This section deals with the reiteration of the plea of Churches of Christ, with amplification of the issue of unity, with Main's re-couching of certain of the Movement's emphases, with his response to the charge of proselytism, with the question of baptism, with the Churches of Christ response to the 1913 Victorian Congress on Union, with the relationship of churches of Christ to Baptists, with reaction to wider ecumenical developments and with attitudes to the Roman Catholic Church.

1. Reiteration of the Plea
2. Unity
3. A Reiteration
4. Proselytism
5. Baptism and Forgiveness
6. Congress on Union
7. Churches of Christ and Baptists
8. Wider Ecumenical Developments
9. Roman Catholicism

1. REITERATION OF THE PLEA

A. R. Main, A.C., 1936, pp. 321-322.

      Have we a distinctive witness to give to the world? Assuredly; we have a message to the non-Christian, and also one to the Christian world. The insistence on Christ as sole Head of the church, the making of faith in and loyalty to him the test of fellowship and bond of union, a return to the simple order of the New Testament, the honoring of our Lord by wearing his name and no sectarian name in addition, the answering of seekers of salvation in the very words which inspired apostles used from the day of the church's establishment, the putting of baptism and the Lord's supper in the place which they held in the apostolic church, the appeal to unite on a divinely given basis, and to keep the seven-fold unity of the spirit revealed in Ephesians 4--these are amongst the things concerning which we are called upon still to give a distinctive witness.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1940, pp. 669-670.

      Permanence? In a world like this? What changes members of this church have seen since 1865! Swiftly those who bore a witness have passed away. We, too, are hurrying on, soon to give place to others. Yet you ask me to speak of the permanence of our witness, though the witnessing tongues and lives will shortly vanish.

      Some pre-Christian philosophers regarded an incessant change, an infinite flux, as belonging to the very nature of things. Heraclitus (who died B.C. 475) put it, "All fleets." To some the astonishing changes of this present age may seem to confirm the pagan philosopher's word. A social change almost amounting to a revolution has taken place in our lifetime, and the surest prophecy any one can make regarding the issue of the present world conflict is that it will be succeeded by changes in the social and economic order greater by far than those which followed what we have hitherto called "the great war/"

      Scientific Advances which have made us realise-the-greatness of-the human mind, inventions which have contributed to the enrichment and pleasure of life, as well as those which have been the instruments of devastating war, bear witness to a ceaselessly changing world. The modes of our preaching, teaching and thinking, have altered. We scarcely dare attempt to mention the word changes showing the impermanence of many things formerly regarded as fixed. We have seen the fall of rulers and the ruin of nations, the destruction of thousands of homes, the loss of countless thousands of lives, war waged on defenceless women and little children, and such broken trust, faithlessness and ruthlessness as to make many fear the crash of civilisation, freedom and faith, and the destruction of principles of the religion to which we have been giving witness.

Abiding Things

      Yet we Christians do not believe that nothing is permanent. Changes without have been matched by changes within ourselves; each one is conscious of bodily, mental and spiritual change--growth and possibly decline,--but the ego persists. The "I" who thought and spake as a child is the "I" who has put away childish things. I am not just as I was forty years ago, but I abide. Our basic needs remain the same. Our virtues and vices have altered but little. We have the same experience of doubt and fear, disappointment and baffled hope; of failure to live up to ideals; of sin which leads to remorse and, but for the grace of God, to eternal ruin and death.

      Thought of the changing world but lifts our minds to the changeless things which cannot be shaken--to the immutable God, the Christ who is the same to-day as for ever, and the eternal spirit.. The abiding Godhead, the abiding truth and the abiding graces are of an infinite value as contrasted with the changing things which are apt to cause us bitterness and fill our minds with corroding anxiety.

      We can still stay our souls on the thought of permanence, and find renewed courage and strength for future witnessing.

      It is not my task merely to affirm the permanence of our witness but also to indicate some of the permanent elements.

      Let me remind you that because of special needs, or opposition of men to great truths, or by the neglect or denial even by professing believers of part of the essential truth of God, there is a varying emphasis in each era of some portion of the Christian witness. For a time certain truths need to be stressed and given unusual emphasis until the need has been met or the opposition turned. Consider the church battles in different ages over such subjects as the divinity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, man's freedom and accountability, the Fatherhood of God, divine immanence, human rights and the sanctity of personality as opposed to slavery, a proper social conscience, missionary activity, Christian union. With each of these great themes the emphasis has changed, but the truth abides.

      Again, our appreciation of the will of God and our knowledge of his word changes--I trust it grows,--but the word of God abides for ever. Occasionally I wonder if some Christians do not mean to question the right of a man of sixty to believe the same essential truth that he accepted at twenty. Of course he has this right; no thing that was a part of God's truth has altered with the passing years. We may with simple faith such as we had when we first accepted Christ, but with increasing appreciation and devotion, put our trust in the Lord and proclaim his age-abiding Gospel.

      Some permanent things in our witness can now be indicated and stressed.

Witness to All Essential Christian Truth.

      You will appreciate, I trust, my motive in emphasising that our witness is not merely for what we have been accustomed to call "our distinctive position." It includes all that great mass of permanent and important truth, questioned in certain regards and in some quarters, but held in common by all true believers:

      The Godhead--Father, Son and Holy Spirit;

      The death of our Lord Jesus Christ for our sin and his resurrection for our justification;

      The Holy Spirit's converting and sanctifying work;

      The Scriptures given to be the lamp unto our feet and the light unto our path;

      The Gospel as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;

      Salvation by grace, not by works;

      The church of the redeemed, with its worship, fellowship and service;

      The necessity of a life of godliness, love and benevolence;

      The coming again of our Lord to be the Judge of the quick and the dead.

      These are all included in our "first principles," and for us, as for myriads of other believers, are amongst the permanent elements of witness. Let us not limit the thought of "our witness" to something less than the whole round of essential Christian truth.

      In addition to this general statement, some more particular and specific elements may be noted--things which, whatever the course religion may take in the future, will remain permanently good, and for which witness should continue to be given.

Our Plea in One Sentence

      If I were asked to state in one sentence what I regard as the essence of the plea which churches of Christ have made, the supreme thing in our witness, I think I should say that it is for the putting of the pre-eminent Christ in his rightful place, and for the profession and practice, now as in the early days of a religion which expresses itself in terms of Christ--so that in name, message, creed, ordinance, life and hope he, our blessed Lord, may be exalted and given the central place in our lives. It is inconceivable that until our Lord come, such a witness can ever become out of date.

      The appeal, rightly made and understood, has not been that people come to us, but rather that we all come to Christ, hear him and obey him as our Lord and Master, making a common faith in and loyalty to him the bond of union and test of Christian fellowship. That is a fundamental and permanent principle.

      From the beginning we have home witness (not always so consistently in practice as in words) to the imperative need of Christian union--the preservation of the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, a unity which must include the seven elements enumerated by God's apostle who made the plea to the Ephesian Christians; one body, one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Till the end of the age it will be in order to repeat the apostolic witness.

