2. Metropolitan Control._Few, if any, who know at all the truth of the one Body, would contend
for absolute local supremacy. There has therefore arisen, in a gradual way, the practice of a kind
of oversight by leading and gifted non-resident brethren, who in this way seek to guide, and in
some measure review the actions of the local assemblies. No doubt this originated in a desire to
secure uniformity of action, especially in crowded cities or thickly-settled sections. Beginning in
a simple way, with the thought of fellowship, prayer and counsel, it gradually became part of a
regular order. The doctrine of "the church in a city" was formulated, and quite a complete system
of oversight was established. The doctrine in question is that there can be but one assembly in a
city, although there may be many in a district or province. The local assembly therefore is not
competent, according to this, to act without the concurrence of all the other assemblies in the same
city. And this united action constitutes the Assembly’s decision.

In a less definite way, brethren of weight and experience would naturally be consulted about
matters in the vicinity where they might be, and gradually all, or many local matters might be
taken to a place where there were a goodly number of such brethren. It is easy to see how such
a practice might result in what we have called metropolitan oversight.

Let us now see what scriptures were used to support this view. As to the general oversight of
which we have spoken, all such scriptures as speak of the "multitude of counselors" are
applicable_the unity of the body and of the Spirit. (Eph. 4). Perhaps the council at Jerusalem
(Acts 15) might be considered as authorizing "elder brethren" to exercise a general supervision,
while, as has been already said, the doctrine of "the Church in a city" has been formulated with
great exactness and strictness. It has been claimed that we read of "the churches of Galatia" (Gal.
1:2); of Judea (1:22); of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1); of Asia (1 Cor. 16:19), etc._but never of the
churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, etc. (see salutations in the various epistles of
Paul).

Space forbids us going at much length into this interesting subject, but we point to a few truths
which lead us to guard against accepting in toto any view which establishes what this practically
is_an oligarchy.

Most certainly we have not a word to say against the manifest fact that many of the scriptures used
to impress us with the unity of the body of Christ, and the necessity of endeavoring to keep the
unity of the Spirit, are most important in that connection, We also heartily accept the principle that
age, experience and piety are most valuable and necessary for the help of all the assemblies of
God. But when a formal doctrine is promulgated that in a city there is but one assembly (no matter
how many meeting-places there may be), we question whether the scriptures used to establish this
really do so.

A local assembly is, "Where two or three are gathered to My name". Such a company most
certainly has all the functions necessary for carrying on all the activities, and meeting all the
responsibilities of the assembly . There is no higher act than properly remembering the Lord in
the breaking of bread. This presupposes the company has judged itself both individually and

collectively. If any wickedness has been present, it must be put away; if any godly persons,
scripturally entitled to reception, are present, they must be received.. Any company therefore
competent to break bread is competent to exercise all assembly functions.

It will be asked, What about the scriptures which speak of but one assembly in a city, and of many
in a province? We reply that there doubtless was but one assembly in a city, as they were not such
immense places as we have now, and God’s work had but just begun. Each assembly would at first
include all the saints in the city; and even if later need called for two or more places of meeting,
each of these, as representing all the Church of God, would be called the Assembly in that place.
Indeed, in Romans (chap. 16) there are indications of separate companies meeting at different
points (see vers. 5, 10, 14, 15). There can be no spiritual significance in the bounds of a "city".
A company near the outskirts may be far closer to another company a short distance beyond than
to a meeting on the other side of the city. Of course, if for any reason counsel is needed, there
should be the utmost simplicity and freedom in giving and receiving it. But at this we will look
presently.

In this connection, we must also speak further of an assembly order which whilst not based on the
doctrine of "a church in a city", is quite similar to it. This has been spoken of as a "committee of
delegates," composed of older and experienced brethren in the general vicinity or elsewhere, who
are called in to decide as to local matters. We can only repeat what has already been said, that the
local assembly is a distinct unit, responsible for the administration of matters committed to its
care.

Let us now ask in a little more detail what elements of truth there are in this theory of
metropolitan oversight. First, in whatever measure it recognizes the unity of the Spirit in the
whole Church of God, and seeks to carry out His leadings, it is right. The fellowship of the saints
is not an "inside" and an "outside" fellowship, but one and the same throughout the whole body.
In whatever measure also in which the gifts of pastor and teacher are seen to be for the whole
assembly of God, and the counsel of men of experience is welcomed _in such directions this
doctrine has elements of truth which none can ignore.

But, as a system of doctrine, there are marked un-scriptural features which we cannot accept. It
is practically a form of Presbyterian oversight, in which little or no room is left for the individual
conscience, save of the leaders. With the best motives, this fails to exercise the whole assembly,
and leads saints to look for some decision from without rather than to the Lord alone. The effect
will eventually be seen in a general legislation, rather than the simplicity of each assembly acting
in the fear of God and in the unity of the Spirit. Room is given for private influence rather than
public exercise, and leaders have an undue prominence, which savors of clerisy. (to be continued
the Lord willing)