-The Modern Schism in the Church

The Modern Schism in the Church THE MODERN SCHISM IN THE CHURCH
By G. C. Brewer

I. The Source of Authority in Religion.
(a) The Roman Catholic claim.
(b) The battle won by Luther and the basic principle of Protestantism.
(c) The failure to apply the principle.
II. The Coming of the Campbells.
(a) Schism rife and regnant.
(b) A plea for the principle as a basis union.
(c) The principle works.
III. Division among those who Plead for Unity.
(a) First defections.
(b) A surrender of the plea.
(c) Details in the departure.
(d) Conditions today among those who departed.

I. Sources of Authority in Religion
Schism means division and where there is division there is either a lack of authority or a failure to rec­ognize and respect that authority. A company of sol­diers always moves with measured tread, with uniform step and always starts and stops and “columns left” or “columns right” in perfect unison because these soldiers are trained to obey orders and each one instantly responds to the raucous call of the officer in command. There could be the same harmony of move­ment and concert of action among religious people if all religionists would recognize and obey one voice of authority. But that raises a momentous question: What is the true source of authority in religion? Answering that let us consider:
(a)The Roman Catholic Claim.
It will not be denied by any professed believer in Christianity that our Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church and that the church is—hence all members of the church, all Christians are—subject to him in all things. But Christ is in heaven and we are upon the earth and we cannot therefore hear him speak in audi­ble tones. In what way, then, does he direct our move­ments now? The church of Rome claims that he dele­gated the right and power to govern his people to the Apostle Peter and the other apostles, and that at the death of the original twelve other men, succeeded them in office and authority and that even now the pope and his prelates have divine authority to issue decrees for the church; to make laws to govern the followers of Christ and that Christ will ratify these laws in heav-' en. But there is no basis in the Scriptures for the assumption that the apostles themselves ever claimed any such authority as this. They represented them­selves as bond-servants of Christ and as vessels of clay in which the precious treasure of the gospel had been placed. They believed that they possessed the Holy Spirit and they spoke the will of Christ as the Spirit enabled them. They taught that their word would become normative and that Christians in all ages should “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto” them—the apostles. There is therefore no intimation that they expected to have any successors and there is not the slightest intimation in history that they did have any successors—that any man followed them who could manifest the “signs of an apostle” (1 Cor. 9:1).
(b) The Battle Won by Luther and the Basic Principle of Protestantism The assumption of complete authority by the papal court robbed Christians of their liberty and the church of its purity for more than a thousand years. Any sort of immoral measure or corrupt scheme that these self-called infallible officials wished to adopt or to promote was accepted and suffered by the people because they were under the awful belief that these measures and schemes were ratified in heaven. A few heroic souls like Wycliffe, Huss and Savonarola dared to protest against such spiritual wickedness in high places but none of these ever thought of disputing this blasphemous claim of authority by which such wick­edness was made possible. It remained for Luther to attack the authority of the pope and to repudiate the decisions of councils as final in matters of doctrine. But even he at first made his fight against the corrup­tions that were in the church and was driven to see that he would have to accept these corruptions or else rebel against and reject the authority of those who authorized them. When Luther denied that the church had any divine right or even moral right to sell indul­gences, and showed that justification is by faith and not by works and that forgiveness is granted upon repentance and not secured by penance he was only dis­cussing theological questions as a monk with monks. But Luther’s ideas were gaining so much favor with the people and therefore retarding the pope’s scheme to such an extent that Leo X took cognizance of him and sent the most learned men in the church which called him father to argue with Doctor Luther, to con­fute him, conquer him. All that was imposing in names, in authority, in traditions, in associations, was arrayed against him. The great Goliath of controversy of that day was Doctor John Eck. He was superior to Luther in repu­tation, in dialectical skill and in scholastic learning. Doctor Eck challenged Luther for a public debate at Leipzig. All Germany was interested. The questions at issue stirred the nation to its very depths. The disputants met in the great hall of the palace of the Elector. Never before was seen in Germany such an array of doctors and theologians and digni­taries. It rivalled in importance and dignity the Coun­cil of Nice, when the great Constantine presided, to set­tle the Trinitarian controversy. The combatants were as great as Athanasius and Arius,—as vehement, as earnest, though not so fierce. Doctor Eck was the pride of the universities. He was the champion of the schools, of sophistries and authorities, of dead-letter litera­ture, of quibbles, of refinements and words. He was about to overwhelm Luther with his citations, decrees of councils, opinions of eminent ecclesiastics—the mighty authority of the church, but Luther’s genius and his deep consciousness of truth came to his rescue. Under the mighty conviction of the righteousness of his cause and under the inspiration of the hour Luther caught a far vision of truth. He then swept away the very premises of his opponent’s argument. He denied the supreme authority of popes and councils and uni­versities. He appealed to the Scriptures as the only ultimate ground of authority.

