Dave Chanski
March 30, 1999
Pastors’ Fraternal
Introduction
My assignment is to address the subject of whether or not the teaching of our confession [London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689] in chapter 26, paragraph 15 is ‘foundational.’ In other words, is it of foundational significance, or is it of relatively minor significance? Is the paragraph vital, or is it expendable? Some Reformed Baptists have suggested that our confession would be better without this controversial paragraph. Some have even hinted at the possibility of removing it from the confession or at least openly disavowing it. Further, as Reformed Baptists have discussed the subject of interchurch relations in recent months, the question has been raised, “What if some brethren simply disagree with 26:15? Should we not treat their exception to that paragraph as we would treat exceptions to the statement concerning ‘elect infants’ (10:3) and the Pope (26:4)?” This is why I have been asked to address this topic, and this is why it is such a vital subject.
Specification
Let me begin by briefly explaining what I believe the confession essentially teaches in this paragraph. It does not teach that we ought to form or belong to associations of churches. That is a subject tangential to the teaching of 26:15. It teaches that “in cases of difficulties or differences”, representatives of sister churches ought to meet together to discuss those cases and give advice regarding those matters. That this is the paragraph’s teaching is evident:
In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of Doctrine, or Administration; wherein either the Churches in general are concerned, or any one Church in their peace, union, and edification; or any member, or members, of any Church are injured, in or by any censures not agreeable to truth, and order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many Churches holding communion together, do by their messengers meet to consider, and give their advice, in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the Churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not entrusted with any Church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the Churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any Churches, or Persons: or to impose their determination on the Churches, or Officers.
General: accountability
The confession, in this paragraph, addresses the hotly debated, profoundly sensitive, emotionally-charged subject of interchurch accountability. Because of the baggage this word has accrued for itself, I would prefer to use the phrase answerableness & censurability as a replacement. However, it is too cumbersome, and the word accountability is a good word if we rightly define it.
Let me state clearly at the outset, therefore, that I concur with the teaching of the confession. I do not advocate Associations of churches, and I do advocate accountability of churches. I would thus in my presentation and exhortations aim to steer us clear of the Charybdis of a full-blown associationalism and the Scylla of a radical ‘independence.’
Specific: admonition
Further, par. 15 is a summary statement regarding the element of interchurch communion which the Congregationalist writers called admonition. The Puritan Congregationalists, among whom were John Cotton, Thomas Goodwin, and John Owen, viewed interchurch communion as a spiritual union between local churches of Christ carried out by means of several mutual duties. Owen wrote,
The communion of churches is their joint actings in the same gospel duties towards God in Christ, with their mutual actings towards each other with respect unto the end of their institution and being, which is the glory of Christ in the edification of the whole catholic church (Owen, Works, vol. 16, p. 191).
Borrowing from these Puritans1, I offer a list of the duties or tasks which constitute the holding of interchurch communion:
1) Participation [i.e. in the Lord’s Table] (Acts 20:7, 11)
2) Recommendation (Rom 16:1; Acts 18:27)
3) Consultation (Acts 15:2, 6)
4) Congregation [assembly of messengers from all churches]
5) Contribution [e.g. of money or manpower] (Acts 11:22, 29)
6) Admonition (Mat 18:15-17 applied on corporate level)
7) Propagation or Multiplication of Churches (Mat 28:19-20; Acts 14:21-23)
8) Prayer
9) Information (Eph 6:18-22; Col 4:2-3, 7-9; 1 Thess 3:1-10)
Admonition is the name given to the duty of interchurch communion which is especially in view in paragraph 15 of the confession. The Cambridge Platform, drawn up by Congregationalists in New England in 1648, explains the need for the exercise of admonition as an “act of brotherly communion:”
But if a Church be rent with divisions amongst themselves, or ly under any open scandal, & yet refuse to consult with other churches, for healing or removing of the same; it is matter of just offence both to the Lord Jesus, & to other churches, as bewraying too much want of mercy & faithfulness, not to seek to bind up the breaches & wounds of the church & brethren; & therfore the state of such a church calleth aloud upon other churches, to excertise a fuller act of brotherly communion, to witt, by way of admonition (Cambridge Platform, chapter XV, paragraph 2, II).