      Just as we rejoice to note the new feeling after unity in the Christian world--a feeling kindled and fostered largely by our brethren in bygone days,--so are we glad to see the increasing desire for a simpler creedal statement in which Christ the Son of God is confessed, in place of the elaborate creeds of the ages. Undoubtedly the witness of over a century and a quarter has borne fruit; and that witness will never become obsolete.

      With many fellow believers, but more insistently than most, we have home a steadfast witness to the great New Testament doctrine of the common priesthood of believers. We have opposed the thought of a special priesthood and any hierarchy, however venerable or powerful, which is inconsistent with the priesthood of the humblest christian or with the high-priestly and mediatorial work of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have stressed the fact that the church of Christ is his body, of which every redeemed person on earth is a member. In the nature of the case, these must be perpetual elements of witness.

      Regarding the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, a brief word must now suffice. The great majority of Christians and all churches agree in regarding these as not only ordained by Christ but intended by him for perpetual observance throughout the Christian era. We have sought to regard these, and pleaded with others to observe them, in the manner of our lord's appointment. May I say that if in a desire for unity there should be an agreement on the part of all uniting bodies to practice and preach something other than the clearly expressed will of Jesus Christ our Lord, there would still be need of a permanent witness to the things of his appointment? It would still be a duty to practice the baptism which symbolises so expressively death, burial and resurrection and sets forth the believer's union with the experience of his Lord. The time can never be when it will be right to withhold from seekers for salvation the words of the Holy Spirit through Peter to the believing inquirers on Pentecost: "Repent ye, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." The passing on of such instructions cannot mislead, unless the Spirit himself misleads us. The wittiness in favor of a converted church membership, The witness in favor of a converted church membership, composed of those who not by proxy but by personal faith and personal surrender accept Christ as Saviour, will ever be necessary. We must warn the religious world against the thought that an unconscious infant stands in need of a baptism unto remission, or that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as frequently expounded is other than a "fundamental error of Christendom."

      The supper of the Lord, in which the Christian remembers his Saviour and has blessed communion with him and his fellow believers, finding nourishment for his soul as by faith is also a permanent privilege. On the Lord's day in the Lord's table should be spread--the world needs this perpetual showing forth of the Lord's death till he come. So we shall endeavor to witness.

Not Less but Better Witnessing

      Whatever changes take place in our Brotherhood--and many have come, and many others will come, some for the better and probably others for the worse--I trust that we shall still give witness to the things of which I have spoken. On a number of these points it is most gratifying to note the remarkable changes in the religious world. What heartening things we have seen! Many things for which our brethren pleaded, and almost alone, are accepted by most Protestants to-day. The witness of our fathers was not in vain. Almost every communion has been influenced in its faith or practice by their faithfulness. For the new-found desire for Christian union especially we give thanks unto God. Yet we might and should have done more to help the Christian world land all for whom the-Saviour died. Not enough change has come in the religious world to make our witness unnecessary, but rather sufficient to cheer us on to a renewed and better, because more Christlike, witnessing. But whether others come to regard Christ's will on the points enumerated, whether or not we depart from them, there will still be need for some faithful men to witness to the Lord's appointments.

      In closing, I may emphasise the other thought of the permanence of our witness, even though our work on earth will soon be done. Those faithful men and women of pioneering days, those valiant preachers of the word of God, have gone; but has the influence of their witness also vanished? Not so. It never can be so. The influence of faithfulness lasts for ever. You and I are what we are because Christians centuries ago were true to Christ in face of persecution and the terrific onslaught of Satanic hate and power, because of the faithfulness of Christians generations ago in this and other lands, because of the gracious influence of some humble disciple, parent or Sunday school teacher, in our childhood days. In generations to come, how good it will be if some are Christian, true and loyal and loving, because we--you and I--were loyal to Christ. Long, long afterwards the song you sing may be found in the heart of a friend, the word you speak may cause someone to turn to righteousness and so to hear the Master's "Well done!" in that great day when all stand before the throne; the life you live may influence others who but for you would never have known or walked in the way which leads to life eternal.

      No strife or turmoil, no opposition of devils or men, can destroy one particle of divine truth, or frustrate permanently the will of God. No life lived for our Lord, no true word of witness spoken in love for him, can be wholly unfruitful. Herein may be our eternal reward. Let us be faithful to that great deposit of truth which we hold in trust for God.

2. UNITY

A. R. Main, A.C., 1923, pp. 65-66.

      I have so frequently referred to fundamental truths that it may be worth while briefly to indicate what I regard as such. In my judgment, the following is a fair statement of the most important items of our faith:

      We believe in God the Father, in the Lord Jesus as the only begotten Son of God and Saviour, in the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit.

      We believe in the universality of sin, and in the atoning death of Christ as the sole ground of human hope. He tasted death for every man. Dying for our sins, He was raised for our justification.

      We believe in the necessity of a conversion which is "begun, carried on and consummated by the operation of the Holy Spirit" through the truth. Further, that the Holy Spirit, "whom the world cannot receive," dwells in every Christian, having been promised as the Comforter and Helper of all who obey our Lord.

      We believe in the Scriptures given by inspiration of God as containing all things necessary to salvation and given so that "the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto every good work."

      We believe in the necessity of faith and repentance, in baptism as the initiatory ordinance, and in the Lord's Supper as the feast of commemoration and communion provided for the spiritual benefit of the Church of Christ.

      We believe in the necessity of a life of godliness, charity, and benevolence, in social service, and in co-operating with others in every good work.

      We believe that our Lord will come again, to be the Judge of the quick and the dead, that His faithful followers will be approved and rewarded by Him, enjoying an eternity of bliss, and that those who reject Him "shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and the glory of His might."

      We believe that, to fulfil the will of our Saviour, and in order to the conversion of the world, the scandal of a divided Christendom should be done away with. Nothing less than a visible, organic unity will satisfy the requirements of the Word of God.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1924, pp. 453-454.

      It has often been remarked that there is a catholicity in church hymnaries which is lacking in their formularies and creedal statements. When men are dealing with their fellowmen, they may speak the language of sectarianism; it would seem that when they pour out their souls to God in adoration, they become simply Christian and so express the aspirations of every sincere believer. On two occasions estimable correspondents have written a mild note of expostulation because we have published in the "Christian" helpful articles from the pens of men some of whose writings have rightly been criticised.

      Of course it is impossible for us, as it would be for any sensible man who gave time to the consideration of the matter, to assent to the implications of such an objection. Were we to attempt to act as suggested, where should we draw the line? If we were to publish nothing save from the pen of a man all of whose writings we approve, the "Christian" would consist of a series of blank pages.

      When the objection is made--as it sometimes has been--that the writings of men who are upholders of denominational practices out of harmony with the Word of God should never be printed, the same answer can be made. We are the spiritual, as well as the intellectual, heirs of the ages.

