The Response

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.