The significance of these Puritans in this discussion lies in the fact that they are the ‘authors’, if you will, of many of our ecclesiological convictions. They are the theological pioneers and giants behind such doctrines as the autonomy of the local church, the necessity of a regenerate church membership, and rule by elder. Our Baptist forefathers were consciously dependent on these Congregationalists, and they were not shy about it. Most of you men are aware that the framers of our own confession relied heavily upon the Savoy Declaration. In our confession’s chapter on the church, the framers essentially borrowed the wording of thirteen of the fifteen paragraphs from the Savoy Declaration and the Savoy Platform of Church Polity.2 Benjamin Keach wrote in the preface to his treatise on church polity, The Glory of a True Church, and its Discipline Displayed (1697):
Many reverend divines of the Congregational way, have written most excellently (it is true) upon the subject, I mean on church-discipline; but the books are so voluminous that the poorer sort can’t purchase them, and many others have not time or learning to improve them to their profit; and our brethren the Baptists have not written (as I can gather) on the subject by itself.
Reformed Baptists’ ignorance of Congregational church polity is often a cause for embarrassment; our negligence of it is often a cause for shame.
Definition
Autonomy
The doctrine of the autonomy of the local church is articulated in chapter 26 of our confession. First, paragraph 4 asserts that the church receives its authority immediately from Christ–i.e. not through any ecclesiastical body or individual(s).
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or Government of the church, is invested in a supream and soveraigne manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof . . . .
Second, paragraph 7 states that each local church possesses all the authority it needs to perform all the work God calls it to accomplish. (This does not mean that churches should not work together to accomplish tasks that individual churches are unable to carry out alone–e.g. missions.)
To each of these Churches thus gathered, according to his mind, declared in his word, he hath given all that power and authority, which is in any way needfull for their carrying on that order in worship, and discipline, which he hath instituted for them to observe; with commands, and rules for the due and right exerting, and executing of that power.
Third, paragraph 15 asserts that no church or other ecclesiastical body may impose its will on any local church or exercise formal discipline against it. (As the former part of the paragraph makes clear, this does not mean that churches do not have mutual obligations to admonish one another, etc.)
. . . howbeit these messengers assembled, are not entrusted with any Church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the Churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any Churches, or Persons: or to impose their determination on the Churches, or Officers.
These paragraphs follow their parallels in the Savoy documents. These Congregationalist writers were men who not only understood the principle of the autonomy of the local church. They also adhered to it and suffered because of it. They were the men who were enabled by God to discern that principle from Scripture after it had long been lost. They articulated the principle in their writings. It is their understanding of autonomy upon which the Particular Baptists stood, and upon which we stand today. The meaning of autonomy does not prohibit accountability between churches. We are not the instructors of Cotton, Owen, and Goodwin when it comes to the meaning of autonomy. We are their disciples and their debtors. If we desire to invest the concept of autonomy with a new meaning, we should admit that by coming up with a new name for it, because it will be a different ecclesiology.
The Baptist Benjamin Griffith believed in the practice of interchurch admonition. He also believed in the autonomy of each local church. He wrote,
And such particular congregational churches, constituted and organized according to the mind of Christ revealed in the New Testament, are all equal in power and dignity, and we read of no disparity between them, or subordination among them, that should make a difference between the acts of their mutual communion, so as the acts of one church should be acts of authority, and the acts of others should be acts of obedience or subjection, although they may vastly differ in gifts, abilities and usefulness (Benjamin Griffith, A Short Treatise Concerning a True and Orderly Gospel Church, 1742).
I do not maintain that we have any obligation to follow the Puritan Congregationalists, or the Particular Baptists, or their platforms or confessions. We have no obligation to follow even our own confession if we do not believe it to accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture. I do however maintain that much of the resistance to the teaching of paragraph 15 is due to a) ignorance of its meaning and implications, b) ignorance of the meaning of the words ‘autonomous’ and ‘independent’, and c) consequent knee-jerk reactions to words like ‘accountability’ and ‘council.’