      Probably there is no successful preacher but who enriches his soul and prepared himself for his message by reading commentaries, sermons, devotional and other works written by men of various creeds, Roman Catholic and Protestant. Some of our people have written good and noble books; but the vast majority of helpful volumes are written by folk who worship not with us. We take the good, the Christian, the spiritual, and leave behind whatever of error we may encounter. We read Calvin and not accept his narrow doctrine of election and predestination; we study Luther with profit while rejecting as unscriptural his doctrine of justification by faith alone; we learn something from Francis of Assisi or Bernard and remain thoroughly Protestant. Many Christians have been indebted to Fosdick who regret some of his recent statements. To put all to the test and to retain the good is to act according to apostolic precept.

      God's saints have not been confined to any age or any community. All good and truth have their ultimate source in God. The children of God will wisely receive the truth wherever it appears. Wisely, then, do we use the great hymns, which so beautifully express the aspirations and adoration of God's people, and equally wisely do we receive instruction and nourishment for our souls from the writings of any who can give it to us.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1928, pp. 485-486.

      No one familiar with the New Testament needs to be told that in apostolic days there was nothing like the modern position. There were not found churches bearing different names with different conditions of membership or terms of fellowship, using different creeds, practicing different rites and ordinances. A member of one (local) New Testament church was qualified to be a member of any other church. Until we return to this position, and have such confessions and terms of membership as are universally valid, there can be no complete union; and to talk as if Christian unity were realised while membership or communion is denied is simply absurd.

      We have not used the phrase "organic union." We do believe in organic union, but the phrase is not a scriptural one, and it has been used with such different meanings that it is perhaps better to avoid it.

      Co-operation and federation, however, desirable they may appear in the absence of union, cannot be regarded as a satisfactory substitute for the New Testament position.

      The notion that a spiritual or mystical unity is by itself sufficient is discounted by our Saviour's prayer that his disciples might be one "that the world may believe."

      When in a church or people pleading for Christian union there is a failure to recognise the standing of other Christians, the devotion of their lives to Christ and their efforts (which at times may shame us) to advance the kingdom of God, there is an attitude of mind which hinders Christian union.

      Let us remember that we may disavow sectarianism and be sectarian at heart. It is possible to use a New Testament name in a denominational sense. It is possible to have a narrow view and a wizened spirit and yet in words plead for union. It is possible for us so to put "our people" in the forefront that "we" seek to become great and strong rather than that we wish to advance the kingdom of God. We do not say that we have succumbed to the temptation, but we should be on our guard against accepting the very position which we condemn in others.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1919, p. 447.

      It is obvious to any reasonable man that a restoration plea is at once a mere fundamental and a broader one than is a plea for union as such. The former embraces the latter, including all that is necessary to it, and possibly much more besides. A plea for the union of the people of God is but half of our plea--we must add that the basis of union is necessarily a scriptural one, and that brings us at once to our second aspect of restoration. Our supreme reason for union is that the Scriptures reveal this to be the Lord's will. For us that settles it, whether union on other grounds seems to be desirable or undesirable, expedient or inexpedient.

      Not even for a union of the scattered hosts of Christendom could we give up our Biblical heritage.

3. A REINTERPRETATION

A. R. Main, A.C., 1916, p. 129.

      In human concerns there is room for illimitable improvement. Principles and truth come from God, and are eternal. Methods are human, and change with the changing years. When God commands, there is an end of controversy; when the method of carrying out that command is not itself prescribed, there must be full liberty granted. We do not eat, or dress, or speak, as did our ancestors. The actions abide, but the manner of doing them has changed. Our fathers' ways are not always to be followed by us. Nor in religious affairs is there virtue in stereotyped methods. A man may be a conservative in doctrine, and a liberal in methods. In their ways of presenting the message, our pioneers were innovators. We must not condemn a good method because it is new, or hinder a preacher's work because, while faithful to the Word, he tries a new method of commending it. Much harm has been done by exalting methods to the level of principles. This is as pernicious as is the not uncommon practice of seeking to depart from principles under guise of reform in method. Not infrequently we hear those who believe in the permanence of truth reproached with being fossilised in methods. Just as often do we hear the cry that principles are in danger when new plans of work are adopted. The history of every religious movement abounds in amusing illustrations of this. We have by no means been free from it in the past, but we may expect that our shortcomings in the future will in another direction. In essentials there cannot be too much of unity; in non-essentials there is not likely to be too much liberty, provided charity be present.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1917, p. 275.

      There is a logic of the plea. To sober, sensible men it is one of the great attractions of the position occupied by churches of Christ. We are but saying in other words that we preach and teach the truth, and so make an appeal to reasonable men. It was the clearness, simplicity and definiteness of this message--as contrasted with the vague, mysterious and uncertain, utterances of denominational advocates--which first attracted many of us to the Restoration movement. We do no injustice to the plea when we say it is logical and reasonable. Such qualities are not ail which we desire; but logic is better than fallacy, and reason more desirable than ignorance or error.

      We would point out that there is a universe of difference between having a logic and resting on that logic. Logic is good in its place, but logic cannot save. A person may give an intellectual assent to Gospel truth, but refuse to yield himself to the Saviour. Did not John Wesley say that a man might be as orthodox as the devil, and as wicked? It is a comparatively easy thing to convince people of the theoretical rightness of the position which churches of Christ occupy, and of the scripturalness of the plea. It is a hard thing to get them to consecrate their lives to the service of Christ. It is very much easier to define repentance than it is to repent of sin, to confess Christ initially in word than to confess him day by day in word and deed. There are moral conditions of the faith which Christ wants us to have. The belief which saves is not a mere intellectual assent; it is one which engages the affections and stirs the emotions. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness."

      There are heresies of the heart as well as heresies of the head.

      The Lord never suggested that benevolence by itself would save, but undoubtedly he and his apostle James did insist that a faith which does not find its expression in beneficent service is useless. Neither Paul nor John has told us that there is no other culpable heresy, but it seems to us a fair inference from their writings that the unloving heart is the supreme heresy.

      If we are losing some members because they have rested on the logic of the plea, what steps should we take to counteract the evil? Manifestly, not that of ceasing to emphasise the truth of the plea, or to make an appeal to the reason of men. But we should stress the implications of the plea in the way of holy living, lofty spirituality, consecrated service. Not less teaching, but more all round teaching, is necessary. It would be a fatal mistake to think that to-day there is less need than formerly for instructing the members in what we call "first principles." Men are not best influenced for God by an appeal addressed exclusively to their reason. We need to have the faith and the love, the doctrine and the character, approved by Christ. The plea is more than logic; it is in addition faith and life and love. Probably what the churches most need is a two-fold campaign--of doctrine and of spirituality. By no means let any of us rest on the mere logic of our position.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1924, p. 633.