Thus was born the basal idea of the Reformation— the supreme authority of the Scriptures,—to which Protestants have ever since professed to cling.

Doctor Eck and the church were not prepared to deny openly the authority of Paul and Peter and the other inspired men, hence they were left gasping for breath by Luther’s appeal to the Scriptures. But their cunning soon found a way to saye their own authority. They said, “Yes, we accept the scriptures as authority too. We even put them above Augustine and Thomas Acquinas and the councils. But who is to interpret the scriptures? The Bible cannot be understood by the common people. It must be interpreted by the church—that is by the priests. We will not let the people have the Bible. They would become fanatics. We will tell them what the Bible teaches. They must look to us.”

Then Luther rose more powerful, more eloquent, more majestic than before. The second great princi­ple of the Reformation was born from his soul—the right of private judgment—the right of every indivi­dual to have the light of life as it shines upon his soul from the sacred pages.
These two great principles freed the people from the power of the pope and set on foot the greatest movement that the world has known since the days of Paul.
(c) The Failure to Apply the Principle
Although Luther found the principle upon which all religious questions must be resolved he did not apply the principle to all questions. He confined his efforts to those points largely upon which he had joined issue with the church of Rome. He and his contemporaries, Knox and Calvin, never did entirely get away from the idea of the authority of the clergy and their right to assemble in convention and formulate doctrines to govern their followers. Only one reformer of that period seemed to have the correct idea as to the work that needed to be done, and that was Zwingli. The different views of Luther and Zwingli are set forth in D’Augbigue’s History of the Reformation in these words: “Luther was desirous of retaining in the church all that was not expressly contradicted by the Scriptures, while Zwingli was intent on abohshing all that could not be proved by Scripture. The German Reformer wished to remain united to the church of all preceding ages (that is, the Roman Catholic Church), and sought only to purify it from everything that was repugnant to tne word of God. The Reformer of Zurich passed back over every intervening age till he reached the times of the apostles; and subjecting the church to an entire transformation, labored to restore it to its prim­itive Condition.” But Zwingli was overshadowed by Luther and his principles did not control the Reforma­tion of the sixteenth century.

Then in the eighteenth century came the work of John Wesley. He labored to reform the church of England, of which he lived and died a member. His efforts to reform the church failed to accomplish their purpose but ihey resulted in budding up a new denom­ination with practically the same form of government of the Church of England but characterized by the zeal and warmth and spiritual fervor that he had endeavored to mfuse into the old church. It never seemed to enter Wesley’s mind to leave all human organizations and to go back over the intervening ages to the time of the apostles and to reconstruct the church just as it was in the beginning. So we see that all these reformers simply protested against corruptions that existed in the older churches and when they could not correct these errors their followers organized new denominations leaving out the corruptions, hut which were nevertheless denomina­tions that recognized human founders, human heads and nad their own lawmaking bodies.