Accountability
What is ‘accountability’? A simple English dictionary definition of ‘accountable’ is “subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable.” Objections to any ‘accountability’ between churches have been raised on the grounds that accountability means or includes or requires some degree of authority or subordination or hierarchy. This however is a faulty premise. To illustrate, all would agree that a husband is accountable to (viz. answerable to & censurable by) his wife, although this does not place him under her authority. I can make myself accountable for something to my 9 yr. old son if I desire; but that will not make him my superior, let alone require my obedience to his will.
Our Congregationalist and Baptist forefathers believed that both autonomy and accountability should mark interchurch relations. They understood that neither precluded or violated the other. That conviction is expressed in our 1689 Confession, chapter 26, paragraph 15, as we have already seen. The Cambridge Platform stated it this way:
A third way then of communion of churches is by way of admonition, to witt, in case any publick offence be found in a church, which they either discern not, or are slow in proceeding to use the meanes for the removing & healing of. Paul has no authority over Peter, yet when he saw Peter not walking with a right foot, he publickly rebuked him before the church: though the churches have no more authority one over another, then one Apostle had over another; yet as one Apostle might admonish another, so may one church admonish another, & yet without usurpation (Cambridge Platform, ch. XV., III.).
Cotton Mather, another New England Congregationalist, records this conviction regarding the agreement of autonomy and accountability:
The power of synods is not to abate, much less to destroy, the liberties of particular churches, but to strengthen and to direct those churches, in the right use of the powers given by the Lord Jesus Christ unto them. And such assemblies are therefore to be used as a relief ordained by God for those difficulties, for which the care and state of a particular church affords not a sufficient remedy (Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana, vol. ii., p. 248).
Thomas Goodwin wrote to the same effect:
Hence, therefore, that neighbour churches should have a ground and a warrant to call a neighbour church in question, or to an account, is not by way of power and authority, as, if it ran in a way of institution, it should be; but it is by way of offence, and therefore they are to do it, when they are offended with their proceedings and with their miscarriages. So then, as the subjection of a man or a brother in the case of offence, to forbear such a practice which is otherwise indifferent to him, is not by virtue of any authority his brother hath over him, but it is in a moral way; so it is in this case. (Thomas Goodwin, The Constitution, Right Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ, &c.)
If we were to truly grant authority to church councils or to any particular churches or to a majority of churches, then we would violate the ‘autonomy of the local church.’ But if we grant them no authority, then we do not violate any principle of autonomy.
To assert that there is a real yet subtle “authority” inherent in this kind of accountability is to argue like the woman who left our church several years ago, alleging that our church had a “climate of abuse.” That is, though we did not actually abuse children, the fact that we encouraged the use of the rod produced a “climate of abuse.” Though our men were not wife abusers, the fact that we taught that wives should submit to their husbands produced a “climate of abuse.” Though our elders were not abusive, the fact that we taught that the brethren should “obey those who rule over [them], and be submissive” (Heb. 13:17) meant that we had a “climate of abuse.”
Further, it is to argue as some have argued who assert that to recognize the peculiar usefulness and maturity of some churches and/or elderships is to invest them with de facto authority. But we must be concerned with one thing–that we do not violate the autonomy of the local church. We need not avoid anything and everything which people may allege to violate it lest we create a “climate of authority.” We do not violate local church autonomy when we exercise interchurch ‘admonition’ if we adhere to the important admonition of our confession,
. . . howbeit these messengers assembled, are not entrusted with any Church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the Churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any Churches, or Persons: or to impose their determination on the Churches, or Officers.
Let men cry ‘De facto authority!’ all they want. The reality is that they will say it if we practice ‘admonition’, they will say it if we recognize the gifts and abilities of others, and they will say it if we simply defer to one another in love (Phil. 2:3-4). The only way to avoid all criticism in this area is to withdraw entirely from interchurch communion.
