Local Church Formation
Stephen duBarry
February 2024
In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ has clearly revealed that his disciples ought to serve him, not only separately as disconnected individuals, but also collectively in special communities known as churches. This being the case, it is vitally important for every believer who wishes to obey Christ to understand precisely what these communities are and how they can be formed. This paper will seek to address these issues on the basis of scripture and also provide additional perspective through the lens of Baptist history.
Local Churches
The first question we must ask is, what is a local church?
Throughout the New Testament, we read about distinct communities of baptized believers that began to exist in various cities throughout the Roman Empire. We read of the first such community being in the city of Jerusalem (Acts 2:47), but eventually we also find them in Antioch (Acts 11:26), in Ephesus (Acts 20:17), in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), and even as far west as Rome (Rom. 16:5).
Each of these communities regularly assembled together in one place for the worship of God as well as their own mutual edification (1 Cor. 14:23). It is therefore no surprise that the Greek word used in the New Testament to signify this kind of community, ekklesia, simply means assembly or congregation. This word, with very few exceptions, has been rendered in our English Bible translations as church, and therefore we refer to a particular community of this kind assembling in a particular location as a local church.
Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that not every assembly of baptized believers constitutes a local church. For instance, three individual Christians may meet together at a coffee shop for prayer and Bible study, but this doesn’t make them a church. Therefore, we must ask, what distinguishes a local church from an ordinary gathering of believers?
In scripture, two important features uniquely characterize local churches. These special marks can be seen to clearly distinguish a church from any other commonplace gathering of believers.
The first of these marks is church discipline. In Matthew 18, Jesus commands his disciples:
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)
Jesus’ command that an offended brother should ultimately appeal to the whole congregation of the local church indicates that a church is more than simply a gathering of believers. It is also a judicial body, with authority from Christ himself to adjudicate disputes between brethren. And not only does a church have the responsibility to render judgment in such cases, it must also impose sanctions. When necessary, an erring brother is to be officially stripped of his communal recognition as a believer. This is far more responsibility than is entrusted to a merely casual gathering of Christians.
The second mark is observance of the Lord’s Supper. Sitting down with the twelve apostles on the night before his crucifixion, Jesus instituted a new, special sign of the New Covenant:
17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:17-20)
In this passage, Jesus uses imperative verbs that are in the plural, making it evident that the Lord’s Supper is not to be observed individually, but rather collectively. The ordinance is designed not only to picture the profound communion that believers have with Christ, but also the communion that they have with each other in the tight-knit context of a local church.
Furthermore, this second mark is related to the first. In the event that a brother is excommunicated from a local church, this will appear no more obviously than when he is also excluded from participation in the most important visible symbol of church communion, which is the Lord’s Supper. Thus, one of the important functions of the Lord’s Supper is to reveal a clear dividing line between those who are within the bounds of church fellowship, and those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12-13).
We can conclude that these two features—church discipline and observance of the Lord’s Supper—are so integral to the nature of a local church, that where these do not exist at least in some measure, there is no local church. These twin marks therefore help us to more rigorously define what a local church really is according to scripture.
Local Church Membership
These two marks also make it clear that each local church has a defined church membership. Certain believers are members of a particular church, while others are not. Some believers are subject the jurisdiction of that church’s discipline, and others are not. And certain believers are admitted to the Lord’s table, while others are excluded.
This naturally leads us to another important question. What is it that causes a believer to become a member of a particular local church?
It is commonly held that it is the act of baptism which effectually joins a believer to a particular local church. We frequently hear that “baptism is the door of the church”, although this familiar saying is not found anywhere in scripture.
Often, the experience of the church at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost is appealed to in support of this view. In Acts 2, after Peter’s powerful preaching, we read:
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:41)
At first glance, it is easy to read this verse as saying that the three thousand believers who were added to the church at Jerusalem became members of this local church by the very act of their being baptized. However, if we look carefully at what this verse explicitly affirms, it actually makes two distinct statements joined by the conjunction and (Greek kai).
The first statement affirms that those who gladly received the word preached by Peter were baptized. The second statement affirms that on the same day, three thousand believers were added to the church. Of course, Luke intends for us to understand that in both statements, he is speaking of essentially the same group of people. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the text that requires us to understand that these believers became members of the church at Jerusalem by the act of baptism. This supposition is not a necessary inference from the text, and therefore it is not something that scripture affirms, at least not in this passage.
Paul makes a statement in 1 Corinthians 12 that has also been appealed to in support of the idea that it is the act of baptism which effectually joins believers to a local church. He writes:
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)
Although the phrase commonly translated into English as “baptized into one body” has sometimes been understood as indicating that believers are united to a particular local church by baptism, there are good reasons to reject this interpretation.
First, the preposition translated here as into (Greek eis) is used in many different senses throughout the New Testament. In fact, Paul on more than one occasion uses this preposition in in contexts where it obviously must not be understood as making baptism the effectual means of union:
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Jesus Christ were baptized into (eis) his death? (Romans 6:3)
For as many of you as have been baptized into (eis) Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27)
Should we understand Paul’s phrase “baptized into Jesus Christ” as teaching that it is the act of baptism which effectually brings believers into union with Christ? Certainly not! The preposition eis in these verses is rather to be understood in its legitimate sense of in reference to or with respect to. In these passages, Paul is simply saying that believers are baptized in connection with Jesus Christ and his death. In like manner, Paul’s use of eis in 1 Corinthians 12:13 may be understood in the same sense—that believers are baptized with respect to one body.
Another important factor that refutes the idea that Paul is here representing baptism as the effectual means of uniting with a particular local church is his use of the first person. However we may understand the shared reality being described in this verse, it is clear that Paul is including himself as a participant in it right alongside the Corinthian believers.