II. The Coming of the Campbells
(a) Schism Rife and Regnant When Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander came into the picture the different denominations that had been formed among the Protestants were warring with each other with as much hatred as had ever existed between the Protestants and the Catholics. They rec­ognized each other as composed of Christians and they were ready to make common cause against the Catho­lics but they were not willing to fellowship each other at the Lord’s table or to work together in peace. Even the Presbyterian church, m which Thomas Campbell was a preacher, was divided into several contending factions. The work assigned him in America was in Washington County, Pennsylvania. As the country was then sparsely populated and as the people had come from other countries, there were manj denominations represented among them but there were few organized congregations of any sect. His duties as a minister required Thomas Campbell to make a trip up in the Alleghany Valley to preach and to give the Lord’s Supper to the fewT scattered members of his branch of the Presbyterian church who lived m that vicinity. The people of the neighborhood gathered together to hear the preaching which was a rare opportunity for them. They bad no preaching and no opportunity to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. To us who have been reared to see any band of humble Christians meet and conduct the Lord’s service this seems strange, but we must not forget that the denominations have never gotten away from the idea that clergy are different from the laity and possess powefs and privileges that the ordinary Christian does not dare to claim. With them no one can give the Lord’s Supper to God’s chil­dren or minister to a penitent believer but an ordained clergyman. Therefore the people of the Alleghany Valley being deprived of the “benefit of clergy” were also deprived of the privileges of worshiping God as did the New Testament disciples (Acts 20:7). The great heart of Thomas Campbell was moved with pity for these people and he publicly expressed his regrets that he could invite members of other branches of the Presbyterian church—all Presbyterians and only Pres­byterians—to partake of the Lord’s Supper with him and his peculiar kind of Presbyterians. For this offense he was reported to the Presbytery by a young preacher by the name of Wilson who was an under­study of Mr. Campbell. The Presbytery reprimanded Mr. Campbell for criticising the rules and usages of his church. Mr. Campbell appealed to the Synod but that august body did not look with any degree of favor upon a man who would criticize the rules made by the authorities of his church or attempt to change the “usages” of that church.

Again we see the principle upon which Eck attempt­ed to meet Luther prevailing. Questions must be decid­ed by the usages of the church and by the decisions of councils.

(b) A Plea for the Principle as a Basis of Union.
As a result of the divided state in which Mr. Camp­bell found the religious people of his time and of his community and because he found that the spirit of sectarian narrowness and bigotry would not allow him to minister to a child of God if that individual did not chance to be a member of his denomination, Mr. Camp­bell withdrew from the Presbytery—not from the Pres­byterian church—and began independent work. He became a preacher for the whole community and asked all professed Christians to work with him though these did not at first sever their denominational affiliations. They were banding themselves together in an undenom­inational, and, at first an interdenominational capacity in order that they might all together enjoy the worship of God. This was not brought about by any difference over some particular doctrine. Certainly it was not about baptism as Mr. Campbell himself had at this time never been baptized. He had been sprinkled in infancy. It was not caused by a love for controversy or by the desire for a debate. Thomas Campbell was never a controversalist. He desired to preach and practice only those things about which there could be no con­troversy. In explaining and defining his position to the Synod he said:

“Is it, therefore, because I plead the cause of the Scriptural and apostolic worship of the church, in op­position to the various errors and schisms which have so awfully corrupted and divided it, that the brethren of the Union should feel it difficult to admit me as their fellow-laborer in that blessed work? I sincerely rejoice with them in what they have done in that way; but still, is not yet done; and surely they can have no just objections to go farther. Nor do I presume to dictate to them or to others as to how they should pro­ceed for the glorious purpose of promoting the unity and purity of the church; but only beg leave, for my own part, to walk upon such sure and peaceable ground that I may have nothing to do with human controversy, about the right or wrong side of any opinion what­soever, by simply acquiescing in what is written, as quite sufficient for every purpose of faith and duty; and thereby to influence as many as possible to depart from human controversy, to betake themselves to the Scriptures, and, in so doing, to the study and practice of faith, holiness and love.” That association of neighbors in Washington, Penn­sylvania, as a band of Christians agreed upon certain principles upon which they were to work. These were set forth by Thomas Campbell in what was called then and what has since become famous as the ‘‘Declaration and Address.” This address was an arraignment of sectism and a plea for Christian union. It contended for a practice of only those things that are authorized by the New Testament Scriptures and that were prac­ticed by disciples in New Testament times. Its whole plea was summed up in the now famous slogan, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Upon this principle those neighbors could work together forgetting their denominational differences.