      The need of presenting a positive message to the world has often been insisted upon. Experience proves that the presentation of truth is much more effective than the denunciation of error. No permanent satisfaction in human life can be found in a merely critical or destructive attitude. Least of all can the Christian life be nourished on a negation.

      In the presentation of the distinctive position occupied by Churches of Christ, it is well to remember the lesson. We believe that that position is impregnable. It is Scriptural, and can therefore be expected to commend itself to Bible-loving people. There is continued need for a clear, strong and positive statement of the faith and order of the Apostolic church, and of the plan of salvation. But, we think, the less argumentative the method of presentation the better. It is wiser in a positive way to present the New Testament plan and plea for union than it is to single out a modern sect for denunciation. We yield to none in our belief in the need of doctrinal preaching, but that does not involve the substitution of argumentative discourse for simple proclamation. There is a manner of approach which arouses antagonism, and which is little likely to win. We may gain a victory in debate, but the heat engendered may not be conducive to the development of the Christian virtues in ourselves or in others. Constructive preaching is nearly always better in its results than destructive. Truth will itself rebuke error, goodness itself opposes evil. One of the most effective ways of fighting any evil is to exalt the opposite good.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1926, pp. 321-322.

      While for ourselves we do not think that the principle of using Bible names and phrases will do so much as some writers appear to believe, we are glad to acknowledge that on the whole our people have found the rule to work well. We are in most cordial agreement with the putting of Bible things in Bible words. The practice of this, especially if we combine with it liberty of opinion, will preserve the unity which exists and pave the way for a still larger measure of union.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1930, pp. 609-610.

      Salvation is of the Lord! There is no merit in us or in our acts so that by these we are commended to God. A man does not receive salvation as a quid pro quo, or as payment for work done. A legalistic spirit is utterly opposed to the spirit of Christianity.

      That some are in danger of taking a legalistic and mechanical view of salvation is no reason why we should go to an opposite extreme and neglect the definite requirements of our Lord. We dare not let talk against "doing" or "legalism" lead us to ignore Acts 16:31, 2:38 or 22:16. The commission, with both its offer of God's salvation and its call to obedience, still stands. But our faith, our repentance and our baptism, do not have within any or all of them an efficacy apart from the merits of him who alone is our saviour. Our faith is in him; our repentance preludes a turning from sin to his service; our baptism is in his name, unto him and symbolises the entrance upon a new life of consecrated service to him. Were we to put the means in the place of Christ we should dishonor our Lord; but when we obey the Saviour's word in loving obedience to him, and accept for ourselves and pass on to others the promises which he has made, we cannot but be doing the right thing. We honor the Lord when we honor his institutions.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1937, pp. 289-290.

      We continue to preach the Gospel of our lord in the terms of the commission he gave to his disciples. We call men to the obedience of faith. We urge them to receive his ordinances, to join in the fellowship and worship of his church, to give themselves in service for God and humanity. In pleading for Christianity as it was at the beginning, we are not guilty of the folly of advocating the observance of mere customs of bygone ages, but rather seeking to get men to accept a religion which is pure and undefiled, as it was revealed by the holy and unchanging Son of God, and which in its essentials is permanent and unchanged.

      The justifying reason for our calling men to return to the faith and order of apostolic days may be expressed in the words of Sir William Muir, a former Principal of the University of Edinburgh; "Close to the fountain-head, the deteriorating tendencies of human nature towards will-worship and adoration of material objects, had not yet got time to foul the stream. It is right and proper that we should find the stream run pure and clear, the nearer we approach the spring."

4. PROSELYTISM

A. R. Main, A.C., 1923, p. 81.

      It is often made an objection to our people that they are given to proselytising. It is rather curious that the word "proselyte" or "proselytising" should most frequently to-day be used in a bad sense. Literally, "proselyte" simply means "visitor" or "newcomer."

      Members of Churches of Christ plead not guilty to the charge of proselytism in any bad sense of the term. Their aim is to preach Christ and to teach the system of religious truth revealed in the New Testament. They do not wantonly attack their religious neighbors; but, as H.G. Harward well puts it, they "do seek to lead people to accept that which we believe to be the truth revealed in God's Word. Sometimes such acceptance means the severance of former religious association and fellowship. But all who faithfully preach seek to do the same thing--to lead others to their religious position."

      We ask all people to fulfil the clearly revealed and scriptural requirements for acceptance of Christ as Saviour and for admission into his church. The fulfillment of such conditions does not make a person a member of any sect. Those who are enlightened as to the New Testament teaching regarding church membership, its privileges and its duties, are not likely to be content with a denominational status. This is not proselytism on our part; it is an exhibition of loyalty to divine truth on theirs.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1929, p. 469.

      In one of our papers we recently came across these two helpful sentences; "We are not asking the world to join us, We are asking them to join Christ." The words were found in one of our most conservative journals and are worthy of notice. In these days of what we may call competitive churchianity there is a real danger lest the opinion receive some sanction that men can rightfully be called from one denomination to another. Doubtless there are many who think of our own work and preaching chiefly as efforts to lead people to a transfer from one communion to another. Even when we are pleading for the restoration of the faith and order of the apostolic church, or for Christian union, it is to be feared that the impression is given that we are merely expressing the conviction that people should come to us. It is most unfortunate that we should give such an impression; if the fault is ours, it should be avoided. They who take a purely unsectarian position, and who preach Christ, urging their hearers to accept the Lord Jesus as Saviour and-comply with the initial requirements of the Gospel as well as honor the Lord in a life of service, are not asking folk to unite with them; though, of course, to the extent that preacher and hearer both comply with the advice, they will be united. All the Lord's people are members of his body, the church, and all the redeemed of earth are of the one family. The church is not ours, but Christ's. We never ask men to join our church, but let them know what God has done for their redemption, and what he required them to do in order to accept his salvation; we tell them too, that he adds to his church those that are being saved.

5. BAPTISM AND FORGIVENESS

A. R. Main, A.C., 1919, p. 119.

      Let me first deal with your definite inquiry; "Is baptism in water essential to salvation?" Now, I am not in a position to deny that some of our people may have so spoken; but I have never, so far as I can remember, heard any of our preachers put the matter thus. The word "essential" in this connection is unscriptural, and we rightly prefer to use biblical expressions. Again, "essential" is too strong a term. If one thing is "essential" to another thing, then the second can by no possibility be had without the first. I feel sure that nobody on earth thinks of baptism as a thing which in this sense is "essential" to salvation. Lots of people, for instance, in Old Testament times, lived saintly lives and were accepted by God. Baptism was evidently not "essential" to them. One of your correspondents rightly points out that the dying malefactor evidently did not require baptism. Our preachers teach this as regularly as does your correspondent. There have been people who never heard of the true Bible teaching regarding baptism, yet who sincerely loved the Lord--it is both ridiculous and libelous to say that the Churches of Christ affirm the non-salvability of such by a doctrine of the "essential" nature of baptism.