Paul writes that in one Spirit, “we all” have partaken of baptism with respect to one body and have “all” been made to drink of one Spirit. He uses the first person plural pronoun “we” with two first person plural verbs. He uses the word “all” twice and the word “one” three times. It would scarcely be possible to place more emphasis on the concept of unity in a single verse than Paul does here.
But was Paul baptized into the same local church as all of the Corinthians? Of course not. Paul was baptized in Damascus (Acts 9:18). One might reply that Paul was baptized into the same kind of local church as the Corinthians, but the text simply will not support this. Both Paul and the Corinthians were baptized with respect to one and the same body. We must therefore reject the supposition that Paul’s phrase “baptized into one body” teaches that believers are effectually united to a particular local church by the act of baptism.
Certainly, John the Baptist didn’t understand baptism as the fundamental act which unites believers to a particular local church. He baptized many Judeans in the Jordan River (Mark 1:5), but this occurred at a time when there were no local churches in existence. This simple fact demonstrates beyond any doubt that addition to local church membership is not one of the essential functions of baptism.
The account of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 also reveals that baptism is not inextricably linked to church membership, even after Pentecost. After being baptized by Philip, the eunuch simply “went on his way” back to Ethiopia rather than turning around to associate with any local church then in existence (Acts 8:28, 39). A straightforward reading of the account leaves no impression that the eunuch was joined by baptism to any particular local church. Rather, the details of the text imply just the opposite.
Although baptism is certainly represented in the New Testament as a prerequisite to orderly admission to a local church, we must nevertheless conclude that it is not the act of baptism itself which effectually unites a believer to a particular local church. That being the case, the question remains, precisely what is it that causes a believer to become a member of a particular local church?
A remarkable incident in the life of Paul points us toward an answer. Three years after he was miraculously converted on the road to Damascus (Gal. 1:15-18), Paul sought to be united with the disciples of the church at Jerusalem:
26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed [attempted] to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. (Acts 9:26-28)
Although Paul desired to associate himself with the members of the church at Jerusalem, he was initially rejected by the disciples, who obviously remembered that he had once fiercely persecuted the believers. They were still afraid of Paul and thought his claim of conversion was insincere. Nevertheless, after Barnabas interceded on Paul’s behalf before the apostles, Paul was ultimately brought into full fellowship with the disciples at Jerusalem.
Specifically, Paul is said to have been “with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem”, which appears to refer to full communion with the church at Jerusalem. A similar phrase is used earlier in Acts in reference to “these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us” (Acts 1:21), where it clearly indicates the most intimate degree of fellowship.
This brief but important account demonstrates that what effectually united Paul to the disciples at Jerusalem was voluntary mutual consent.
First, Paul was brought into communion with the church at Jerusalem voluntarily. That is, it was Paul’s own desire to be united to the disciples. No one compelled Paul, against his will, to be joined to them in this way. On the other hand, the disciples also ultimately received Paul voluntarily. They were not forced to receive him against their own wishes.
Furthermore, Paul and the disciples were not brought into union by either party’s wishes independent of the other’s. Rather, the desire to bring about this new relationship was on the part of both parties simultaneously—that is, it was mutual. Had Paul been willing, but the church unwilling, no union could have taken place, and vice versa.
Finally, Paul was joined to the disciples at Jerusalem simply by consent. Nothing more than their agreement together was necessary for this new relationship to be formed. And once this agreement had been reached, the relationship was formed. No additional ceremonies or rituals needed to be performed in order to ratify it.
Although the text is silent on this point, we can’t rule out the possibility that the church at Jerusalem held a formal congregational vote on whether or not to receive Paul. But even if a vote was in fact held, it would only have been a means for formally expressing the congregation’s underlying consent. Had the church given its consent using other formalities, or if they had given it more informally, the resultant relationship with Paul would have been the same.
Paul’s joining to the disciples of the church at Jerusalem serves as a helpful prototype of how it is that any believer becomes a member of a particular local church. It shows us that members are added to local churches by nothing less, and nothing more, than voluntary mutual consent.
No one can be compelled against his will to become a member of a particular local church. This is a common error of state churches—unbelieving infants are added as members of a state church simply as a result of their being born in a certain country or parish, and the process is completely involuntary. But this is wrong, because as we have seen, addition to church membership must be voluntary on the part of the one seeking admission.
By the same token, no local church can be forced to admit a member against its own wishes. In other words, the reception of members must also be voluntary on the part of the church.
And of course, it isn’t enough for just one party to voluntarily desire such a union, but rather, both parties must agree concerning the candidate who wishes to be admitted to church membership. That is, the decision must be mutual.
Moreover, a believer becomes a member of a particular local church simply by agreement, or consent. Nothing more than the agreement of the candidate with the church is necessary for this new relationship to be formed. And once this agreement has been reached, the relationship is formed, and the candidate immediately becomes a member of that local church.
The same is true of a new believer who wishes to be baptized. He is first baptized, and then he is admitted to a particular local church by voluntary mutual consent. These two events might sometimes be conceived of as a single transaction, but as we have argued above, they are indeed separable. Baptism is a prerequisite for orderly admission to church membership, but only voluntary mutual consent between the candidate and the church actually unites them.
What Makes a Church a Church
We are now in a position to ask a more fundamental question. What precisely is it that causes an assembly of baptized believers to be a local church? In other words, what makes a church a church?
The answer is not to be found in a given set of shared circumstances. For example, a group of people may have a great deal in common—each one may be truly saved, may have made a credible profession of faith, and may have been baptized. They may even assemble together in one place, and may hear the word of God preached. Yet none of these shared circumstances makes them a church.