(b) The Principle Works.
They afterward abandoned their denominations all together and served the Lord as Christians only. Alexander Campbell joined his father and took the lead in applying their rule to many of their denominational ideas and found that they were not Scriptural. They made the Bible their sole ground of authority and de­cided every question by a “thus saith the Lord.” They proceeded upon the exact principle that Luther had contended for but failed to follow out to a conclusion. They took up the plan proposed by Zwingli two cen­turies before them and made it work. They not only respected the statements of Scripture but they respect­ed its silence as well. Luther desired to retain all that was not contradicted by the Scriptures—all that the Scriptures do not say thou shalt not do—but Zwingli advocated abolishing all that could not be proved by the Scriptures. And this was the plan of the Camp­bells and their co-laborers. Even years after both the Campbells were gone from the earth the disciples istrictly followed this rule and would not practice any­thing that could not be proved by the Scriptures. J. Z. Tyler in a sermon preached at Richmond, Virginia, in 1882, from which sermon we quoted in our last lec­ture, said:

“We seek to avoid speculations on untaught ques­tions. We hold that they gender strife. The silence of the Bible is to be respected as much as its revela­tions. ‘Infinite wisdom was required as much to deter­mine of what men should be ignorant as what men should know. Indeed, since, in regard to all matters connected with the unseen spiritual world, man is dependent upon Divine revelation, the limits of that revelation must necessarily mark out also the domain of human ignorance, as the shores of a continent become the boundaries of a trackless and unfathomed ocean.'

Out of this view there have arisen among us such maxims as these: ‘Where the B'ble speaks, we will speak; where the Bible is silent, we will be silent,’ and ‘Bible names for Bible things, and Bible thoughts in Bible terms.’" This principle of recognizing the Bible as a standard of authority in religion began to shake tne walls of sectdom and creed making bodies felt their power going from them. Barton W. Stone and his fellow mem­bers of the Springfield Presbytery had, even before Campbell was known to them, dissolved their Presby­tery as an unscripiural body and insisted that the Bible aione is authority and that individual churches remain independent and not form any combination. No ruling bodies or governing assemblies should exist. None existed in New Testament times. A mighty host of peonle rallied to the support of this principle and simple gospel churches were estab­lished in thousands of places. Churches composed of Christians who lived in each community. These churches sustained no organic connection with each other, yet they were all alike for they were fashioned after the same divine pattern and recognized the same Head, King and Lord. Peace prevailed, good will reigned, and success crowned their efforts. The plea w*as invincible and the ultimate overthrow of all sec­tarianism and the union of all Christians seemed to be a goal not impossible.

III. Division Among Those Who Plead For Unity
(a) First defections. It is probably too much to expect perfection of anything with which human beings have to do. The Lord’s order is perfect but weak mortal beings will not continue to forget self and fol­low the Lord. It is sad to have to chronicle the fact that those who plead for unity by a return to the New Testament order of work and worship have divided into separate and antagonistic groups. The first defec­tion could not properly be called a division as those few who broke off went completely away. Three names tell the story of the beginning of the greatest religious hoax ever perpetrated; But one of these men was not responsible for the hoax. He was a victim though he supplied the literature for the scheme. Solomon Spauld­ing, an educated man, for a long time a Presbyterian preacher but who had quit the ministry and become skeptical, wrote a novel in which he wove a fanciful story about the origin of the American Indians. He represented them as being the ten lost tribes of Israel. Spaulding put this manuscript into the hands of a printer at Pittsburg but it was lost. Sydney Rigdon, a preacher among the disciples, but who was never looked upon as very dependable, worked in the printing shop from which the Spaulding manuscript disappeared.

