are several references to the original ecclesia at Jerusalem before there was any other. Most of these are in Acts, but there are three instances in Paul's Epistles where he recalls that he persecuted the church of God.

      ii. In Acts 9:31 we have the statement, according to the Revised Version, "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified." Here the word ecclesia is in the singular, in accordance with the best texts, and applies to the whole area. The word may be used in a generic sense. In the plural ecclesia is used of "the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2); "the churches of Macedonia" (1 Thess. 2:14).

      iii. Sometimes the term ecclesia is applied to the Christians in a city, such as Corinth. It is of some importance to observe that Paul adds, in 1 Cor. 1:2, "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." The seven churches in "Revelation" appear to be taken as representative, as there were other churches in the regions named.

      iv. There are passages where ecclesia in the plural is used of the sum of all individual churches. In 1 Cor. 11:16, Paul writes, "We have no such custom, neither the

churches of God." In 2 Cor. 8:15, a brother is mentioned whose praise is in all the churches. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 7:17, "So I ordain in all the churches."

      v. In several passages there are references to an ecclesia in a house. Further reference to this use will be made at a later stage. It will be shown that ecclesia may refer to a church within a church. A term must be defined in accordance with current usage.

3. What Can Be Said of the Government of the Local Church?

      i. In whatever sense ecclesia is used, Christ is Head over all things to the church.

      ii. Christ promised the Holy Spirit, and the fulfilment of that promise is recorded in Acts and the Epistles.

      iii. The apostles obviously had the oversight of the churches. This is made clear both in relation to the church at Jerusalem and to the assemblies among the Gentiles. It is true that at times Paul indicates that his authority was challenged, but he always maintained that he could advise and even direct in matters concerning local. government.

      iv. Prophets and missionaries moved about among the churches, and helped to guide the spiritual development. Missionaries were sent out by churches.

      v. Some, in addition to the twelve, appeared to exercise considerable influence in the churches--men such as James, the Lord's brother, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy and Titus.

      vi. In the local ecclesia we find a developing ministry according to need. In Acts 6, seven men were appointed to serve in the daily ministration. Some think that this was the beginning of the diaconate, but the noun "deacon" is not used in this record, and the office may have been temporary. The diaconate seems to have developed later, but little is said to indicate precisely the duties of deacons. The seven in Acts 6 were appointed by the church, under the direction of the apostles.

      vii. In Acts 15, there is recorded a conference at Jerusalem at which apostles and elders, and especially James, took a leading part. When the decision was made concerning the Gentiles, it was made by the apostles and elders "with the whole church." Paul and others delivered the "decrees" or "decisions" to the churches (Acts 16:4).

      viii. In Acts 34:23, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church where they had been labouring. The word "appoint" meant primarily to "elect by show of hands," but the word came to be used of appointing without reference to the manner of election. In Crete it was Titus who appointed the elders.

      ix. A further development is indicated in the reference made to "helps" and "governments" in 1 Cor. 12:28.

      It appears that as the apostolic age advanced the more developed became the ministry. The most elaborate statement of qualifications of elders and deacons is given in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, written after the events described in the Book of Acts.

      From these facts we may gather that in one sense the ecclesia was democratic. All the members had some share in the organisation. The "priesthood of all believers" is Scriptural in that in the New Testament there was no priestly class, no Mediator between God and Man other than Jesus Christ. There is nothing in the New Testament to prevent a qualified person from preaching and administering the ordinances. The church had disciplinary powers, and in several passages the whole assembly is held responsible for the conduct of worship, as, for example,

at Corinth. This democratic element demonstrates the carrying over from the early Greek usage of "ecclesia."

      There, in a sense, also, in which the Old Testament background of the word becomes prominent. Possibly the synagogues or Sanhedrin was taken as a model for some features, but there is a striking parallel between the government in Israel and in the church. The congregation of Israel was originally a Theocracy. Moses and the elders of Israel communicated the mind of God to the people. Later, judges and prophets endeavoured to deliver Israel from physical and spiritual bondage. So in the New Testament we have a Christocracy. Christ is the Head, then come apostles and elders and prophets to guide the church.

      One important aspect of the subject is the consideration of

4. The Local Assemblies and Co-operation

      There are many instances in the New Testament showing that the churches co-operated in missionary and other work. In a sense each church was independent, but each was expected to co-operate with others for the good of the whole. There was close relationship between the church at Antioch and that at Jerusalem. When Paul organised a collection for the poor Christians at Jerusalem, churches in Macedonia, Corinth and other places contributed. The churches sent out accredited messengers to supervise the collection, and when it was completed Paul made plans to have it carried to Jerusalem.