      While members of Churches of Christ, therefore, decline to use the unscriptural term concerning which you inquire, I wish to prevent the drawing of an implication to the detriment of the importance of the ordinance. Baptism is not unimportant. The Lord Jesus in the commission said men were to be baptised "into (not merely "in") the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit" (Matt. 28:19). The Apostle Peter in his great address on Pentecost gave the following instructions to seekers for salvation: "Repent ye, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Clearly what the repentance was for, the baptism was for. If these people were to be baptised because they were already saved, they must have repented for a similar reason. Were the Pentecostians misled when they were told that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was "unto the remission of sins/" Not unless the Holy Spirit himself can mislead people; for Peter was speaking as the Spirit sent by the Lord gave him utterance. Saul of Tarsus heard from a divinely-commissioned man the words, "Why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). Baptism, the Apostle Paul says, in "into Jesus Christ" and "into his death" (Rom. 6:3). Men, says the same apostle, are sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus, "for as many of you as were baptised into Christ did put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). Men are baptised in one spirit "into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13).

      Not one of the above texts says that "baptism is essential to salvation," but together they show that the promise of pardon is made to the believer who surrenders himself to the Lord in baptism. I suppose that every Christian will allow that willful disobedience is tantamount to rebellion against the authority of God; none of us thinks that he who knows the Divine will in any particular--be it baptism or other requirement--and who says, "I decline to obey" has any right to expect pardon until that attitude is repented of. So, even from the point of view of an act of obedience, the great importance of baptism

must be conceded. But baptism differs from many other commands in that to it are attached promises which are not attached to ordinary cases of obedience. Not just any obedience has the promises I have quoted in the previous paragraph.

      I wish you clearly to understand that when members of Churches of Christ speak of baptism as having attached to it God's promise of pardon, they never mean that to baptism by itself there is any promise given. This is one of our objections to infant baptism. The Scriptures always associate baptism with faith. Unless in baptism a believer in the Lord makes a loving surrender of himself to the Saviour whose atoning death is the ground of human hope, the mere outward observance of the rite would be of no avail. But where faith and repentance have preceded it, then the Lord has attached very special promises indeed to obedience in baptism.

6. CONGRESS ON UNION

A.C., 1913, pp. 432-433.

      Churches of Christ in their capacity as Members of the Commission of the Church Union.

      The desirability of Christian union is affirmed, and, as requested, the following is submitted as an outline of the doctrine and polity which the representatives of the Churches of Christ consider as being essential to Christian union.

      It is agreed that the most important statement in regard to union is that recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John, in which we have recorded our Lord's prayer for the unity of his people. It is thought, however, that this great prayer has only received partial consideration, attention being centred on one portion of it in the neglect of the others. It has scarcely been sufficiently emphasised that the unity for which Christ prayed was the result of something which preceded it. Briefly stated, the sequence of thought is as follows:--

      1st. Sanctification or consecration in the truth.

      2nd. As resulting from this, a unity similar to that subsisting between the Father and the Son; and

      3rd. As a further result, the conviction produced in the minds of the people of the world that Jesus was the Sent of God. This gives us a trinity of thought which may be expressed in three words,--1st, Truth, 2nd, Unity, 3rd, Belief. From these considerations it seems beyond controversy that agreement in regard to the truth is essential to unity, and therefore it is upon truth that we are to place the emphasis, because the relation between truth and unity is that of cause and effect. Agreement as to truth means unity. It is upon those lines that the present Commission is proceeding, inasmuch as the first step taken is to discover how the respective religious bodies stand in regard to doctrine and polity, and their nearness or otherwise to each other will determine the possibility of union in the future.

      In regard to what constitutes truth in this connection there is no ambiguity. The Saviour's prayer gives the definition: "Thy Word is Truth." This Word is found in the Bible, and for our present purpose in the New Testament. Our saviour in his prayer does not give us the details of the truth which is essential to unity. We get that elsewhere. We turn to his apostles who were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, and from them we learn the elements of truth that are essential to doctrinal unity. These elements, seven in number, are set forth in the fourth chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. They constitute the doctrinal unity of which the Holy Spirit is the author. On this passage the "Westminster New Testament" has the following note--"It is the most remarkable utterance regarding the universal church to be found in the whole of the New Testament." The seven essentials of the unity of which the Holy Spirit is the author are as follows:--

      One body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.

      This enumeration limits the number of items on which doctrinal unity is demanded. The position which we take in regard to them is that they cannot be added to or taken from. In regard to the definition of the several items, we hold they are sufficiently explained in the language of the New Testament, and therefore all merely human creeds are rendered superfluous. We believe that in regard to six of these items there is substantial agreement among evangelical churches, and, as coming under that head, the Churches of Christ are practically at one with the rest. In one item alone they differ from some of the churches, in that they hold that the "one baptism" referred to in Ephesians is immersion in water of those capable of exercising faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. They do not recognise anything else as Scriptural baptism. On this subject equally with the others compromise should not be possible. As there must be a basis of unity, it is reasonable to ask that the one provided for the church by the Holy Spirit

should be accepted without hesitation. Loyalty to revealed truth demands that we should give it preference before any human conception of what constitutes the essentials of Christian unity.

      The basis of unity of which the Holy Spirit is the author has the distinct advantage of limiting the number of things upon which agreement is necessary, and leaves out many things about which a difference of opinion is allowable.

      As a step in the direction of union it is urged that the party names which at present distinguish the various Christian communities be abandoned, and one that all can accept and has the merit of being Scriptural, be substituted for them. The existing names are symbols of division, and so long as they are perpetuated, the world will never believe that the churches are united. Party names constitute one of the greatest obstacles to Christian union. If organic unity ever becomes a reality, the united body cannot, will not, be called by a sectarian name. In harmony with the belief in the use of Scriptural names, the Churches of Christ (while of course they agree that those of sufficient ability and character may be set apart for the ministry of the word), do not accept current ecclesiastical titles and the common distinction between "clergy" and "laity."

      In regard to church polity, we must in this, as in other things, follow, as nearly as possible, the divine model. Where it is claimed there is liberty, this liberty must not violate any New Testament principle, for example, it must not violate the principle of the common priesthood of all believers. We know of no valid reason why we should not return to the simple apostolic idea of church government, and give up the elaborate machinery of modern ecclesiasticism. "In apostolic times, churches wherever formed" says Lyman Coleman, "became separate and independent bodies, competent to appoint their own officers and to administer their own government without reference or subordination to any control, authority, or foreign power. In each of the churches several persons were appointed, with equal and coordinate authority, as overseers of the church." These officers were known by the name of elders or bishops. Besides these there were also deacons, and these constituted the officers of the several churches before the monarchical idea began to develop itself. A return to the more democratic idea of church government would make the road to union very much easier. If, in the attempt to gain organic unity, there should be a centralising of authority, and the establishment of a big ecclesiastical organisation, it would be preferable that the churches remain as they are at present until they saw a better way out of the difficulty.