Instead, the answer to this important question lies in a relationship. What makes a church a church is a special relationship that binds believers together into one unified body. This explains why the New Testament places so much emphasis on the concept of unity within a local church:
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. (Acts 2:1)
And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple ... (Acts 2:46a)
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord ... (Acts 4:24a)
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul ... (Acts 4:32a)
... and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. (Acts 5:12b)
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul ... (Acts 15:25)
5 Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15:5-6)
Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you. (2 Corinthians 13:11b)
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:3)
Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel ... (Philippians 1:27)
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. (Philippians 2:2)
1 For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; 2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love ... (Colossians 2:1-2a)
It is this special, binding relationship which causes an assembly of baptized believers to be a local church. Where this relationship does not exist, there is no church. But wherever baptized believers are knit together in this unique relationship, they are a local church.
Of course, this special relationship entails more than just unity and mutual love.
As we have seen, believers are effectually brought into the relationship of local church membership by voluntary mutual consent, or agreement. However, this is not merely the process by which members are added to a local church. Voluntary mutual consent is, in fact, the essential nature of the special relationship that binds believers together so as to be a local church. In other words, that which effectually joins a member to a particular church is also that which makes a church a church in the first place. Voluntary mutual consent between all the members is what causes an assembly of baptized believers to be a local church.
We have also seen that church discipline and observance of the Lord’s Supper are two essential marks of a local church. Where these do not exist at least in some measure, there can be no local church. These twin marks also shed further light on the nature of the relationship that gives rise to a local church.
For church discipline to be carried out in accordance with the commands of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 18, members of a particular local church must voluntarily submit to each other and, ultimately, to the entire congregation. Paul specifically commands the local church at Ephesus to remain in this relationship of mutual submission:
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. (Ephesians 5:21)
Were it not for this mutual submission, obedience to Christ’s commands concerning church discipline would be impossible. Therefore, mutual submission for the sake of obedience to Christ is an important facet of what makes a church a church.
The unique relationship that exists among local church members is warmly depicted in the Lord’s Supper. The ordinance not only symbolizes the communion that believers have with Christ, but also the communion that they have with each other as fellow church members. It is at the Lord’s table where members most vividly display their unity, love, and submission to Christ and each other. And this too is done in simple obedience to the commands of Christ.
These two marks highlight the most fundamental reason for the existence of local churches. Local churches enable believers to render that communal obedience to Christ which would be impossible for them merely as disconnected individuals.
By virtue of the explicit command of Christ, it is the duty of every believer to live in an authentic relationship of mutual submission with other believers, but this is only possible in the context of a local church. By the same token, every believer is bound by the command of Christ to regularly observe the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of his death, but this ordinance can only properly be observed within the community of a local church.
Obedience to these communal commands of Christ is at the very heart of the unique relationship that causes an assembly of baptized believers to be a local church.
Therefore, we conclude that what makes a church a church is the relationship formed by the voluntary mutual consent of its members to walk together in obedience to all of the commands of Christ. And wherever baptized believers are bound together in this way, they are a local church.
Local Church Formation
We are left with one final question. How is a local church formed? In other words, what is the specific process by which a group of unassociated baptized believers in one moment of time becomes a local church in the next?
There are no direct accounts of this extraordinary moment recorded in scripture. Many times in the New Testament, we read of men and women in a particular city hearing the gospel, believing, and being baptized. And then later on, we often read of a church in existence in that city. But we do not find any account of the precise moment that a group of disciples became a local church.
Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that new disciples were instructed regarding the communal duties that make the formation of local churches necessary. Christ explicitly provided for this in the Great Commission:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)
It is beyond question that the “all things” that new disciples were to be taught to observe included both church discipline (Matt. 18:15-17) and observance of the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26-29). Therefore, wherever we read of disciples being made and baptized, we are also to understand these new disciples were then taught to observe these communal duties, whether or not this is explicitly recorded in a given account.
Thus, it is the duty of every believer in this present age to live in a relationship of mutual submission with other believers, as well as to regularly observe the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. But as we have seen, these commands of Christ can only be obeyed in the context of a local church. The formation of a local church is therefore a necessary means to the end of obeying Christ, and this is precisely what gives baptized believers the right—and indeed, the obligation—to form local churches whenever the need may arise.
Some Baptists have denied the right of baptized believers to form a local church without a certain kind of official authorization, whether the permission of another pre-existing local church, or the presence of one or more ordained ministers in a special church constitution service. But however well-intended these rules may be, they are never explicitly found in scripture, nor do they arise from any logically necessary inferences from scripture, as we will argue more fully later in this paper.
In reality, scripture places no such restriction on the right of baptized believers to form a local church for the purpose of obeying Christ. On the contrary, the explicit commands of Christ regarding church discipline and the observance of the Lord’s Supper provide sufficient scriptural warrant for baptized believers to form a local church, without the interposition of any other authority than that of Christ himself. This is because any explicit command toward a certain end also carries with it the implicit authority to perform the necessary means toward that end.
For example, a father may tell his son to empty the trash can in his own private study. The son may ordinarily not be allowed to enter his father’s study without permission. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary for the son to enter the study in order to obey his father’s command. The explicit command to empty the trash can therefore carries with it the implicit authority to enter the father’s study. Indeed, for the son to neglect emptying the trash can on the pretense of a lack of authority to enter his father’s study would rightly be punished as disobedience.
In the same way, Christ has commanded his disciples to live in mutual submission with other believers and to regularly observe the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of his death. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary for a local church to be formed in order to obey these commands. The explicit commands regarding these communal duties therefore carry with them the implicit authority to form local churches. Indeed, for believers to neglect the formation of local churches on the pretense of a lack of authority would be nothing less than disobedience.
We therefore conclude that the commands of Christ provide sufficient scriptural warrant for baptized believers to form a local church, without any other authority beyond that of Christ himself.
This leaves us with the question, how is this actually accomplished? What is the specific process by which a group of baptized believers becomes a local church?