      There seems to have been an interchange of Epistles received by the churches. Paul directs the brethren at Colossae (Col. 4:16): "When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." There is evidence that the Epistle to the Ephesians was in the nature of a circular letter to be read in the various churches of the district.

      There is one other aspect of the local church which it is necessary to consider:

5. The Meaning of Ecclesia when Referring to a City

      First consider the church at Jerusalem. There is no reference in "Acts" to any meeting-place other than the Temple precincts and private houses, and perhaps synagogues (Acts 22:19). Early in the record (2:46) we read of disciples "breaking bread from house to house." The phrase is literally "according to a house." The C. G. T. has this comment, "Render, breaking bread at home; though the A. V., if rightly understood, gives the sense very well. What is meant is, that the specially Christian institution of the breaking of the bread was not a part of the service in the Temple, but was observed in their own homes, the congregations meeting now at one house, now at another." Some take the view that the reference is to ordinary meals, but many authorities, including recent commentators, take it at least of the love-feasts, and probably of the Lord's Supper. Whether the reference includes the Lord's Supper or not, the evidence points in the direction of the claim that, while the first Christians were able to use the Temple courts, they also met in house communities. In the "History of the Christian Church." Philip Schaff wrote, "The early Christians assembled from the first in private houses, especially for the communion and the love-feasts." George Hedley, in a work on "Christian Worship" (1943), says, "The exclusively Christian gatherings were held in private homes, from the time of the household of John Mark and his mother onward." Note that

Acts 5:42 reads "And daily in the Temple, and in every house they (the apostles) ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." See also T. M. Lindsay, pp. 41.

      It may be pointed out, further, that there was a great and rapid development of the church in Jerusalem. At the time of the first arrest of the apostles, the number of male believers is said to have been about 5,000. Subsequently we read of "the multitude of them that believed" (4:32); and still later that "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes of men and women" (5:14); also that "there came a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks and them which were vexed with unclean spirits; and they were healed every one" (5:16). So phenomenal was the growth that the authorities were alarmed, and persecution broke out. Acts 8:1 reads, "And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem, and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles."

      Now, is it probable that any one assembly could embrace all these disciples? Is it not more likely that they met in groups in various places, as the Jews did in the numerous synagogues in Jerusalem? Yet we read of the ecclesia at Jerusalem, and of the apostles and elders exercising oversight of that ecclesia.

      A similar statement may be made in reference to churches in larger cities like Corinth and Ephesus and Rome. In 1 Cor. 16:19, Paul writes, "Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church which is in their house." Paul was writing from Ephesus. Aquila and Priscilla had been at Corinth, but they had gone to Ephesus with Paul. There they formed an ecclesia in their house. Later they returned to Rome, and again formed a house-church (Rom. 16:3-5). Yet when Paul came to Miletus on his way up to Jerusalem, "he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." This raises the question, Did the elders have oversight concerning the church in the house of Aquila which was in Ephesus? A similar question may be raised with reference to the house-church of Nymphas in Laodicea (Col. 4:15). Lightfoot, in his commentary on "Colossians," writes: "Under any circumstances this ecclesia was only a section of the ecclesia of the Laodiceans." With this claim several learned commentators agree. Cf. "Christian System" (Campbell), pp. 76, and Lindsay (pp. 59). In Titus 1:5 we read that Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in every city. Was there only one group of Christians in each city?

      There are certain matters about which the New Testament is silent, which nevertheless have a bearing upon early church organisation. For example, the New Testament church came into being in a Roman province, and churches were organised in various parts of the Roman Empire. While the Roman Government was generally tolerant in matters of religion, the missionary enthusiasm of the disciples and the rise of Emperor-worship soon brought serious conflict. The Romans, it would seem, looked on churches as akin to mystery-cults, with secret rites subversive to the Government. Violent persecution broke out. What was the effect of this on church organisation? What happened to the church when Jerusalem was destroyed? There is evidence that in the time of persecutions in Rome, Christians were forced to hide in the catacombs and other places, and to hold meetings as opportunity offered.

