In the issue of January 16, 1882, Brother Warner answers a number of criticisms by contemporary editors.
TO OUR CONTEMPORARIES
"Modern come-outism, or, better said,
no-churchism." We hold that uniting with the people of God in church
fellowship, even of our own choice, does not necessarily constitute us
sectarians." Gospel Banner.
In all love we would ask our kind Brother Brenneman to
inform us of those modern "no-church" men of whom he speaks; give us
the address of any man professing godliness who believes in and claims
membership in no church.
Second. Is the body of Christ no church?
Third. If there is any way to get into the church besides
Christ and through the Holy Spirit--if the church is something that men open
the door of and admit members into--please give us "thus saith the
Lord" for it.
Fourth. If uniting with one party or sect of the professed
people of God does not constitute one a sectarian, then why should union with a
Masonic Lodge constitute a man a Freemason?
Fifth. If a person is in Christ Jesus, is he not in the
church, and is he not already joined to all others that are joined to the
Lord?
Pure Religion very smartly, as she supposes, ranks
"come-outers" with "all other sects," by which she
virtually admits that they are as good as the others, and then says that it
takes the following elements to make a good "come-outer": 1. It is
necessary that the person be "turned out of some church," meaning of
course one of those "other sects," for a little sober, candid
reflection upon the Bible will show any person that such remarks cannot apply
to the true church at all; for "the Lord added to the church daily such as
should be [or, were being] saved," and no man [or ecclesiastical court]
can pluck them out of his hand.'
If the Editress of Pure Religion were half as zealous to
know what the Bible teaches as she is to exhibit her wit, she would doubtless
have learned that the church is not something that men organize and admit
members into, but that it is "a holy temple in the Lord," "God's
building, God's husbandry."
2. The Editress thinks that to be a good
"come-outer" the person should have a small stock of religion and
"quite a good stock of ignorance." We presume that she did not
consider that in those words she condemned as nearly graceless and very
ignorant such men as Luther, Melancthon, Fox, and Wesley, who at the very time
when they stood out of and condemned all sects and did not contemplate joining
or forming any, wielded their greatest power for God.
The Good Way recently informed us that Wesley never
contemplated the forming of a sect. What was he then but a
"come-outer"? It is an undeniable fact upon record that he deplored
the unhappy divisions and parties of Christendom.
It is the uniform testimony of the history of the
Reformation that every reform effort was attended by a much greater power and
demonstration of the Spirit of God before it culminated in a new sect than ever
was manifest in that sect afterward. I think I can safely challenge a single
exception to this fact. During ten years labor in the denomination that grew
out of the labors of J. Winebrenner and his coworkers, it was the constant
admission of the old fathers and mothers that no such power of God had been
witnessed in that body as was before they assumed and received the name of
another religious denomination. The same is true of early Methodism, and in a
remarkable manner is it true of the Free Methodist. Let me give you a few
extracts from the "History of the Origin of Free Methodism," by
Sister Sidney M'Creery, who with her husband, Joseph M'Creery, was associated
with B. T. Roberts and William Kendall from the beginning of the great holiness
revival that resulted in their separation from the Methodist Episcopal sect.
Hence she testifies what she knows and declares what she has seen.
The record is that for six years they worked and prospered
wonderfully under the power of God and freedom from all sect yokes, and that
from the formation of a new sect by B. T. Roberts the glory departed from the
Nazarites, as they had been called. She says:
B. T. Roberts in his discipline says the Free Methodist
organization was a necessity. Was it? Let the hundreds testify who were
wonderfully and lovingly united together in the Holy Ghost. The truth is this:
God's heritage and work were spoiled by the laying on of man's hands.
While enjoying this spiritual fellowship all was peace and
harmony and the work of conversion went on, the saints rejoiced, and the
sectarian devil was mad, sinners in Zion were afraid and trembled as they saw
the weakest saint upon his knees.
B. T. Roberts started out with a trap in hand, making a new
test of fellowship. He visited far and wide among the live pilgrims, preaching
sect fellowship as the one thing needful, and that they could go no further
without it.
In most cases it took them by surprise. They examined
themselves and reasoned thus: We are already in fellowship with the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, and in holy spiritual fellowship with the saints, and God
has given us the victory again and again while fighting against the unholy
sects. What can the sect yoke do for us? We are now free to go everywhere
preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus. Thus many stood out for a while.
Oh, what robbery, what treachery, to pervert and use this work of God, which
began so gloriously, to the building up of a carnal and selfish organism! At
every gathering. large or small, the sect yoke was presented and held forth as
'the cross
My husband was satisfied with God's way of ordering the
battle; yea, more than satisfied he rejoiced and was exceeding glad to see the
prosperity of Zion in our midst. While B. T. R. said in action by the formation
of his sect, 'I have suffered enough reproach and shame; I will number Israel
and become as other nations,' then the work of building up 'our church'
commenced. How the enemy triumphed! At all the gatherings the spirit of
sectarian zeal was worked up to the highest pitch, and so fulfilling the
scripture which saith, 'Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.' . . .
"And today he (B. T. R.) has no more influence than any other sect bishop,
whereas he was once a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them who did well.