The answer is surprisingly simple. As we have argued above, what makes a church a church is the special relationship formed by the voluntary mutual consent of its members to walk together in obedience to all of the commands of Christ. Therefore, when unassociated baptized believers desire to obey Christ together in this way, they simply enter into a mutual agreement to do so. And wherever baptized believers have bound themselves together in this way, they are a local church.
The mutual agreement which gives being to a new local church has historically been designated by the term church covenant. That is, the mutual agreement of baptized believers to walk together as a local church, solemnly entered into before God, has all of the essential characteristics of a covenant. It is a binding agreement made between multiple parties, with specific commitments being entered into. In these essentials, a church covenant is similar to the covenants found in scripture.
Although the most well-known biblical covenants are made between God and men, there are also examples of covenants made before God between men committing to obey God. For instance, in the days of King Asa, Judah made a covenant to seek the Lord God of Israel which is recorded in 2 Chronicles 15:
12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. 14 And they sware unto the Lord with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with trumpets, and with cornets. 15 And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the Lord gave them rest round about. (2 Chronicles 15:12-15)
Another example of a solemn covenant entered into before God between men committing to obey God is found in Jeremiah 34, when during the reign of King Zedekiah, Judah entered into a covenant to free their Hebrew slaves which had been kept in violation of the Mosaic Covenant. They even formalized this covenant by cutting a calf in two and passing between its pieces, symbolizing the grievous punishment they would incur if they failed to perform their commitments. Nevertheless, the people soon broke this covenant, which greatly displeased the Lord:
15 And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name: 16 But ye turned and polluted my name ... 18 And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof, 19 The princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf; 20 I will even give them into the hand of their enemies ... (Jeremiah 34:15-20a)
In like manner, a church covenant is made before God between men and women committing to obey the Lord Jesus Christ in all of his commands under the New Covenant. And wherever baptized believers have entered into a covenant among themselves to obey Christ in this way, they are a local church.
This is not to say that an explicit, written covenant is necessary for the formation of a local church. A church may exist without ever having formally adopted a church covenant in writing. A written church covenant is merely one way of formally expressing the mutual agreement that binds believers into a local church. Nevertheless, the mutual agreement itself is absolutely essential to the being of a church. This agreement may be implicit and informal, but obviously, there can be no local church where believers have no agreement of any kind among themselves.
We conclude that a local church is formed by baptized believers entering into a mutual agreement to walk together in obedience to all of the commands of Christ, without the interposition of any external authority beyond that of Christ himself. This mutual agreement may be formally expressed by a written church covenant.
The Nature of a Local Church in Baptist History
Admittedly, the views concerning the formation of a local church embodied in this paper may sound strange to many Baptist ears. The idea that voluntary mutual consent is what binds baptized believers into a local church may seem to be a creative and innovative doctrine. The proposition that any group of baptized believers may become a local church simply by entering into a covenant to do so may seem disorderly, or even dangerous.
It may be well for us to ask the question, what have Baptists historically believed about the nature of a local church?
Before we seek to provide an answer to this question, we must emphasize that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice. What makes a doctrine true is not that Baptists have historically believed it, but only that the Bible teaches it. Therefore, we must never appeal to church history as having any kind of inherent authority. Nevertheless, it is helpful to consider doctrine from a historical perspective. At the very least, if we can identify that a certain doctrine has indeed held a prominent place in historic Baptist theology, we can falsify an accusation of novelty.
As we shall see, the idea that a local church is essentially formed by covenant has a rich heritage in historic Baptist doctrine.
The first waymark in our journey back in time is the New Hampshire Church Covenant that was first published by J. Newton Brown in 1853. To this day, it remains the most widely used church covenant in Baptist churches in America. Its venerable words, printed in large, beautiful type, are often prominently displayed in church buildings. Sadly, these words are seldom read today, and still less often understood. The first paragraph reads:
Having been led, as we believe, by the Spirit of God to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Saviour; and, on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now, in the presence of God, angels, and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another, as one body in Christ.
(Brown, The Baptist Church Manual, p. 22, https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/5718/Brown-Baptist%20Church%20Manual%201853-ocr.pdf)
The covenant is written in the first person plural. The “we” who are speaking have received Christ as Savior—that is, they are believers. They further attest that they have all been duly baptized. And these baptized believers tell us that they are doing something. Specifically, they say that, “we do now ... enter into covenant with one another, as one body in Christ”. This is done “solemnly and joyfully” in the presence of many witnesses, the most prominent of whom is God himself.
The remaining four paragraphs enumerate various specific commitments the parties are making to each other in this solemn covenant. And the result of this covenant is that these believers take on the character of “one body in Christ”. In other words, they become a local church.
Of course, this document composed by J. Newton Brown is not a historical record of any particular covenant being made. Rather, it is a model church covenant intended to illustrate the form of a covenant that would be suitable for the use of baptized believers desiring to constitute a local church.
And in fact, this very covenant has actually been formally adopted in countless historical Baptist church constitutions in America. This is precisely why these words are still displayed in so many Baptist church buildings today. The church covenant is a written, formal representation of the special relationship between baptized believers that makes them a church.
Another historical document which bears witness to this view of the local church is the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. This confession began to be drafted in 1833 and was finally published in its most common form by J. Newton Brown in 1853. Over the next few decades, this document was also formally adopted by multitudes of Baptist churches in America, and to this day, it remains the official confession of faith of churches throughout the country.
The thirteenth article of the New Hampshire Confession defines a local church as follows:
XIII. OF A GOSPEL CHURCH
We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ; governed by His laws; and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His word; that its only scriptural officers are Bishops or Pastors, and Deacons, whose qualifications, claims, and duties are defined in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.