Joseph Smith, in New York, was a lazy lout who pro­fessed to be a diviner. He told fortunes and had men dig for hidden treasures. His father, while digging a well for Willard Chase, threw out a stone of peculiar shape and of almost transparent color. The Chase children kept the stone among their playthings. But young Joe Smith stole it from the children and began to use it as a peep-stone in telling fortunes.and in pre­tending to tell where lost property might be found. The court records of that country show where Joe was made to pay a fine for charging a farmer $10.00 to tell him by the power of his peep-stone where to find a cow that had strayed. The cow was not at the place designated, hence the court action and the fine.

Now, about this time Joe had his vision about the buried plates and he, by the instructions of the angels, dug them up and translated them by the peep-stone and thus the book of Mormon appeared which was nothing more nor less than the old Spaulding manu­script revamped by Sydney Rigdon. Rigdon became Smith’s right-hand man and was the first preacher of the first Mormon church. Thus Mormonism originated in a brain of a renegade Christian preacher, which accounts for the truth that the Mormons teach on bap­tism and some other points.

Some years later, Dr. John Thomas, a physician, but a man who had given up his profession for the study and the proclamation of the gospel, came to America from England. He heard the plea for a return to the New Testament and for a restoration of the ancient order. He became obedient to the faith and preached the truth for several years. He founded and edited a paper and was highly commended by Alexander Camp­bell for his labors. But he began speculating on proph­ecy and theorizing about the Millennium and making these theories the very acme of all Bible teaching. He also taught the idea of soul-sleeping and the annihila­tion of the wicked. He led away disciples after him and became the founder of the sect known as Christa delphians. These, however, unlike the Mormons, held strictly to the idea of congregational independence and of no organized ecclesiasticism. They have for this reason remained weak while the Mormons, combining religion with militarism, have become a mighty empire.

(b) A surrender of the plea. Those who went away with Dr. Thomas and Sydney Rigdon have so far departed that they are now never thought of in con­nection with the restoration movement—only the few know that they were ever associated in any way with us. It is a sadder story that we must tell of those who yet claim to belong to the restoration movement but who have completely surrendered the plea for Bible authority in all things. The United States Census Bu­reau now lists two branches of the people who profess to exist for the express purpose of preaching unity upon the Bible alone and as Christians only. These two groups are in these last days usually distinguished by the name “Christian Church” for the one and “Church of Christ” for the other which names alone clearly announce that here are two sects and both claiming to be the church Christ founded. What a shameful situation! Of course these are not two dif­ferent churches but factions of the same church— therefore sects. Persons, enter into the church of the Lord by conversion, by obeying the gospel or, to be specific, by hearing the gospel, believing the gospel, by repenting of sins, by confessing Christ and by being baptized unto the remission of sins. To require more of any one who desires to enter the church would be to make a human requirement, a human law and therefore to make such a church a human institution. When people come from the so-called “Christian Church” to the so-called “Church of Christ” do they have to obey the gospel—hear, believe, repent and be baptized? No, they have already done that. Then of course they are already in the true church, which is the church of Christ, and are not now coming into it.

They have been in a sect called “Christian Church” and should be now coming out of it, not out of a sect into the church but out of the sect to be in nothing but the church. They have been in error but have now learned the way of the Lord more perfectly. We should not speak of them as having left one church to be mem­bers of another.

While the names mentioned above are now used to distinguish the two sides—by some at least—this has come about, in only recent years. Formerly, they used other terms. One group called themselves “Progress­ives” and their opponents “Antis.” The other group called themselves “Loyals” and their opponents “Digressives.” These terms were neither beautiful nor brotherly but with all their ugliness they did not mani­fest the sectarianism that the names we now use exhibit. But if we did not have the two sides we would not need the distinguishing designations. The fact that we have the two sides is the crying shame. This situation forces us to accept one of two conclusions, namely, To speak ivhere the Bible speaks, and to be silent where the Bible is silent will not unite the chil­dren of God and restore the New Testament church as we have claimed it would, or else somebody has failed to live by this motto and has therefore departed, digressed from our plea. Since the plea was to have Bible authority for all we do, to digress from the plea would be to do things for which there is no Bible authority, therefore to digress from the Lord’s way. Which conclusion shall we accept? To accept the first would be to reject the Bible as a standard of authority and as a basis of union. We cannot agree to such a dire conclusion as that. Then we are forced to say that somebody has left the original ground and surrendered the plea. Who is it and in what respect have they digressed ? This brings us to:

(c) Details in the departure. We unhesitatingly charge that our brethren who call themselves Progress­ives have surrendered our plea, departed from our motto and brought reproach upon the cause of our Master. They have introduced things into the worship for which there is no Scriptural sanction and have formed organizations to usurp the functions of the church.