Implication: Accountability is Foundational
But having defined terms, we are brought back to the original question, Is accountability foundational? As I stated earlier, the question has been raised, “What if some brethren simply disagree with 26:15? Should we not treat their exception to that paragraph as we would treat exceptions to the statement concerning ‘elect infants’ (10:3) and the Pope (26:4)?” I believe the answer is Yes, accountability is foundational. Furthermore, we ought to resist every temptation to trivialize it and/or make it a matter of indifference–i.e. to place it on the level of infants and popes. Here are four reasons why:
1. Confessional
We do not reject the essence of the teaching of those paragraphs which address the subjects of ‘elect infants’ and the Pope. The statement identifying the Pope as the antichrist, in particular, is no more than an incidental assertion in a paragraph asserting Christ’s headship over His church.
However, to reject the accountability of churches to one another is to reject not only a conviction that was universal among our forebears. It is to reject a most significant statement regarding interchurch relations in our confession. The framers elected to express their convictions regarding a) the necessity of interchurch relations (viz. of all the elements; this they did in paragraph 14) and b) the singular importance of the particular element of admonition (paragraph 15). To jettison paragraph 15 means to reject what is arguably the most significant element of the ecclesiology of the confession when it comes to the interrelations of churches. The common exceptions at 10:3 and 26:4 do not cut out the vitals of the confession’s teaching at those points.
2. Historical
If we are afraid of or skeptical about paragraph 15 in our confession, we are a far cry from the view of the church of Christ held by all our Congregationalist and Baptist forefathers on this subject. Rather than continue to sidestep this paragraph or misrepresent its teaching, we ought rather to cultivate the convictions it articulates. If we do not, we literally cut ourselves loose from any legitimate fellowship with the likes of Cotton, Goodwin, Owen, Keach, et al. Listen to their estimation of the view that a church is accountable only to Christ and not to any other churches:
“[I]t [is] the most to be abhorred maxime that any Religion hath ever made profession of, and therefore of all other the most contradictory and dishonourable unto that of Christianity, that a single and particular society of men professing the name of Christ, and pretending to be endowed with a power from Christ to judge them that are of the same body and society within themselves, should further arrogate unto themselves an exemption from giving account or being censurable by any other, . . . neighbour Churches about them” (Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Sidrach Simpson, Jeremiah Burroughes, William Bridge, An Apologeticall Narration [1643]).
This statement was made in An Apologeticall Narration, a document published by Congregationalists who were part of the Westminster Assembly. They published it in 1643, when the Assembly was in session. They wanted to make it abundantly clear that they were not the ecclesiastical anarchists and eccentrics which many who slapped them with the label ‘Independent’ thought they were. If the Congregationalists had not been firmly committed to this accountability, the Presbyterians in the Assembly would have regarded them as dangerous and radical. The Congregationalists themselves obviously regarded a view that the local church is not accountable to be unchristian, if not antichristian.
Thus, any view of autonomy which precludes or excludes answerableness and censurability is a departure from Particular Baptist ecclesiology; it is a departure from Puritan ecclesiology; and it is a departure from Reformed ecclesiology! To put it in the simplest and most practical of terms, if you desire to extract paragraph 15 from its place in chapter 26, you would be far more consistent to remove the entire chapter in order to fairly represent how much you will have distanced yourself from the sentiments and convictions of those in our stream of reformed church history.
To put it another way, their close adherence to the wording of the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration was the 1689 framers’ way of saying, “We really are Reformed! We’re not Anabaptists!” Similarly, the presence of 26:15 says, “We really are serious churchmen! We are not wild-eyed fanatics and ecclesiastical anarchists!”