(Brown, The Baptist Church Manual, p. 16, https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/5718/Brown-Baptist%20Church%20Manual%201853-ocr.pdf)
The confession plainly spells out that a local church is “a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel”. In other words, what makes a company of baptized believers a local church is their association by covenant. This should come as no surprise as it is, of course, the very same view embodied in the New Hampshire Church Covenant, which was published with the New Hampshire Confession in J. Newton Brown’s Baptist Church Manual.
This view of church formation was not merely a figment of Brown’s imagination. In fact, it was already settled Baptist doctrine at the time that he published the New Hampshire Confession and Church Covenant.
We can see this in our next historical waymark, the Second London Baptist Confession. This confession was first published by Baptists in England in 1677 and went on to be officially endorsed by a gathering of over a hundred Particular Baptist churches in 1689. The language of this confession was also adopted essentially verbatim in the most influential Baptist confessions of faith in America, such as the Philadelphia Confession of 1742 and the Charleston Confession of 1767.
Paragraphs 5 through 7 of chapter 26 of the Second London Baptist Confession describe how local churches are to be formed:
CHAP. XXVI.
Of the Church.
[...]
5. In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the World unto himself, through the Ministry of the word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father; that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his Word. Those thus called he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or Churches, for their mutual edification; and the due performance of that publick worship, which he requireth of them in the World.
6. The Members of these Churches are Saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving up themselves, to the Lord, & one another by the will of God, in professed subjection to the Ordinances of the Gospel.
7. 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 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.
(A Confession of Faith, p. 87-88, https://theangus.rpc.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1.k.28_03.pdf)
A specific model of local church formation is clearly communicated in these paragraphs. First, the Lord Jesus calls his elect people to himself by the word and the Spirit—that is, they become believers. And Christ “commandeth” believers “to walk together in particular societies, or Churches”. Their association into local churches is necessary both for their “mutual edification” and the “due performance of that publick worship” which is commanded by Christ. In other words, the formation of a local church is a necessary means to the end of obeying Christ.
Local churches are to be made up of “Saints”, or believers, as demonstrated “by their profession and walking”. The specific process by which believers are “gathered” into a local church is that they “willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, giving up themselves, to the Lord, & one another by the will of God, in professed subjection to the Ordinances of the Gospel”. That is, a local church is formed by the voluntary mutual consent of its members to walk together in obedience to all of the commands of Christ.
A local church gathered in this way is gathered according to the “mind” of Christ “declared in his word”. As a result, Christ gives believers thus gathered “all that power and authority” which is necessary for the entire scope of their existence and service as a local church.
This is essentially the same view of the nature of a local church that is embodied in the later New Hampshire Confession and Church Covenant, and this exonerates J. Newton Brown from any charge of novelty in his doctrine of the church. He was simply conveying what had been settled Baptist doctrine, both in England and America, for generations.
But even those who drafted the Second London Baptist Confession in 1677 were not innovating when it came to local church formation. Their views were in complete accord with the First London Baptist Confession, which was originally published by seven churches in London in 1644 and is our final historical waymark.
Article 33 of the First London Baptist Confession includes language which describes the formation of a local church:
XXXIII.
That Christ hath here on earth a spirituall Kingdome, which is the Church, which he hath purchased and redeemed to himselfe, as a peculiar inheritance: which Church, as it is visible to us, is a company of visible Saints, called & separated from the world, by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the Gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joyned to the Lord, and each other, by mutuall agreement, in the practical injoyment of the Ordinances, commanded by Christ their head and King.
(The Confession of Faith, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A80329.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext)
The confession states that a local church is “a company of visible Saints” who have been called out of the world “by the word and Spirit of God”. These believers have made a public profession of their faith and have been baptized. They are then “joyned to the Lord, and each other, by mutuall agreement” in order to observe everything “commanded by Christ their head and King”. In other words, a local church is formed by baptized believers entering into a mutual agreement to walk together in obedience to all of the commands of Christ.
These seven churches of London further clarified their view of the nature of a local church in an Appendix to the First London Confession written by Benjamin Cox and printed in 1646. The seventeenth article of the Appendix simply states:
17. Beleevers baptized ought to agree and joyn together in a constant profession of the same doctrine of the Gospel, and in professed obedience thereunto, and also in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers, Acts. 2.42. And a company of baptized beleevers so agreeing and joyning together, are a Church or Congregation of Christ, Acts 2.47.
(Cox, An Appendix to a Confession of Faith, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A80728.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext)
Thus, we find in the First London Confession of 1644 and its Appendix the very same view of local church formation as went on to be embodied in the Second London Confession and the New Hampshire Confession. This understanding of the nature of a local church has been the standard view of Baptists for nearly four centuries.
Perhaps the best comprehensive treatment of this subject by a Baptist was written by the renowned pastor, commentator, and theologian John Gill in his Body of Practical Divinity published in 1770. In it, he writes:
A particular church may be considered as to the form of it; which lies in mutual consent and agreement, in their covenant and confederation with each other ...
There must be an union, a coalition of a certain number of persons to form a church-state, one cannot make a church; and these must be united ...
This union between them is made by voluntary consent and agreement; a christian society, or a church of Christ, is, like all civil societies, founded on agreement and by consent ...
It is this confederacy, consent, and agreement, that is the formal cause of a church; it is this which not only distinguishes a church from the world, and from all professors that walk at large ... but from all other particular churches ...
A church of saints thus essentially constituted, as to matter and form, have a power in this state to admit and reject members, as all societies have; and also to choose their own officers; which, when done, they become a complete organized church, as to order and power ...
(Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Vol. 3, 1796, p. 231-234, https://books.google.com/books?id=HYtQAQAAMAAJ)
Gill’s entire argument to this effect is certainly worth reading, and it is included in an appendix to this paper.