      One New Testament book (cf. Sanday and Headlam, pp. 35) throws some light on this question. The First Epistle of Peter was written, after persecution had broken out, to "the elect who are

sojourners of the Dispersion" in various places in Asia Minor. Peter encourages Christians undergoing trial. While he does not use the word ecclesia, he calls them "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession." It would seem that Peter recalled the Lord's words to him when, after his restoration, he was exhorted to shepherd the flock of disciples who had been scattered by the events associated with the crucifixion of Jesus. In this Epistle Peter exhorts the elders to "feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint but willingly" (1 Pet. 5:2). The comment of the Cambridge Greek Testament on this passage is, "The elders seem always to have acted as a body, and there is no evidence of a single elder having charge of anything corresponding to a special 'parish.' The plural here therefore denotes the flocks in all the different towns, each of which was assigned to the joint care of the elders of that town."

To Sum Up

      Consideration of the evidence from the New Testament leads to the conclusion that there were numerous congregations self-governed in the sense that no one church could control another, but, that independence was limited by--

      (1) Apostolic oversight. This ceased with the close of the first century. There is also the authority exercised by James, the Lord's brother, and other leaders.

      (2) The necessity for each congregation to consider the good of the whole Christian community, and to co-operate in the work. The community was considered to be a brotherhood (1 Pet. 2:17). There was a safeguard against a local church conducting its affairs in such a way as to bring the whole body into disrepute. Paul's dealings with the church at Corinth show that this was so.

      (3) The local circumstances which may have made it necessary for the members of a church to meet in small communities. The article on the Church of the New Testament, by S. C. Gayford, in Hastings' Bible Dictionary, which, according to T. M. Lindsay, is "based on a searching analysis of the documents of the New Testament," claims that in the early church "for purpose of administration the unit was not the house-congregation, but the city-congregation." Further, in times of persecution when the disciples were scattered, the flock would be shepherded by elders whose duties probably would not be confined to a small congregation. One writer suggests that the mission field today is the nearest parallel.

      The broad principles of the New Testament must be taken as a guide. The principle of simplicity safeguards against over-elaboration of organisation or worship; the principle of expediency allows great freedom in matters of detail; the principle of adaptation to need allows for various methods in differing communities; the principle of loyalty will preserve submission to Christ, the Head of the church, wherever His will is clearly made known. These principles will help to preserve Christian liberty and efficient service in accordance with the injunction of Paul, "Let all things be done decently and in order." (1 Cor. 14:40).

      God once said: "Let us make man." He then made man in individual men all over the world. The time came when the Lord said: "I will build MY church." Then He built His church in individual congregations all over the world.

      In the New Testament the human body is used as an illustration of the church of Christ. Each church, like each body, is separate and complete in itself, however small or large.

1. Congregational Autonomy

      The original language of the New Testament was Greek, in which the word for church was ecclesia, meaning an assembly. It is the word used in Acts 19:32,41. The same word is translated "church" in other passages and always means a congregation of people. The Jews congregated in assemblies called synagogues, and the Christians in assemblies called churches. The assemblies of Christians were churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16). There was the ecclesia in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1); the ecclesia in Antioch (Acts 13:l); the ecclesia at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2). Even where there was only a small assembly or ecclesia of Christians it was called a church, or THE church (Philemon 2). In passing it may be noticed that though Paul's first Epistle was addressed specifically to the church in Corinth, it was no doubt read in other assemblies also. This was true, too, of the epistles to Colossae and Laodicea. But in none of these instances are we entitled to infer that the assemblies were organised together. They were separate congregations united only by the "Apostles' doctrine."

      Some point out that in the Revised Version, Acts 9:31 is translated, "the church throughout all Judea," and attempt to make the word "church" mean a number of congregations organised together. The answer to that is seen in Gal. 1:22 and 1 Thess. 2:14, where it cannot be made to read anything other than "the churches" of that province. So "the church throughout all Judea" means the church wherever it was in individual congregations throughout Judea. The point can satisfactorily be illustrated with a parallel phrase. We may speak about "the New Testament throughout all Victoria" without anyone thinking of some super New Testament. All would understand it to mean the same New Testament in individual copies wherever found in Victoria. Likewise "the church throughout all Judea" was the church wherever found in the province. The use of the plural, in Galatians and in 1 Thessalonians, gives the proof.