From this time the battle of the Lord ceased and the enemies rejoiced. Some who
remember the former days of liberty and power ask B. T. R. why the same power
is not manifested now as formerly. He answers on this wise: God then gave the
people a special blessing for a special work. Very good; but why not continue
under these special blessings and in this special work? What an absurdity, what
inconsistency to build another sect in order to go through the same variations
and evolutions of its predecessors! Was it pleasing in the sight of God to
manufacture another class of backsliders? Was it a necessity? Wherever I go I
find the burden of Free Methodist preaching is to backslidden membership,
whereas before its formation-while they remained in God's order, where he
placed them--every man, woman, and child was able to do a full day's work. In
visiting many places I find them (the F. M.'s) nearly, if not quite, extinct.
In missionary fields the work takes well for a season, but when they begin
proselyting and making it a 'necessity' to gather them into their peck measure,
then the Lord leaves them to themselves. As I am passing through the land I
often meet with those with whom I was acquainted during the war of the Lord,
and immediately they refer to the former days of power and salvation and say,
'We don't have such meetings nowadays; I would go a long distance to enjoy such
privilege.'
We might multiply quotations, but these will suffice to show
the fact that the formation of sects is the destruction of Christianity. Thus
it is an undeniable fact, that when men enjoyed the stigmatized
"come-out" "stock of ignorance," they have been used of God
far more than after they suddenly became wise (?) in building up a wall about
themselves or entering a sect pen built by some one else.
The Vanguard calls coming out of Babylon "a kind of
spiritual rash"; and Pure Religion and Gath Rimmon both think that very
smart, and serve it up to their readers. May the Lord forgive this lightness.
Had we not better look into the Word of God and see what the Lord saith, than
to indulge In mere witticisms? Does the Word of God teach that it is a
"spiritual rash" to belong to Christ alone and hold only to him,
"the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness
of him that filleth all in all"? Was Christ afflicted with a spiritual rash
when he said, "There shall be one fold and one shepherd"? Was that
the infirmity that Paul had when he said 'there should be no schisms in the
body'--no Methodist schism, no Wesleyan schism, no Free Methodist bond schism,
nor United Brethren; yea, no schism?
Now, brethren, if you dare drop the scales from your eyes
and look squarely at the Holy Bible, you must admit that every one of those
sect organizations which you call churches are schisms, just what God condemns
and forbids. Unless you are shamefully blind, you know it to be the truth and
nothing but the truth, and your slurs and sarcasms can not revoke that truth
nor enable you to stand when you are judged by it.
There are other exchanges that have uttered hard things
against the Rock on which I stand. Now, I simply want you to know what you are
doing, then if you wish to continue kicking against the goads, you may do so.
Do you believe that Christ purchased and founded one church of the living God?
Do you believe that the "body of Christ" is the church? Do you
believe that Christ is the only door to the church, and that "by him if
any man enter he shall be saved"? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit sets
the members in the body, the church? Do you believe there should be "no
schisms in the body"? Do you believe that believers are "made perfect
in one" and that "thorough holiness destroys sects and
denominations"? Do you believe that 'divisions and offences are contrary
to the doctrine we have received' of Christ? Do you believe that Christians
should not be "un-equally yoked together with unbelievers"?
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ I ask any paper to
speak out and tell me which of these points you dispute. And if you say you
believe them all, as some of you have, then I ask, Why do you object to my
believing the same? for that is just what I believe. The only difference is, I
act consistently with my faith, while you say and do not.
You admit there is but one church of God, still you think
hard of me for not allowing that all your "churches" are of God. This
is God's truth and you can not deny it. You say that sects are wrong, but
advise God's children to continue in the wrong. I claim that sects are wrong.
and therefore say, Come out from among them, as saith the Lord. Men professing
godliness should act consistently with their belief.
If you believe that Christ is divided and there are many
folds, many bodies, many Lords, many faiths, instead of "one fold,"
"one body," "one Lord," and "one faith," then you
may consistently with your faith antagonize The Gospel Trumpet; but you must
abide the consequences of fighting against God's Word. And remember this, that
in the day of judgment it will do you no good to have put false colors on the
truth you are opposing. You will not plead before the bar of God that I taught
"no-churchism," no organization," etc.
If you are ignorant of The Trumpet's teaching, you will be
condemned before God for opposing and speaking evil of the things you do not
understand. You should hold your peace until you know what you are talking
about.
If you do know what we--myself and contributors--teach, you
know that every paper insists on organization, the very organization set forth
in the New Testament, and you do know that we all advocate the church, and
never have encouraged anybody to leave her; but we chose to learn from the
simple Word of God what the church is, and not from your Dark Age creeds and
confused tongues. Now, all you who have lifted up your heel against Christ and
his body, the only true church in heaven and earth, have done so because you
have some sect idol in your heart and cannot receive the truth or endure sound
doctrine, or else you have not the moral courage to assault the devil in his
stronghold of divisions. What does Satan care for your clamor against the
"sin in the sects" so long as you give him the best means of bringing
God's house or kingdom to naught-the sin of sects? I pity your sad confusion.
May God give you all repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.
An editorial in the July 25 number answers an objection by
the editor of The Sword.