3. Practical
As a practical consideration, paragraph 15 addresses a fundamental matter respecting interchurch fellowship. Elect infants and the Pope have no direct bearing on interchurch fellowship. Thus, it stands to reason that what we think about paragraph 15 ought to affect our determination whether to have fellowship with churches that object to its teaching. A church which objects to 26:15 is a church which says it would like to carry on fellowship with other churches yet at the same time to hold itself above giving answer to or being censurable by those churches with whom it holds fellowship. Life is too short to enter into serious fellowship with a church that announces that up front. Think for a moment: would you invest the time and effort at establishing a friendship with a Christian brother who says he would like to develop a close friendship with you but refuses to ever receive any admonitions about his sins? If a person expressed the desire to join your church, but announced in his membership interview that he took exception to Matthew 18:15-17, especially if anyone ever attempted to apply it to him, would you even think about adding him to the intimate communion of the church? The application is easy.
4. Scriptural
My purpose here is not to establish the practice of interchurch admonition from the Scriptures–other than indirectly–but to show from the Word of God that admonition should be seen as foundational to God-honoring interchurch communion.
a. Matthew 18.15-17
15 Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
This text is a locus classicus regarding (local) church discipline. As such, it is not to be considered a prescription regarding interchurch matters. Nevertheless, it does contain a summary of principles which do apply to situations which do not result in excommunication of a church member. The text articulates principles which may and ought to be applied in every Christian relationship, whether it be between members of the same church or members of different churches. Each of us, consciously or subconsciously, follows the teaching of this text when he is offended by a brother in another church and talks directly to him rather than spread the report of sin abroad. This is how Thomas Goodwin viewed this text as it applied to the matter of interchurch admonition:
Whereas the analogy of Mat. xviii. is urged to be as well between a church offending and other churches, as between a brother and a congregation; that when they are offended, they agree to tell it to a greater number of churches; we shall not be against this analogy for the like way of proceeding, only we are against the like authority of proceeding. (Thomas Goodwin, The Constitution, Right Order, and Government of the Churches of Christ, &c.)
In other words, we ought to have no qualms about applying the principles of this text in interchurch affairs. Only we cannot follow it to the conclusion of a judicial act, excommunication.
Consider several principles to be followed in dealing with brethren as they are presented in the text:
1) I ought to seek to win an offending brother through openly, lovingly, faithfully addressing or confronting him. I should not ignore the sin, sour in my relationship to him, or simply break off my relationship with him.
2) I ought to speak to him directly and not take liberty to slander him or gossip about him.
3) I should keep the offense contained as much as possible and for as long as possible.
4) I should enlist the assistance of other(s) when necessary to bring repentance, and maintain peace between us.
5) We should be patient, giving space for repentance.
6) There should be an increase in godly pressure as time progresses and repentance is not forthcoming.
b. Other Scriptural texts and principles
1) Every text which governs relationships between Christians ought to be applied as far as is legitimate in our interchurch relations
Here is just a smattering of such texts:
‘Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips. Do not incline my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men who work iniquity; and do not let me eat of their delicacies. Let the righteous strike me; it shall be a kindness. And let him rebuke me; it shall be as excellent oil; let my head not refuse it. For still my prayer is against the deeds of the wicked’ (Psalm 141:3-5).
‘A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; he rages against all wise judgment’ (Proverbs 18:1).
‘Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another’ (Ephesians 4:25).
‘And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice’ (Ephesians 4:30f.).
‘If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men’ (Romans 12:18).
‘For the sake of my brethren and companions, I will now say, “Peace be within you. Because of the house of the LORD our God I will seek your good”’ (Psalm 122:8f.).
‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God’ (Matthew 5:9).
‘Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ’ (Galatians 6:1f.).
‘Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins’ (James 5:19f.).
‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him’ (Leviticus 19:17).
‘A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity’ (Proverbs 17:17).
‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful’ (Proverbs 27:6).
‘Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety’ (Proverbs 11:14).
‘The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him’ (Proverbs 18:17).
2) There is no Biblical text or teaching which informs us that even one of those texts or principles is suspended because of any doctrine of the autonomy of the local church. A statement of Owen’s is instructive
But in all these cases use is to be made of spiritual prudence, with respect unto all sorts of circumstances; which although some would deny, [such] as the privilege of even matters of fact, and the application of general Scripture rules unto practice, because we require divine institution unto all parts of religious worship, yet we must not decline from using the best we have in the service of Christ and his church, rather than comply with any thing which, in the whole substance of it, is foreign to his institution (Owen, vol. 16, pp. 200f.).