      Light may be thrown on the position of the Churches of Christ by a comparison of it with the well-known declaration of a great church. The Church of England at the Lambeth Conference set forth a basis of union in four propositions, as follows:--

      (a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all things necessary to salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.

      (b) The Apostles' Creed, as the baptismal symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.

      (c) The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself--baptism and the Supper of the Lord--ministered with the unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and of the elements ordained by him.

      (d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of his church.

      A. The first of these receives our hearty approval, but with a preference for the word "only" instead of "ultimate."

      B. In the second,--for the "apostles' Creed," we should substitute the confession of faith made by Peter at Caesarea Philippi. It is the only creed that needs no revision. For the "Nicene Creed" we should substitute as a sufficient statement of Christian faith the seven unities of Ephesians fourth.

      C. To the third we should add, "And that these ordinances be restored to the place and significance they occupied in the church of apostolic times. The Lord's Supper as the central object in connection with the worship of the church on 'the first day of the week.' and baptism meaning thereby immersion, to be administered only to those who sincerely profess their faith in Christ."

      D. In regard to the fourth, we should delete any reference to the "Historic Episcopate" and substitute for it the New Testament idea of elders and deacons.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1916, pp. 409.

      The public press of Saturday last contained the following interesting piece of cable news:

      "The Rev. R.J. Campbell, formerly pastor of the Congregational City Temple, London, who recently entered the Anglican Church, is publishing a book entitled, 'My Spiritual Pilgrimage.'

      "In this work Mr. Campbell maintains that all ordinations, except those of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, are invalid.

      "Newspapers foreshadow that this contention will give rise to a resounding controversy."

      The theory Mr. Campbell is announced as supporting is at war with both Scripture and common sense. There is no biblical warrant for the view that ordination at the hands of a bishop in an apostolic succession is necessary to a valid ministry. The New Testament knows of no diocesan bishop, but of a plurality of bishops in the local church. There was no clerical caste in the apostolic church. The thought that "ordination" is needful before men can "administer the sacraments" does not come from the New Testament. Yet, outside of the Anglican Church, this view is current; there are home missionaries of Protestant bodies in Australia who are allowed to preach the gospel by their church authorities, but who are expressly debarred from the right to baptise. This notion is of Rome, the mother of errors. Once more, as the veriest tyro in Scriptures knows, there is not a scrap of evidence in support of the doctrine of apostolic succession of which the Anglican Church makes so much. The apostles as such had no successors.

      It is one of the ironies of fate that the Anglican believer in apostolic succession has the tables turned on himself. Church of England ecclesiastics recognise the orders of the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Church. But Rome absolutely refuses to allow the validity of Anglican orders! R.J. Campbell, if he be correctly reported, must consider that Dr. Clifford, Dr. Burford Hooke (the Chairman of the Congregational Union, of which Mr. Campbell was formerly a member) and other "Dissenting" ministers, have no valid ministry; but now he must recognise the poorest specimen of a Romish priest as in the line of succession and possessed of power to minister. So Campbell may decide; we may rejoice that God's judgments are different. There are ordained men with pride and exclusiveness enough to sink a Dreadnought (as one recent sufferer at their hands put it) who, judged by the test of ability, education, consecration or spiritual results, are not worthy to tie the shoe lace of some of the men of God whose ministry they deny.

F. G. Dunn, A.C., 1913, pp. 677-678.

      This spirit of compromise is seen in the "amended statement of the Baptist Commission" in which the following paragraph is found: "While firmly believing that the baptism of intelligent believers in Christ is the best safeguard of spiritual church membership, inasmuch as the candidate of his own will yields to the yoke of Christ, yet they believe that the majority of Baptists would consider the question of the unity of the churches to be the major question, hence they would be willing (it is believed) so to adjust themselves to the new situation as to cease to demand the immersion of intelligent believers as a sine qua non of church membership. They could not surrender the truth of believers' baptism, yet they would be prepared to admit the broader basis of church membership." How far the foregoing statement represents the attitude of the general body of the Baptists we do not know. We imagine, however, that a very considerable body of Victorian Baptists would repudiate it as a statement of their position. The statement itself is what the Higher Critics would term a composite document. There is evidence of two hands in its structure--the Spurr element and the more conservative, the former, however, dominating the latter.

      The interesting part of this phase of the question is the cool reception given by nonimmersionists to this immersionist compromise. After all, people like consistency, and speaking for ourselves, we may say that we respect a consistent paedobaptist more than we do an inconsistent immersionist.

      Any how, the summary presented by the chairman of the Commission on Union is not very flattering to the Baptist compromise. A paragraph in this summary reads: "The 'Open Membership' Baptist Churches, while refusing to acknowledge the baptism of persons baptised in infancy, welcome them into membership. The other churches, while recognising the value of this concession, might feel a difficulty about uniting with those who so minimise the value of baptism as to admit to the Lord's Table and to full membership persons whom they regard as unbaptised. This, however, might not prohibit union." (Italics ours). Hitherto, we have regarded the Roman Catholic Church as the only body that claimed that the Church was superior to the written Word, and had the right to make alterations in New Testament doctrine and practice. It appears, however, that the Baptist Church claims the same right, at any rate in regard to baptism. In the New Testament, baptism is a prerequisite to church membership; the Baptist compromise says that it may be dispensed with. The unity of which the Holy Spirit is the Author, includes the "one baptism" as an essential; the Baptist compromise says it is not.

      The position of the Churches of Christ on this matter is quite clear. They stand, among other things, for the restoration of baptism to the place and significance it occupied in the New Testament

church. Other religious bodies may not agree with their views in regard to this matter, but they will respect their consistency. A union that is gained at the sacrifice of truth is not worth having.

7. CHURCHES OF CHRIST AND BAPTISTS

A.C., 1913, pp. 194-195.

      In June last a letter was received from the Baptist Union of Victoria, intimating that at the annual meeting of the Union a resolution was passed, "That a Conference between leaders of the Churches of Christ and leaders appointed by our Council be sought with a view to closer union."

      A reply was sent favorable to such a conference being held. Eleven from each body were appointed, the following--representing the Baptists: Messrs. F.C. Spurr F.E. Harry, W.J. Eddy; W.M. Cartwright, J.H. Goble, H.H. Jeffs, W. Clark, G.P. Rees, J.C. Martin, F.J. Wilkin and H.S. Martin, and the following representing the Churches of Christ: Messrs. H. Kingsbury, A.R. Main, F.G. Dunn, W.C. Craigie, W.H. Allen, C.M. Gordon, J.W. Baker, A.C. Rankine, J. Pittman, Robert Lyall and T.B. Fischer. These brethren met on several occasions. The result was the following recommendations by the joint representatives:--

      1. That the papers of Mr. Jeffs and Principal Main be published in the official organs of both bodies.

      2. That Principal Main comply with the request that he should present a paper at a meeting of the Baptist Fraternal, to which preachers of Churches of Christ would be invited.