      It is sometimes said that the multitudes converted in Jerusalem, in the early days of the church there, could not all have met in the one place. Those who say this would have us believe that the converts met in different assemblies, yet were called "the church" in Jerusalem. The purpose behind this is to group congregations in a given area and call the organisation "the church" in that area. On the surface it does not seem sensible to call two

      or more assemblies "an assembly" any more than to call two or more horses "a horse." But the more deeply we look into the matter the less convincing becomes the theory. It is not necessary to believe that all who were converted in Jerusalem stayed in that city, but a good guess that they did not. They were there as visitors for Pentecost from sixteen different countries (Acts 2:1-11). Is it not reasonable to believe that masses of the converts would have returned to their own countries, as the man from Ethiopia did? (Acts 8:27-39). Furthermore, we need not try to explain that the Christians in Jerusalem could all meet in one assembly, for the inspired record says they could (Acts 2: 44; Acts 6:2, 5).

      An attempt has been made to organise assemblies together, to be known as "the church," with the, support of Acts 2:46. It is another effort to support the contention that the church in Jerusalem was a collection of assemblies in houses. The passage, however, does not refer to the Lord's Supper, but to a common meal, as the last part of the verse explains. The practice was simply an expression of the close friendship which had grown up among the early Christians, by the love of God which had been shed abroad in their hearts.

      The cities of Antioch and Corinth have also been named as centres where "the church" must have been a number of assemblies. It is claimed that each city would have too many Christians for one assembly, yet they are called "the church at Antioch," and "church at Corinth." The Scriptures again refute man's fallacious reasonings (Acts 14:27; 1 Cor. 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:18-20).

      Modern desires to group churches together and call the organisation "a church" are nothing new. Alexander Campbell wrote against the unscriptural practice in the denominations of his day. Quoting Alexander Carson with approval, Campbell wrote: "What an insult upon the Holy Ghost to represent his language to be so vague and indeterminate that it cannot be understood! . . . Has the word 'church' no determinate meaning in the New Testament? . . . "

      "Ecclesia literally signifies an assembly . . ."

      ". . . Ecclesia may be a civil assembly and appropriated also to a religious assembly; but in neither civil nor religious matters can it be appropriated as the distinctive name of two different assemblies, the one subordinate to the other . . . "

      "There is not the least intimation in any part of the New Testament of a representative government. Nothing is said about a number of church rulers being selected as an ecclesiastical council over a number of individual churches, nor any such use of the word church, as indicating a number of individual churches. When the inspired writers speak of a single assembly of saints, they invariably call it a church; when they speak of a number of churches, or the churches of a province or district, they do not call them a church, but churches . . . I know indeed with respect to Jerusalem and Corinth, it is alleged that the saints in those cities must have been too numerous to have assembled in one place. But I need not take up my time in showing how or where they might assemble, or in ascertaining their numbers . . . the Scripture itself refutes the objection.  . . Acts 2:44; 1 Cor. 5:4 and 11:18. In these passages they are expressly shown to have met in the same place."

      Honoured names that go with that of Alexander Campbell are David King and A. R. Main. A quotation follows from each of these other stalwarts of the faith concerning Congregational Autonomy.

      David King:--"In the New Testament, 'The Church,' when applied to an actually existing institution, always refers to a local gathering of Christ's disciples . . . The word church is never used to denote an assembly composed of several of these local gatherings."

      A. R. Main:--"We . . . are frankly congregational in polity . . . Believing in the co-operation and united action of free churches, we cannot recognise the authority of any tribunal, assembly, or conference, over the local church. Centralised church organisation for a province has no warrant in the New Testament."

2. Congregational Government

      With reference to the assemblies in the province of Galatia, the Scriptures teach that there were "elders in every church" (Acts 14:23. There is nothing contrary to that in all the New Testament, but much to supplement it.

      Elders in Acts 20:17, 28 are also called overseers, or bishops (the same word in the Greek). In 1 Tim. 3:1-5 and 1 Tim. 5:17 the elders are seen to be men in charge of the assembly. The same men are called the shepherds or pastors in 1 Peter 5:1-3. When Peter wrote this epistle he addressed it to various provinces. This has led some to suggest that Peter wrote to elders who were over churches grouped together within a province. Such an assumption is both unjustified and unsatisfactory. One of the provinces mentioned by Peter in the first verse of the epistle was Galatia, where we have already seen there were "elders in every church."

      It is interesting to know that the literal translation of 1 Peter 5:3 is "the allotted portions." The elders therefore in the provinces had their "allotted portions" to shepherd, which would be the local congregations.

      Advocates of the grouping of congregations under a central eldership try to make Titus 1:5 support the idea. They affirm that there would be more than one assembly in a city, but only one eldership. There is, of course, nothing in the verse to support the affirmation. Any little place was known as a city, for the little town of Bethlehem was also referred to as a city. But even if there were several assemblies in each of some larger cities, with elders in each congregation, there would still be elders in every city.