Although we have seen that this understanding of the nature of a local church has been the standard view among Baptists since the first half of the seventeenth century, it bears reiterating that we are not making an appeal to church history as having any kind of inherent authority. What makes a doctrine true is not that Baptists have historically believed it, but only that the Bible teaches it. Nevertheless, what we have seen in history definitively disproves the accusation that this view is in any sense new among Baptists.
The Local Church Succession View
Some Baptists have more recently held a different view regarding the formation of local churches. While they would not deny that voluntary mutual consent is necessary for the constitution of a local church, they strenuously deny that it is sufficient for the constitution of a church.
According to this view, an additional element is absolutely necessary for the valid formation of a local church—namely, the consent of another pre-existing church, sometimes referred to as a “mother” church. Without the intentional transmission of “church authority” from another pre-existing church, baptized believers have no right to associate themselves into a local church by covenant. Furthermore, those believers who have entered into a church covenant without this delegated church authority are not churches at all—they are merely “groups” or “societies” of believers.
The logical implication of this view is that the present validity of local churches today is absolutely dependent on an uninterrupted, lineal succession of local churches all the way back to the first church established in Jerusalem. And this is precisely what proponents of this view argue for—that authority from Christ was transferred “vertically” only once to the church at Jerusalem, and that this local church authority has been exclusively transmitted “horizontally” from congregation to congregation down through the ages. We will refer to this position as the local church succession view.
Although various forms of successionism can be identified among Baptists as early as the seventeenth century, the local church succession view is a more recent phenomenon. It grew out of the very influential “Old Landmarkism” movement which was promoted by J.R. Graves among Baptists in the American South in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
While Landmarkism does logically imply a form of successionism, it is important to recognize that the specific tenets of the local church succession view were never part of the Landmark system as it was originally conceived. In a debate held in 1875, Graves himself explicitly affirmed:
It is true that two or three baptized individuals can organize a Church, provided they adopt the apostolic model of government, and covenant to be governed by the sole authority of Jesus Christ.
(Graves, Great Carrolton Debate, p. 975, https://books.google.com/books?id=JylOAQAAMAAJ)
Graves also wrote in an answer to a question submitted to the Tennessee Baptist in 1885:
A body of baptized Christians can organize themselves into a church at pleasure, and no exterior body can organize them, much less can a presbytery organize a body superior to itself. Can a stream rise higher than its fountain?
(Tennessee Baptist, October 3, 1885. p. 8, http://media2.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/tbarchive/1885/TB_1885_Oct_03.pdf)
These assertions of Graves are completely contradictory to the local church succession view. Clearly, the great architect of the Landmark system did not hold this view. The local church succession view is therefore properly understood as a further development of Landmarkism.
In fact, there is no evidence that any Baptist anywhere in the world held the local church succession view prior to the twentieth century. Of course, this historical fact in itself does not mean that the view is necessarily false. The truth or falsehood of any doctrine must ultimately be determined by an appeal to scripture alone—not history. Nevertheless, it is common for proponents of the local church succession view to simply assert that it is “what Baptists have always believed”. This is not true.
Naturally, advocates of local church succession do appeal to scripture in support of their view. The account most frequently referred to is the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas as recorded in Acts 13-14:
13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus ...
14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed ... 26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. 27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. 28 And there they abode long time with the disciples. (Acts 13:1-4, 14:23, 26-28)
Proponents of local church succession argue that this account teaches that delegated church authority is necessary for the valid formation of new churches. According to this view, the local church at Antioch officially authorized Paul and Barnabas to preach, baptize, and organize new local churches during their missionary journey. This account is also understood to establish a binding precedent or pattern, so that only churches constituted in connection with this kind of intentionally delegated authority can be esteemed to be valid.
However, a closer reading of the text reveals problems which are fatal to this interpretation.
First, the church at Antioch is indeed mentioned in 13:1, but this is followed by a reference to prophets and teachers who were in that church, who are then specifically named. Therefore, the proper antecedents of all of the plural verbs in 13:2-3 are these very same prophets and teachers, not the congregation as a whole. These prophets and teachers ministered to the Lord, fasted, prayed, laid their hands on Paul and Barnabas, and sent them away. Although it might be supposed that the congregation as a whole also played some part in sending out Paul and Barnabas, especially in light of the fact that they later recounted the details of their journey to the gathered church in 14:27, this is not affirmed by the text and is by no means certain.
Furthermore, the reference to the laying on of hands in 13:3 need not be understood as signifying a delegation of authority. The laying on of hands is often seen in Acts quite apart from any sense of the transmission of authority (8:17-19, 9:12-17, 19:6, 28:8). The best understanding of the laying on of hands here may be that pointed out by Gill in his commentary on this verse:
This was a gesture and ceremony used among the Jews, when they wished any blessing or happiness to attend any persons; and so these prophets, when they separated Paul and Barnabas from their company, and were parting from them, put their hands on them, and wished them all prosperity and success ...
(Gill, Exposition of the New Testament, Acts 13:3)
The verb “sent” (Greek apoluo) in 13:3 also does not necessarily carry with it the idea of an authoritative deputation. The word’s basic meaning is to release and is often translated as “let go”. Here it carries the sense of dismissing rather than dispatching. Gill comments:
They sent them away; to do the work they were called unto; not in an authoritative way, but in a friendly manner they parted with them, and bid them farewell.
(Gill, Exposition of the New Testament, Acts 13:3)
This understanding is confirmed by how Luke describes this very departure in 14:26, saying that Paul and Barnabas “had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled”. In other words, the prophets and teachers at Antioch simply commended Paul and Barnabas to God’s care, praying that he might bless them and make their journey successful.