      3. That a combined public questions demonstration be held about April, 1913.

      4. That deputations from the Baptist Union be received at annual meeting of Churches of Christ, and vice versa.

      5. That there be an exchange of speakers on Foreign Mission nights during annual meetings of both bodies.

      6. That it be recommended to the Executives of both bodies that this general committee be constituted a standing committee, with Mr. Jeffs and Mr. Kingsbury as conveners.

      7. That a fraternal spirit be cultivated by means of frequent exchange of pulpits.

      A mutually fraternal feeling was manifested at all the meetings, and it is anticipated that much good will result from the joint conferences that have been held.

      On the motion of F.G. Dunn, the clause relating to the Conference with Baptist Union was carried. Bro. Dunn spoke of the friendly feeling prevailing throughout the Conference, and trusted that the time would come when closer union on a Scriptural basis would be possible.

      This was spoken to by E.H.P. Edwards.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1915, pp. 441-442.

      Some few weeks ago we received a copy of "A Basis of Union Suggested by the Joint Committee from the Churches of Christ and the Baptist Churches" of Bendigo, which a brother forwarded to us with a request that we express an opinion on the matter, preferably in the columns of this paper.

      As our leader of last week showed, and as we trust the whole tenor of our work and speech reveals, we deeply sympathise with every sincere effort to attain the unity for which our Saviour prayed. In the case of our Baptist brethren particularly, we earnestly long for the day when union with them will be an accomplished fact. In so far as the Bendigo movement is intended and destined to advance the cause of Christian union, we rejoice in it. Even if it be found to be premature or faulty, we can be glad because of the spirit that impels Christian folk to seek for a closer connection. Our doubts as to the scheme presented are not rightly to be attributed to a desire to do what our brother (in a momentary lapse from the good taste which should characterise even a Christian's criticism of his brethren) calls "rope ourselves off as Christians of a better and a different calibre from others," nor yet to a feeling of pessimism as to the ultimate answer to our Lord's prayer for the union of his disciples. We can plead for adherence to the Word of God without being open to a charge of claiming personal superiority or of ignoring any of the good there is in others.

      A few general remarks on the proposed basis of union may be in order. Its fundamental weakness is that there is in it no reference to the Word of God as the final court of appeal.

      The proposed name, "Christian Union Church," has the great demerit of not being a scriptural one. What is, possibly, worse, no reader could gather from the paragraph dealing with the name that there are such things as scriptural names for the body of Christ. We note also that "the names of the churches

concerned" are to be perpetuated. The net result so far is that whereas our Baptist brethren add one unscriptural name to another, those hitherto content with a scriptural nomenclature are to be persuaded to adopt an unscriptural one. This is to us a very curious way of approaching the question of union. Unscriptural names are the perpetuators and not the healers of division.

      The section dealing with conditions of entrance into the church shows the characteristic defect of the whole basis. There is in it no statement as to the teaching of the Word. We sincerely wish that the brethren had approached the inquiry and the statement of its results with such words as "From an investigation of the New Testament Scriptures we find," etc. We do not for a moment believe that the brethren of the Committee think that the Lord has left men free to decide as to terms of entrance into the church; but yet the words "we are glad to suggest this as our future method" leave the wrong impression. In this same paragraph there is a word which is either remarkably significant or astonishingly superfluous. "We are glad to suggest this as our future method of church entrance." "Future" is quite unnecessary if it has been the case that up to the present the churches conferring as to union have both been faithful to the scriptural requirement of the baptism of men into Christ and into the body, the church. We are altogether ignorant as to whether Hargreaves-st. Bendigo, is an-open-membership Baptist Church (the contradiction in terms must really not be set to our account; it is due to the extraordinary fact that in Victoria, as elsewhere, there are so-called Baptist churches which are not composed of baptised persons). If there are now any unbaptised members in Hargreaves-st. church, then "our future method of church entrance" would ensure the continuance of these as members of the "Christian Union Church." This would be quite opposed to New Testament warrant. "Future" is either superfluous or unscriptural.

      The paragraph on the Lord's Supper does not need much comment. The time of celebration is a small matter. Yet we should be sorry to see a policy adopted of making the Supper on two Lord's days in the month an appendage to an evening service.

      In the section on "The Fellowship of Giving" occurs the expressed judgment of the Committee that after the union "the denominational interests" are to be met in a certain way. "Christian union" . . . "Denominational interests"--the phrases are hardly synonymous; they are opposed. In a real Christian union there will be no "denominational interests" to conserve. Union will transcend denominationalism.

      There seems to us to be a scheme for a certain kind of co-operation or federation presented by the Bendigo Committee, but little is given that will help on the cause of Christian union. The chief lack in the scheme is the omission of reference to the Bible as our rule of faith and practice. We have a confident hope of union on the Lord's own basis revealed in his Word; we despair of it on any other, especially on any which recognises "denominational interests." We should love to think that at Bendigo and everywhere else our Baptist brethren and we could present a united plea for primitive Christianity, its doctrines and its life. May God hasten the day when this will be realised.

Jas. E. Thomas, A.C., 1917, p. 467.

      The unfortunate failure of the union of two congregations at Port Pirie, S.A., is a most discouraging event. About five and a half years ago these two churches, representing the Baptists and Churches of Christ in that town, had fraternal conferences of their appointed representatives, and after much prayerful consideration, agreed upon a common and satisfactory basis of union. Everything seemed favorable to a pleasing demonstration of the possibility of a lasting and helpful union of these two congregations. In all good faith the building of the Church of Christ wad disposed of, and the money put toward the erection of a new building in a needy adjacent centre in the town. For over five years the united gifts and labors of both congregations were consolidated, and God owned and blessed the efforts of those who as a Christian church thus sought to honor Him for whose glory they became one. The movement was looked upon by many as somewhat experimental, but it had the hearty co-operation of the Churches of Christ, though it did not seem to have such an unqualified encouragement from our Baptist brethren. The property in which the united church met always remained according to the trust deed, in the possession of the Baptist Union. While the original movers in the laudable effort remained, all seemed to be harmonious and satisfactory. In the course of events, both the Baptist minister who helped so nobly this union, and the leading representatives of the Churches of Christ, removed to other parts, and the officials who were of the original Baptist brethren, and still remained, grew somewhat restless and dissatisfied. The basis of the union provided that only those who were immersed believers should be admitted to membership. This seemed a fair and scriptural ground for the Baptist Church as well as the Church of Christ. Unfortunately, the definite and clear agreement made such a little time since has now been broken, and the scrap of paper has been dishonored. We believe that this has hindered instead of furthered the possibility of the union we have so long hoped for and desired. It has left the members who believe in the scriptural position for five years practiced by the Christian Church there no other alternative than to seek another home. We have no doubt that matters financially will be satisfactorily and amicably adjusted, but the failure of a movement

so deserving of success does not enhance the confidence Christians should have in each other. The basis of union between Baptists and Churches of Christ should be one for prayerful consideration of both bodies as such, and can scarcely be undertaken soon again by separate congregations. We regret exceedingly this unfortunate failure.