      This point is clear in the light of a parallel from the New Testament. In Acts 15:21 we read that the writings of Moses were read in every city, in the synagogues. No one is foolish enough to contend that the writings of Moses were read in one central place to several synagogues of Jews. The reading of the writings of Moses in every city was in every synagogue in a city, whether one or many. So elders in every city meant in every congregation in a city, whether one or more.

      A criticism is often heard to the effect that it is dangerous to allow small assemblies to govern themselves. It is more dangerous to assume unscriptural control. Those who complain that a small church is free to govern itself, not only fail to think that the Lord's way is best, but also forget that Churches of Christ began in Australia in the form now opposed. The pioneers would not have had any other form of government than that of congregationalism. In spite of the little groups being self-governing, they prospered and became a great brotherhood in Australia. The weakness today is not in congregational government, but in something else. Churches of Christ in America that contend strongly for the Scriptural form

are progressing to such an extent that they are eclipsing the churches with extra organisation.

      It is still pertinent to quote Alexander Campbell on congregational government. He wrote: "Such of these as meet together statedly in one place in obedience to the King, or His ambassadors the Apostles, for the observances of all the institutions of the King, compose a family, or house, or congregation of Christ . . ."

      ". . . Hence, in every city, town and country, where the Apostles gathered a community by their own personal labours, or by their assistants, in setting them in order . . . they uniformly appointed elders, or overseers, to labour in the word and teaching, and to preside over the whole affairs of the community. To these, also, were added the deacons, or public ministers of the congregation, who, under the direction of the overseers, were to manage all the affairs of these individual families of God . . ."

      ". . . And if a congregation will not elect to these offices the persons possessing these qualifications; or if by waywardness and selfishness of their own, they should elect those unqualified, and thus disparage those marked out by the possession of those gifts; in either case, they despise the authority of the Ambassadors of Christ and must suffer for it."

      Of course, churches may exist in their infancy without elders. Human beings also exist in their infancy without teeth. But in both cases God planned for what is lacking at birth to come with development. See Acts 14:21-23; Titus 1:5.

      Until comparatively recent days this teaching was the general position held among Churches of Christ in Australia. The honoured Joseph Pittman wrote: ". . . elders, otherwise called bishops, and pastors, were appointed in every local assembly--a plurality in each church." A. B. Maston, a giant among the churches, wrote: "All Christians in a given locality were united in one society, in which there was a board of pastors or elders, whose special business it was to exercise a guiding influence over the spiritual affairs of that congregation. The elders, with the deacons, whose special business it was to minister in 'meats and drinks,' were the persons to whom each congregation committed the lead in the management of its affairs. The union of these churches was not organic, that is to say, they were bound together only by the ties of sympathy and love. When this is said, the substance of the organisation of the Apostolic church has been given . . . "

      It may be of value to discuss the so-called council in Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15:1-31. The following analogy will help:--

      Let us suppose that the Apostles were in Adelaide, when the Church of Christ was planted there just over 100 years ago. A little later the Church of Christ was established in Melbourne. If certain false teachers came from Adelaide to Melbourne instructing the brethren to be circumcised and keep the Old Testament law, they would have aroused much dissension and disputation. The unity of the churches would have been threatened. The church in Melbourne would have done well in sending representatives to Adelaide to discuss the matter with the brethren, including the Apostles. No doubt the folk in Adelaide would have sent back the message that the false teachers did not represent them, for neither the Holy Spirit nor they would add such teaching to the gospel of Christ. Would such contact between two independent congregations suggest to an unbiased mind that the church in Melbourne was governed by the church in Adelaide? Such a thing is just what happened in Acts 15:1-31.

      Any folk that advocate other forms of church government than congregational government have to "use" the Scriptures after the fashion of those who seek Scriptural support for infant "baptism."

      Fourteen years ago E. L. Williams ably put the case for Churches of Christ, in respect of congregational government, when he wrote: "In accordance with the idea of the church as a free organisation, and as an expression of the principle of democracy, Churches of Christ have adopted congregational independence as their pattern of church government. We believe that the church of apostolic times was not a hierarchy, but a democracy of believers; that it was not patterned after the Hebrew temple and its ritual, but rather after the synagogue, with its simple services and democratic organisation. The local congregation is the legislating and governing unit."