Without attempting to give a chronological account of these departures we notice the primary causes of the trouble.

Instrumental music in the worship. It is a fact that is known to all persons who are only tolerably informed in either sacred or profane history that the New Testament churches did not use instruments of music in the worship of God, and that they were never used among professed Christians until the seventh cen­tury. Of course, therefore, when our fathers set out to restore the New Testament church they did not restore something that was never in it. The churches of the nineteenth century did not use such instruments in their worship for about sixty years. They all wor­shiped alike and all stood together for more than a half century. The first instrument was an organ intro­duced into the Olive Street church in St. Louis in 1869. It at once caused division. A committee was appointed to settle, the matter. The committee was composed of Isaac Errett, Robert Graham, Alexander Proctor and J. K. Rogers. This committee removed the organ and restored peace. Since these brethren were walking by the rule of “speak where the Bible speaks/’ and since they were all willing to accept any­thing for which there is Bible authority, why did the organ cause division? Why did not those who wanted the organ give the chapter and verse that authorized it and settle the matter? That committee was com­posed of some of the best Bible scholars and some of the ablest defenders of the faith then living. Why did they remove the organ to placate the objectors? Why did they not show the brethren the authority in God’s word for the instrument and let it remain in the church? The fact that they did not do this is evi­dence sufficient that it could not be done. Their deci­sion in the matter is an admission that there is no Scriptural authority for the instrument and that it was not in the New Testament church which we set out to restore.

Then to use the instrument is a clear surrender of our plea; a departure; a digression. But the case at St. Louis did not remain settled. Those who wanted instrumental music in the worship would not abide by the decision of the committee or be governed by the Zwingli plan and the Thomas Camp­bell motto. At other places the instruments were forced in, nearly always causing division, those who would not worship with the innovation withdrawing and wor­shiping in a separate congregation. In many places the question of the ownership of the church property arose and the matter was taken into the civil courts. Hard fought trials, bitter strife and alienations fol­lowed. And all this about something for which there is absolutely no Bible authority and among people whose basic principle was union upon the Bible and the Bible alone! But the advocates of the instrument have resorted to every possible artifice and exhausted the whole cata­logue of fallacies in an effort to justify their course. They, in nearly all instances, will admit that there is no Bible authority for their instruments but they instantly rally with the utterly disingenuous shout, “But the Bible does not condemn the use of instru­ments ! It does not say we shall not use them! They do not seem to see that this is a complete surrender of and a departure from the Zwingli plan and the Camp­bell motto. They have utterly repudiated the second clause of the old motto, “Where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” They have gone far afield since the day that J. Z. Tyler uttered the language already quoted in this lecture. There is no way for these brethren to clear themselves of the charge of having digressed.

Organized Societies. After the restoration move­ment had been in existence for nearly a half a century and after the simple gospel had been preached by individuals and by independent churches until the plea for restoration of the ancient order had been heard in all the English-speaking world, some men began to insist that missionary societies should be formed for the purpose of preaching the gospel to the world. Faith­ful men pointed out that the church itself was founded and established for the sole purpose of evangelizing the world, that it is the “light of the world,” “the salt of the earth,” “the pillar and support of the truth,” and that it is to “hold forth the word of life in a crooked and perverse generation.” But the advocates of the societies claimed that such organizations would only be the churches cooperating to do the work they were ordained to do. Again, faithful men insisted that while it is Scriptural and proper to cooperate it is not Scriptural to form a corporation of congregations for that would take away the independence of each church and result in an ecclesiastical organization which would not only be human but that would neces­sitate the making of human laws to govern it. This would not only be something that the New Testament churches—which we are trying to restore—never had but it would lead entirely away from the plea and pur­pose of the restoration movement since it would form the churches into an organized denomination with local headquarters and with human governing authorities. But despite the protests the societies were formed and multiplied. As they grew in size they assumed more and more control of the churches and became such determining factors in the work of the Progressives that an individual preacher or even an independent paper could have no more influence in checking their plans and purposes than a single individual would have in opposing the action of the convention of his political party. In order that these many societies might not conflict with each other and thus hinder their efforts and limit their power over the churches, they, in recent years, have formed a merger. They have all gone into what is known as the United Society. This is a super­society with subordinate branches, and the ecclesias ticism is complete.