A.C., 1920, p. 167.

      The Home Mission Committee reported that, following on a general meeting with the men of the Baptist Church, a committee of seven was appointed to meet a like number from the Baptist Union to discuss the question of co-operation. Two meetings of the joint committee had been held, resulting in the following decisions:--"(1) That we recommend that where required letters of transfer of baptised members be given and received from the Baptist Churches. (2) That inquiries be made as to the possibility of a union of the Baptist Church and the Church of-Christ at Northam and West Guildford. (3) That we suggest to the social questions committee of each body the advisability of conferring for the purpose of united action. (4) That we suggest to the Bible Schools committee of each church the advisability of conferring for the purpose of contests and demonstrations. (5) That we recommend the interchange of speakers at Foreign Mission appeals. (6) That we recommend that deputations visit the annual Conferences to convey fraternal greetings. (7) That we recommend that, before opening in a new field, we agree to confer with the other body." It was also decided that the committees continue to meet to discuss matters of co-operation, with a view to ultimate unity. Considerable discussion took place on the seventh clause, which was finally deleted. The other clauses were agreed to.

8. WIDER ECUMENICAL DEVELOPMENTS

A. R. Main, A.C., 1918, p. 533.

      One of the most important conferences yet held in the Commonwealth in connection with the union question sat for three days in Melbourne last week. A general committee of delegates, of the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational Churches met under the presidency of Prof. Adam, of Ormond College.

      It is not our purpose at present to comment on the proposed basis of union. We may, however, express our pleasure that three bodies so influential and with so much in common, should give themselves thus seriously to the removal of the reproach of division. We cannot but thank God for this sign of progress, and sincerely trust that not only may this proposed union be consummated, but that it will be but the beginning of a wider movement which will be for God's glory and the good of mankind.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1919, p. 605.

      Our readers are familiar with the idea of a World Conference on Faith and Order. It is to the Protestant Episcopal Church of U.S.A. that credit belongs for the proposal of such a Conference to further the cause of Christian Union. Commissions representing all the Protestant churches, as well as the Eastern Churches, have been appointed. Churches of Christ in America, Great Britain and Australia are interested in the movement. While we may have little hope of union until many of the participating bodies show a greater tendency to discard human tradition for the teachings and practices of the Word of God, still the aim and motive of those responsible for the overtures are so admirable and Christlike that we most sincerely wish them blessing in their efforts, and we shall look forward with interest to the result of their efforts.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1927, pp. 485-486.

      Members of Churches of Christ are especially interested in all movements designed to unite the divided hosts of Christendom. The World Conference of Faith and Order furnishes the best illustration of the new-found desire. It represents a movement and an alliance which may well be described as greater

than the League of Nations. If Christians in all lands would unite, and would together stand for righteousness, then much more than the aims of the League would be achieved.

      Difficulties of course will present themselves with the other subjects to be discussed. Regarding the church's confession some will plead for creeds of the third century rather than the primitive and simple confession of faith. Ministry will be a difficult subject in view of the claims of the episcopate. Much has to be done before there can be unity regarding "the sacraments." But that these questions can be freely and frankly considered, each communion seeking to know the position of the others, is an occasion of thankfulness.

      May all at Lausanne, and all believers the world over, be led to a more willing acceptance of the authority of Christ, to a greater knowledge of his word and will, and into a life of deeper consecration to his service. All this, that our Lord may be glorified and "that the world may believe."

9. ROMAN CATHOLICISM

A. R. Main, A.C., 1919, p. 159.

      May we not profitably ask, What church is this whose head is being approached by a delegation of bishops, and whose blessing and co-operation in a union effort are being sought? The answer, in part, is easy. It is:--

      The church which claims that outside of itself salvation is impossible. Pope Boniface's famous bull, "Unam sanctam," declared that "there is one holy catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. We declare, announce and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff"

      The church which has spilt as if it were water the blood of countless numbers of God's best saints, and which has never renounced the right of coercion.

      The church which places tradition on a level with Scripture, and, denying man's right to read and judge for himself regarding the Word of God, forbids interpretation other than "according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

      The church which derogates from the dignity of God the Father and the honor due to the Lord Jesus by the undue exaltation of Mary, whom it styles Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Lady and Mistress of the Universe, Star of the Sea, Queen of Mercy, etc.

      The church which teaches and practices the worship of Mary, of saints and images, when it is written, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

      The church which claims the right (and acts on its claim) to add to or modify the ordinances of God's appointment.

      The church which has a hierarchy fashioned after Jewish or pagan pattern, to the complete abandonment of New Testament warrant and example.

      The church which claims for the Roman Pontiff infallibility, and makes that irrational doctrine an article of faith, despite the well-known historical facts that Popes have been convicted of heresy, have contradicted popes, and have even placed other popes under an anathema.

      The church which holds the unscriptural doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and which assigns to limbo, not to heaven, unbaptised infants.

      The church which holds the blasphemous doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, and teaches that a priest to-day can miraculously repeat the sacrifice of our Lord who, according to the Scriptures, offered himself up once for all for human sin.

      The church which through the centuries has corrupted thousands of souls by its practice of auricular confession.

      The church which has an abominable doctrine and sale of indulgences--a doctrine and practice which in many places and at different times (whatever Rome's theory may be; and that theory is at best quite unscriptural) has worked itself out into a virtual license to sin, people often taking the indulgence ticket as if it were a guarantee beforehand given for the pardon of the coveted sinful deed.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1924, pp. 17-18.

      Members of Churches of Christ have expressed themselves as willing to unite with any people at any time on the basis revealed in the New Testament. We should be as willing thus to unite with a Roman Catholic as with a Protestant. In our congregations are those from the different Protestant

communions. We would not differentiate. But church union, and specially union with the Roman church as such, is quite impossible to an enlightened Christian and believer in the authority of the Word of God.

A. R. Main, A.C., 1937, p. 480.

      We gladly acknowledge the presence of truth wherever it is found, and there is truth in Roman Catholics which we may admire. The way in which the Roman Catholic Church has stood for a belief in God the Father and in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of commendation. The free criticism of the Christ of the Gospels and the wantonly light manner of treating the Scriptures which are so common to-day find no encouragement in that church. Again, the devotion and zeal of many Roman Catholics are such as to shame the apathy of many Protestants. Even if, as we believe, some of the convictions firmly held are not well said, and the zeal displayed very often is not according to knowledge, still much is praiseworthy. It will be acknowledged too that no communion has a monopoly of saints, and that there have been many valid examples of holy and godly living on the part of Roman Catholics, whether in the priesthood, the various orders, or amongst laymen.

[NOF 468-484]