      "No central organisation exercises any jurisdiction over the local life and activities of a congregation or church."

      Mr. Williams continued, quoting W. E. Garrison with approval: "Any group of Christians can constitute themselves a congregation which thereby becomes a true church, an authentic part of the one church, and has all the rights, powers, and privileges that any church can have, including the right to create such a ministry as it may need--but always in accordance with the New Testament pattern."

      Then Mr. Williams added: "The bishops and elders of the New Testament are regarded by us as one and the same, and a plurality of elders or bishops is accepted as the New Testament precedent. Thus the oversight of the local church is entrusted to a plurality of elders or bishops . . . Accepting the democratic principle as a rule, elders and deacons are elected to office by the congregation."

      If this statement by Mr. Williams is what the New Testament taught fourteen years ago concerning congregational autonomy and government, then it must teach the same today, for the New Testament has not changed.

      I take it that our main concern tonight is not to find a New Testament basis for the congregational type of church government so much as to see the nature of what congregationalism we find there, and to answer the question, "Is anything other than what we know as strict congregationalism consistent with New Testament faith and order?" I am trying to keep in mind the fact that this whole question arose from definite recommendations discussed in Conferences of 1954, 1955 and 1956. A part of my talk will deal with the attitude of Churches of Christ to what they find and to what they do not find as express commands or approved precedents in the pages of the New Testament.

      In the gospels we find no command or teaching regarding the organisation of the church. No church can claim the direct authority of Jesus Christ for its particular form of church government.

      The Book of Acts tells how, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out and there came a new revelation of the will of God for men. Our reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows that in the early days of the church the primary concern was for the winning of men to a faith in Jesus Christ; the story is one of spiritual revival; the life of the church was full and free, spiritual, evangelistic and apparently unorganised. The new converts continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, in fellowship, in the Breaking of Bread and in prayers. The Revised Version says, "They continued steadfastly with one accord in the temple and breaking bread at home they did eat their food with gladness and singleness of heart, having favour with all the people." (Acts 2:46-47). The early Christians still went to the temple, and for a start there was no organisation of a church as separate from the temple and synagogue worship.

      It was not long before organisation was needed; dire poverty and distress led to the appointment of deacons, and even before this there had been the appointment of an apostle to take the place of Judas. These appointments imply a coming together of the Christians of the whole city of Jerusalem in some type of conference. Those congregations of Christians were gatherings of the people who had been still worshipping in the temple and synagogues and breaking bread in private homes--how many homes we do not know. The meetings in homes continued until long after the close of the New Testament era; the Books of the Acts of Apostles and the letters of the New Testament tell of many of the meeting places--the home of Priscilla and Aquila, that of Philemon, of Lydia, and many others are mentioned.

      The letter to the Corinthians mentions all that in every place call on the Lord, the house of Chloe and the house of Stephanas. The letter to the Romans, written

to all that are in Rome, includes greetings to those of the house of Priscilla and Aquila, Aristobulus, and also those of the house of Narcissus. (See also Rom. 16:14, 15.) There was some connection between the various Christians within a city, and it is very evident that the epistles were meant to be passed round the various groups, or at least their contents and messages relayed round the groups within a city. Neither the Acts nor the Epistles give a clear picture of what organisation existed or how it developed.

      There were no general church buildings as we know them until 313 A. D., when the Emperor Constantine gave liberty to Christians. The first property to be procured, as far as history goes, was a burial ground. Churches within the city of Rome, or should we say the members of the Church of Rome meeting in various places within the city, combined to buy a cemetery, and that followed in many cities. After 313 A. D. many church buildings were bought or erected. In the reign of the Emperor Decius there were in Rome 40 meeting places all ruled by one bishop with 47 priests and 7 deacons, and at the same time there were in Alexandria many presbyters ruled by one bishop controlling the Christians of that city; and these presbyters staffed the congregations in the surrounding villages. ("Parish and Parish Church," Dr. D. Thomas, also "The Church in the House"). The New Testament gives no details relating to its day beyond general statements and indications of these house meetings.

      The first organisation of the church appears to have followed the Jewish pattern of Apostles, Elders and Deacons, ruling a congregation. The Jewish congregation was certainly a gathering of a number of groups within a city or district. It was customary for Jews within a large city to have many synagogues. Jerusalem had over 100 synagogues at one time according to Dean's Outline of Bible History. He said that each large city had many synagogues. A gathering of the Jews in the whole city was called a congregation of Jews and such gatherings appointed elders. A ruling council, consisting of elders so appointed, and priests and scribes, ruled the city. In Jerusalem this council had 24 priests, 24 elected elders and 24 scribes and it was called the Sanhedrin.