Thus a much more powerful body than that which Barton W. Stone and his associates dissolved in order to return to the New Testament order has been formed by those who claim to be carrying on the plan which Stone and others inaugurated.

Conventions. Those churches that use instrumental music and that work under the societies have long been accustomed to hold conventions. When this prac­tice first began the conservative brethren raised a pro­test and showed that no such conventions were held in New Testament times but that they were held in the second and third centuries and that they constituted one of the first steps in the great apostasy: that they became law-making bodies. The Progressives insisted that they were only mass meetings; that they had no legislative powers at all; that all Christians were at liberty to attend and no individual had any more power or authority than another and that the convention could not decide questions, bestow favors or do anything else that had any resemblance to official action. But no one can now make that claim for those conventions. They did consider questions; appoint committees, hear reports and exercise all other functions of a political or religious convention. Then the societies began to control the machinery and direct all maneuvers of the conventions. These lobbyists found it more difficult to control the mass meetings than they liked and they therefore legislated through the convention that these conventions should become delegate bodies. That is, that no one should have a voice or vote except dele­gates and these delegates of course should be elected by the churches. Of course this made the convention an official body, a representative or law-making body. Churches that send delegates to the convention are of course bound by the action of the convention. These conventions have voted on the terms of membership in the church even, as though Christ and the apostles did not make and ratify these once and forever. They have voted on the question of “open membership,” that is whether people should be baptized in order to be admitted into the church or whether they should be admitted without baptism.

(d) Conditions today among those ruho departed.
Of course this turns those brethren definitely into a sect with their law-making body deciding who shall and who shall not be admitted into their denomination. They have not only surrendered the purpose to destroy all sectism and the plea of the restoration movement but they have actually gone back of the victory won by Luther and again established the custom of decid­ing questions by the decree of councils and the vote of conventions instead of by the word of God. Sup­pose the convention voted that baptism is not essen­tial. Can that change the teaching of the word of God? If the convention voted to eliminate baptism alto­gether, could it not vote to change the form of baptism and substitute sprinkling? If not, why not?

Then if all of us participate in the convention and abide by its action it would only be a short time until doctrines and practices ordered by the convention would be at such a dissonance with the Scriptures that there would have to arise other reformers to protest against such impudent assumption of power and lead the world back to the New Testament. The fact that the convention has not yet decided to eliminate or change baptism does not alter our point or mitigate the circumstance. The vote has been taken and that is the assumption of power to make such changes whenever the delegates may so elect. The whole thing is now on the shifting sands of man’s vaccilating judgment and no doctrine of the sect today may be its doctrine tomorrow. With these facts facing us it must be clear that those of us who wish to be governed by the word of God in all things; who wish to get back of all creeds, all­decrees of councils, and other human authorities to the church of the New Testament must stay out of these conventions and from under the domination of the United Society and from all other machinations of men. This we are doing and as much as we deplore division we are forced to work apart from all who will not abide within the doctrine of Christ. There are several thousand independent churches of Christ that are still prayerfully endeavoring to be just what the New Tes­tament churches were in organization, in doctrine, in faith, and zeal and good works. May the Lord multi­ply their number and increase their faith. And may he help them not to allow the fact that they must stand aloof from all sects to turn that aloofness into sectarianism.