The most serious problem with the interpretation of this account favored by adherents of local church succession is the implication that Paul would have been unauthorized to do any of this of mission work without the prior approval of the church at Antioch. This is an insurmountable difficulty because we know that Jesus Christ himself had already sent Paul to minister among the Gentiles, well before he ever came to Antioch. As Paul related to Agrippa, Christ said to him:
15 ... I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. (Acts 26:15-18)
Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus occurred years before his departure from Antioch. Having already been wonderfully and personally sent by Christ himself, the notion that Paul still lacked authority to preach among the Gentiles without the approval of a local church is indefensible. Paul was certainly blessed to have the cooperation and prayers of the saints at Antioch, but he did not need their permission to engage in ministry.
It has been proposed that Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 11:2 supports the idea of local church succession:
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:2)
Nevertheless, verse 4 makes it clear that the espousal in view here is in connection with the Corinthians’ reception of the gospel, not with their constitution as a local church:
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)
Likewise, it has been suggested that Paul supports the local church succession view by his reference in 1 Corinthians 3:10 to laying the foundation:
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. (1 Corinthians 3:10)
However, it is evident from the next verse that the foundation spoken of here is not that of a local church constitution, but Jesus Christ himself as apprehended by faith:
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11)
Finally, some advocates of local church succession have claimed that the creation principle of “like begets like” (Gen. 1) is supportive of their view. It is argued that since local churches are in some sense organisms, the only way they can be propagated over time is by reproduction which results in a continuous lineage. “Daughter” churches must be “born” to “mother” churches, and to disagree with this line of reasoning would be to tacitly accept the idea of evolution. This is certainly lively rhetoric, but in fact, scripture never connects local church formation with the concept of biological reproduction.
The local church succession view ultimately fails because it lacks any substantial scriptural basis. The constitution of a new local church is never represented in scripture as an official act, either of a congregation or of a minister. There is no example in scripture of a church granting its permission for another local church to be formed. There is no law in scripture that the consent of a pre-existing church is necessary for the formation of a new local church. And those who would impose binding rules where scripture is silent are in danger of “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”.
To be clear, we are not contending that local churches should never be involved in the formation of new churches—on the contrary, this kind of cooperation is certainly advisable and beneficial. Nor are we suggesting that the many churches that have been formed with the explicit consent of another pre-existing local church are in any way invalid or defective. We’re simply maintaining that scripture does not make the consent of a pre-existing local church an absolute requirement for the valid formation of a new local church.
Conclusion
A careful reading of scripture demonstrates that baptized believers may, by their own voluntary mutual consent, constitute themselves into a local church, without the involvement of any other church. A local church is formed by baptized believers entering into a mutual agreement to walk together in obedience to all of the commands of Christ, and this mutual agreement may be formally expressed by a written church covenant. Furthermore, this understanding of the nature of a local church has been the prevailing view of Baptists both in England and America for nearly four centuries.
Appendix – John Gill on Local Church Formation
A particular church may be considered as to the form of it; which lies in mutual consent and agreement, in their covenant and confederation with each other.
1. There must be an union, a coalition of a certain number of persons to form a church-state, one cannot make a church; and these must be united, as the similies of a tabernacle, temple, house, body, and a flock of sheep, to which a church is sometimes compared, shew; the tabernacle was made with ten curtains, typical of the church of God; but one curtain did not make a tabernacle, nor all the ten singly and separately taken; but there were certain loops and taches, with which they were coupled together; and being thus joined, they composed the tabernacle. So the temple of Solomon, which was another type of the gospel-church: and which was made of great and costly stone; these stones, not as in the quarry, nor even when hewed and squared, lying singly by themselves, made the temple, until they were put and cemented together, and the head-stone brought in and laid on: thus truly gracious souls, though they are by grace separated from the common quarry of mankind, and are hewn by the Spirit of God, and by the ministry of the word, and are fit materials for the church of God, yet do not constitute one, until fitly framed together, and so grow unto an holy temple of the Lord. A church is called the house of God, a spiritual house, built up of lively stones, living saints; but these, be they ever so lively and living, they do not form a church, unless they are builded together, for an habitation of God. A church of Christ is often compared to an human body; which is not one member, but many; and these not as separate, but members one of another; who are fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth: and sometimes it is called a flock, the flock of God; and though a little flock, yet one sheep does not make a flock, nor two or three straggling ones; but a number of them collected together, feeding in one pasture, under the care of a shepherd.
2. This union of saints in a church-state, is signified by their being joined, and as it were glued together; it is an union of spirits so close, as if they were but one spirit; so the members of the first christian church were of one heart and one soul, being knit together in love; and it becomes members to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Acts iv. 32. Col. ii. 2. Eph. iv. 3.
3. This union between them is made by voluntary consent and agreement; a christian society, or a church of Christ, is, like all civil societies, founded on agreement and by consent; thus it is with societies from the highest to the lowest; kingdoms and states were originally formed on this plan; every body corporate, as a city, is founded on the same plan; in which there are privileges to be enjoyed, and duties to be performed; and no man has a right to the one, without consenting to the other: and in lower societies, no man can be admitted into them, nor receive any benefit from them, unless he assents to the rules and articles on which the society is founded. All civil relations, except the natural relation of parents and children, which arises from the law of nature, are by consent and covenant; as that of magistrates and subjects, and of masters and servants, and of husband and wife; which latter, as it is by compact and agreement, may serve to illustrate the relation between a church and its members added to it, and the manner in which they be, by consent; see Isai. lxii, 5.