      The Apostle was one sent from the council to the groups or to another city or town. The elders (or aldermen) had well defined powers of control and Jews were subject to them in sacred affairs and to the whole Sanhedrin or Council in secular affairs. (See "The History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge.")

      It was under such a system that our Lord lived and the early Christians continued to live. The names of the officers and the duties imposed, and especially the qualifications required for the church officers, leads to a very strong assumption that when a separate organisation was required for Christians they based their system on the set-up with which they were so familiar. The groups were called together to, elect deacons, to discuss particular problems (Acts 15). (See "The Outline of Christianity" in "The Story of Our Civilization.") When new groups came as a result of Paul's missionary tour he appears to have returned and ordained elders himself. Paul certainly exercised some authority over the churches he organised, and James appears to have exercised some such authority in Jerusalem. The apostles, then, exercised some authority, but churches were asked to submit to the rule of the elders, while the particular groups, too, had some autonomy. When a sad moral lapse occurred in Corinth, not only the officers, but the whole congregation was asked by Paul

to take part in the trial and judgment of the offender (1 Cor. 5:4-6).

      From these facts we can see that in the New Testament there are the beginnings of congregationalism and also a definite suggestion of a rule by presbyters or elders. When there was democratic rule by congregations there is a strong possibility that the congregation was a combination of a number of groups. (And the saying pleased the whole multitude. Acts 6:5).

      It is interesting to know that while both Presbyterians and Congregationalists claim to have based their systems on New Testament practice, neither claims that the New Testament demands the system they follow, and each recognises the right of the other to make its claim.

1. The Common Mind

      Churches of Christ have stood for the restoration of the faith and practice of the New Testament Church. "Where the Bible speaks we speak"--"Where the Bible is silent we are silent." Thos. Campbell, in his "Declaration and Address" (point 13) spoke of the necessity for "human expedients." We have no command or precedent for hundreds of our practices--buildings, tables, hymn boards, hiring or possessing a meeting place, order of service, building a baptistery, no New Testament guide as to how much bread to eat or how much wine to drink in a communion service. These things are all determined by custom according to this law of expediency. In order to carry out the New Testament commands we find ourselves in a position in which we must make some decisions for ourselves. We are not bound to produce a--"thus saith the Lord"--for every detail of our behaviour. We have no right to expect a precept or precedent for many matters which expediency demands,

      Where there is no clear precept or precedent in the New Testament the matter of interpretation becomes important. Our churches have a most important method of arriving at a conclusion in such cases. Our people deny the right of any group to impose its private opinions on others as a rule of faith and duty. The Campbells, father and son, stressed the importance of the "Common Mind of the Christian Church" in matters of interpreting and understanding the New Testament. The common mind is not the opinion of the mass of the people--but it is a consensus of qualified opinion. The idea is that if recognised authorities agree on a matter in which the Scripture does not appear to be explicit, we must accept this agreement. The stress is on qualified opinion and recognised authorities. For the first few years our movement still practised infant sprinkling. When challenged on the question, Alexander Campbell read his New Testament and also consulted lexicons, dictionaries and all church authorities, and as a result accepted as a fact that the New Testament Church practised the immersion of believers. Our movement accepted this common mind. As the consensus of qualified opinion said this was the New Testament command, our early fathers left their prejudices, which were very great, and accepted believers, immersion.

      When Campbell wrote his book on "Christian Baptism" he quoted lexicons, dictionaries, reformers (including John Wesley); he quoted encyclopaedias and church historians, translators, and commentators. He did this on the subjects of baptism, on the method of baptism, on the meaning of the word baptise and on the action of baptism. Zollars in "The Great Salvation," does exactly the same. We claim that our position is the Catholic or Universal position. It is what the scholars of the world agree was the New Testament form. Dean Kershner, in "Overture," says

this emphasis on the common mind makes our Restoration plea practical.

      If there is any doubt about what was the New Testament practice we do well to look at the opinions of the scholars of the world. Our brethren of all denominations (Campbell's phrase) do agree there is a common mind on the matter of church government in New Testament times. The consensus of qualified opinion supports me in my contention that the New Testament leaves the way open for either a Congregational or a Presbyterian form of church government.