The latter part of the paragraph refers to the erection of extra-church structures which are not authorized by the Word of God. However, the former italicized clause refers to the immediate subject. It is Owen’s observation that some would go so far as to deny the application of principles of the Word of God to interchurch affairs because they do not come to us in our Bibles under the explicit heading, ‘This text applies to relations between autonomous Christian churches.’
The basic arguments used to avoid the conclusion that we are bound by many Scriptural principles in our interchurch relations are in fact red herrings. This becomes evident when we apply them to non-interchurch cases. For example, Leviticus 19:17, ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.’ Consider someone arguing against his duty toward his brother by using some of the standard arguments by which some justify indifference or negligence in interchurch matters:
But I do not have any authority over my brother, therefore I have no duty.
But I have no power to excommunicate him, therefore I have no duty.
But there exists no extra-biblical structure as a vehicle for such reproof, therefore I have no duty.
We would not countenance such claptrap for a moment. But do we allow it to fly when interchurch affairs are the subject? Regrettably, many even of our brethren have taken the liberty to suspend the Scriptural obligations and directives for interpersonal relationships–which they have themselves faithfully taught and followed in private matters–in interchurch matters. There is no excuse for such thinking, let alone for such practice.
3) Principles of Biblical Love and Friendship
John Owen wrote regarding the union of churches that it does not consist in any organization of churches, but that ‘The bond of this union is love’ (vol 16, p. 194). Love includes recognizing the obligation to live in peace with brethren. Love includes not ignoring sins that are committed by our brethren. Love includes not ignoring problems that arise among our brethren. Love includes not regarding our brethren’s problems as their own. Love includes addressing the sins of our brethren. Love includes being ready to be reconciled. Love includes receiving admonitions from brethren. Love includes not separating hastily and over petty matters. Love includes not backbiting, whispering, or gossiping. Love includes not giving up striving for peace when one is rebuffed. Love includes being willing to use every legitimate measure to maintain, promote, or restore peace. All these things, the Bible teaches about love. This the Puritans knew. This conviction lies behind their interchurch polity.
Because Owen had a Biblical understanding of love, he said that certain duties of interchurch communion were ‘required’ by virtue of that love. Among them was the practice of admonition of churches. Owen penned paragraph XXVI. of the Savoy Platform, which the Baptists adopted essentially as paragraph 15 of chapter 26 of our confession, with the conviction that it outlines a practice rooted in and mandated by genuine Holy Spirit-wrought love.
What kind of ‘logic’ reasons thus?: “The bond of the union between churches is love. Therefore we can let open sores fester. And therefore we can fend off admonition with statements such as, ‘It’s none of [any other church’s] business;’ or, ‘We are under no moral obligation to anyone [outside of our assembly] for anything [we don’t want to be accountable for]’.” Such thinking betrays a concept of love far removed from a Scriptural one. It betrays the same concept of love that lies behind no-fault divorce: i.e. “Love is fickle, and it doesn’t always last long. Don’t force it.”
Conclusion
I believe paragraph 15, because of what it teaches and what it represents—a genuine Scriptural determination to express and maintain love between churches of Christ—is foundational to our confession, and ought to be seen as foundational to interchurch relations.
Notes:
1. For example, “Seven wayes there be, wherein wee exercise holy communion one with another; . . . First, by way of Participation: secondly, of Recommendation: thirdly, of Consultation: fourthly, of Congregation: fifthly, of Contribution: sixthly, of Admonition: seventhly, of Propagation or multiplication of Churches. (John Cotton, The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England, [London: Matthew Simmons], 103.)
2. Four of the paragraphs in our confession’s 26th chapter are “borrowed” from the Savoy Declaration, ten from the Platform of Church Polity.
This paper is published in A Closer Look with permission.