4. As the original constitution of churches is by consent and confederation, so the admission of new members to them, is upon the same footing: the primitive churches, in the times of the apostles, first gave their own selves to the Lord, as a body, agreeing and promising to walk in all his commandments and ordinances, and be obedient to his laws, as King of saints; and to us, the apostles, pastors, guides, and governors, to be taught, fed, guided, and directed by them, according to the word of God; and to one another also, by the will of God, engaging to do whatever in them lay, to promote each other’s edification and the glory of God: and so all such who were added to them, it was done by mutual consent, as it always should be; as no man is to be forced into a church, or by any compulsory methods brought into it, so neither can he force himself into one; he has no right to come into a church, and depart from it when he pleases; both the one and the other, his coming into it and departure from it, must be with consent: a man may propose himself to be a member of a church, but it is at the option of the church whether they will receive him; so Saul assayed to join himself to the disciples, that is, he proposed to be a member with them, but they at first refused him, fearing he was not a true disciple, because of his former conduct; but when they had a testimony of him from Barnabas, and perceived that he was a partaker of the grace of God, and was sound in the faith of Christ, they admitted him, and he was with them going out and coming in: and it is but reasonable a church should be satisfied in these points, as to the persons received into their communion; not only by a testimony their becoming lives, but by giving an account of what God has done for their souls, and a reason of the hope that is in them; as well as by expressing their agreement with them in their articles of faith.
5. Something of this kind may be observed in all religious societies, from the beginning, that they were by agreement and confederation; so the first religious societies in families, and under the patriarchal dispensation, it was by the agreement of families, and the common consent of them, that they met and joined together for public worship, to call on the name of the Lord, Gen. iv. 26. so the Jewish church, though national in some sense, yet was constituted by confederation; God prescribed to them laws in the wilderness, and they covenanted and consented to obey them, Exod. xxiv. 7. he avouched them to be his people, and they avouched him to be their God; and then, and not before, were they called a church, Acts vii. 38. and so the gospel-church was spoken of in prophecy, as what should be constituted and increased by agreement and covenant, Isai. xliv. 5. and lvi. 6, 7. Jer. l. 5. all which agrees with New Testament language; from whence it appears to be a fact, that it was by consent and agreement that the first churches were formed, as before observed, and not otherwise; and nothing else but mutual consent, can make a man a church-member: not faith in the heart, for that cannot be known until a man declares and professes it; nor a bare profession of faith, which, though necessary to membership, does not declare a man a member of one church more than of another, nor entitle more to one than to another; unless he gives up himself to a church, and professes his desire to walk with it in a subjection to the gospel of Christ: nor baptism, though a pre-requisite to church-fellowship, does not make a man a member of a church, as it did not the eunuch: nor hearing the word; for men ignorant and unbelievers may come into an assembly and hear the word, 1 Cor. xiv. 24. yea, persons may hear the word aright, have faith, and profess it, and be baptized, and yet not be church-members; it is only mutual consent that makes them such: persons must propose themselves to a church, and give up themselves to it, to walk in it, in an observance of the ordinances of Christ, and duties of religion; and the church must voluntarily receive them in the Lord. And,
6. Such a mutual agreement is but reasonable; for how should two walk together except they be agreed? Amos iii. 3. and unless persons voluntarily give up themselves to a church and its pastor, they can exercise no power over them, in a church way; they have nothing to do with them that are without; they have no concern with the watch and care of them; nor are they entitled thereunto, unless they submit themselves to one another in the fear of God; they have no power to reprove, admonish, and censure them in a church way; nor can the pastor exercise any pastoral authority over them, except by agreement they consent to yield to it; nor can they expect he should watch over their souls as he that must give an account, having no charge of them by any act of theirs.
7. It is this confederacy, consent, and agreement, that is the formal cause of a church; it is this which not only distinguishes a church from the world, and from all professors that walk at large, the one being within and the other without, but from all other particular churches; so the church at Cenchrea was not the same with the church at Corinth, though but at a little distance from it, because it consisted of persons who had given up themselves to it, and not to the church at Corinth; and so were members of the one and not of the other; one of you, as Onesimus and Epaphras were of the church at Colosse, and not of another, Col. iv. 9, 12. From all which it follows,
8. That a church of Christ is not parochial, or men do not become church members by habitation in a parish; for Turks and Jews may dwell in the same parish: nor is it diocesan; for we never read of more churches under one bishop or pastor, though there may have been, where churches were large, more bishops or pastors in one church, Phil. i. 1. nor provincial, for we read of churches in one province; as of the churches of Judea, and of Galatia, and of Macedonia: nor national; nay, so far from it, that we not only read of more churches in a nation, but even of churches in houses, Rom. xvi. 5. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Col. iv. 15. Philem. verse 2. nor presbyterian; for we never read of a church of presbyters or elders, though of elders ordained in churches; by which it appears there were churches before there were any presbyters or elders in them, Acts xiv. 23. But a particular visible gospel-church is congregational; and even the church of England, which is national itself, defines a “visible church to be a congregation of faithful men;” and, indeed, the national church of the Jews was in some sense congregational; it is sometimes called the congregation, Lev. iv. 13-15. they were a people separated from other nations, and peculiarly holy to the Lord; they met in one place, called, the tabernacle of the congregation, and offered their sacrifices at one altar, Lev. i. 3, 4. and xvii. 4, 5. and three times in the year all their males appeared together at Jerusalem; and besides, there were stationary men at Jerusalem, who were representatives of the whole congregation, and were at the sacrifices for them: the synagogues also, though not of divine institution, were countenanced by the Lord, and bore a very great resemblance to congregational societies; and is the word which answers to congregation in the Septuagint version, and is used for a christian assembly in the New Testament, James ii. 2. to which may be added, that such congregations and assemblies as gospel-churches be, are prophesied of as what should be in gospel-times; see Eccles. xii. 11. Isai. iv. 5. A church of saints thus essentially constituted, as to matter and form, have a power in this state to admit and reject members, as all societies have; and also to choose their own officers; which, when done, they become a complete organized church, as to order and power; of which more hereafter.
(Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, Vol. 3, 1796, p. 231-234, https://books.google.com/books?id=HYtQAQAAMAAJ)