2. "The Nature of the Church"

      The Continuation Committee of the World Conference on Faith and Order, in 1951 published a large book, "The Nature of the Church." This consisted of twenty-three papers by recognised authorities. (Two are from our people, Principal Robinson and Professor Dr. Garrison, of U. S. A.). Let us look at what these church authorities have to say in this book on the matter before us.

      i. Church of England. Gives New Testament precedents for a rule by bishops and claims their practice grew from New Testament germs. Notice their practice "grew from" . . . The paper does not claim that the New Testament demands the exact form they practise.

      ii. Methodist. (Their statement approved by the Methodist Conference held at Bradford in England.) "Our order closely resembles the order which prevailed in the first century but we do not regard it as binding. None of the forms which prevail in the various churches today can legitimately claim the authority of our Lord; Christ founded the church by creating a fellowship and this fellowship represents His purpose. The New Testament does not prescribe clerical orders or ecclesiastical organisations."

      iii. Presbyterian. "There is no specific system of government prescribed in the Bible. We have no reason to presume that in all places where the apostles preached they observed a fixed course of settled, church government. The essential elements of Presbyterian organisation are found in the New Testament, which includes a threefold government--Congregational, Presbyterian and Synodical."

      iv. Congregationalist. We find the Congregational policy taught and practised in the New Testament, though not exclusively. Other denominations are similarly related to other elements in New Testament doctrine and practice. We do not consider it essential to copy the New Testament church, but rather to face our modern problems of church policy under the guidance of the same divine Spirit that led the early church.

      v. Brethren. We do not hold that one form of organisation is right to the exclusion of others, though we tend to the Congregational type.

      vi. Baptist. (W. O. Carver). We see that the New Testament yields some basis for the claims of each of the three types of church organisation. In the early church all believers in a given city and its dependent communities were united in a single organisational unit with as many places of worship and work as wisdom indicated. Modern Baptists do not exactly follow this example but rather aim at the complete autonomy and independence of each worshipping group.

      vii. Disciples of Christ. (Garrison). An increasing number of us hold that the New Testament does not reflect a uniform type of church organisation.

3. New Zealand, "Knowing One Another" (9 articles; one by A. L. Haddon).

      Presbyterian. We do not claim that ours is the only correct way of church government, but we do claim that it works well and is agreeable to scriptures and does not obscure the gospel.

4. Why Presbyterian? (J. C. Jamieson).

      Presbyterians do not claim that their organisation is the only one permissible. We do claim our form of church government is founded on the Word of God and is agreeable thereto. Our system is in harmony with New Testament principles and practice and has proved itself very satisfactory over the centuries in many countries.

5. The Recommendation

      made to Conference, 1955 and 1956, was to meet a great need. The problem outlined to Conference, 1954, by the printed article by T. R. Morris is being accentuated as the years proceed. The recommendation does not conflict with any new Testament principle, precept, or precedent; and in my opinion it is in harmony with our position as Churches of Christ.

6. Does Expediency Demand It? Is It Advisable?

      These are questions I have not been asked to speak on, but I would like to suggest:--

      a. The need for some action is great. Our churches, as at present organised, are not as effective as they would be if the problems T. R. Morris outlined were solved.

      b. The suggested grouping of churches under a district or regional control is a practical suggestion, works well with Methodists and Presbyterians; why not with us? Our churches, however, prize their autonomy and such a union often leads to further problems. Maidstone and Footscray were under one control but many thought it did not work well.

      c. We could have a grouping without a control. The Sunraysia churches have found a new life and spirit since they learned to co-operate. In youth camps, regular youth activities, in women's work, in men's work, and in district conferences, they are able to do ten times as much as anyone of the four churches was able to accomplish separately. It may be possible for some churches which would not surrender their autonomy to find fruitful fields of co-operation.

      d. It may be advisable for us to discourage the formation of some new churches. If suburban churches were strengthened, their buildings and equipment could be improved. Our American churches are much bigger than ours; it is possible that we have too many churches in the city for our membership. Four or five times each Sunday, and often during the week, a bus passes my door gathering folk to take them to a Roman Catholic church. It may be cheaper and more effective for us to find some way of strengthening our existing churches, rather than allowing break-away groups to form new and often weak churches.

      e. The only answer to the problem, in the country, where wide distances separate churches, and ultimately the only satisfactory answer in the metropolitan area, is to be found in our Christian Unity plea. The whole question should challenge us to work harder than ever in the cause of Christian Unity.