Speaking in general terms, it may be said of Isaac Errett that he contributed to this movement the energies of a great mind, the love of a great heart, and the service of a great life. But, in particular, Mr. Errett's contribution to the movement consisted of two essential items: Firstly, he gave his energies to the task of maintaining the integrity of the plea itself. Secondly, he labored faithfully and persistently to hold the movement to its original purpose.

      The first great strain that came upon the movement, by which its cohesive power was tested, resulted from the Civil War. In that sanguinary struggle, Mr. Errett had decided views and strong sympathies, and on proper occasions gave expression to them in no uncertain way. But, in the language of his biographer, "with him the war ended at Appomattox, and ever afterward he contributed his powerful influence, and not in vain, to the revival of fraternal feelings, and the restoration and the maintenance of sweet and harmonious relations. It is hardly necessary to say that these Christian efforts were cordially reciprocated by his Southern brethren, who, whatever their sins, and whatever their wrongs, are a generous, noble and magnanimous people." During the stormy days of "Reconstruction," when partisan zeal outran judgment, and other religious communions were dividing and relations among our own brethren were very much strained, Isaac Errett brought to bear the powers of both mind and heart in manly and Christian endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.

      The next danger arose over the communion question. Some influential brethren took the position that only immersed people should be allowed to sit with us at the Lord's table. Other disciples, led by Mr. Errett, maintained that, as the Lord's Supper is for the Lord's people, and we are inadequate [395] to determine who they are with infallibility, it must be left to the decision of every individual, he assuming all responsibility in the premises. After considerable discussion, the brethren quite generally settled down in the conviction that we are not at liberty to either invite to, or debar from, the Lord's Supper.

      But I wish to speak particularly of Mr. Errett's influence and efficiency in holding our movement strictly to its original design. No man in the movement understood its spirit and genius better than Isaac Errett, and in his efforts to hold it rigidly to its original purpose, he had to contend against a too severe conservatism in one direction, and a dangerous radicalism in another. This again required the exercise of cool judgment, keen discrimination and broad intelligence, and naturally brought Mr. Errett to the front again.

      The first battle that had to be fought on this plane had reference to the use

J. B. BRINEY.

of instrumental music in Christian worship, and the employment of missionary societies in promotion of the gospel of the Son of God. It was thought by some brethren of influence that the use of such instrumentalities was in contravention of the "ancient order of things," and subversive of the authority of Christ. Fortunately, his opponents were divided among themselves.

      Mr. Errett, followed by others, took the position that this is a matter that belongs to the incidentals, not to the essence, of worship, and was therefore to be dealt with from the standpoint of expediency, and that great forbearance and patience should be exercised by all parties, trusting to time, education and a better understanding to solve the question. While contending that a congregation of Christ's free people has the right to use instruments, Mr. Errett, for the sake of peace and harmony, advised against their use so long as those who favored their use could make this sacrifice of their liberty without admitting the right of others to demand this at their hands on the ground that it belongs to the faith of the gospel, and is to be regarded as a test of fellowship.

      The following is his answer to a correspondent relative to the admission of the "pious unimmersed": "The Doctor finds a difficulty and a gross inconsistency in this: That while we profess that the creed of the Reformation is that 'Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,' we, nevertheless, refuse to receive even the sincerest and the most excellent who believe this, unless they are immersed. He concludes that 'the real, efficacious creed of the Reformation will be found to consist of two propositions: (1) Immersion only is baptism; (2) no one can be received into a church of Christ without immersion.'

      "There is here the very common fallacy of using a word in one sense in the premises, and in quite another in the conclusion. When it is said that the creed of the Reformation is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the word is used simply and solely to denote what is believed. It has no reference to practice or a rule of action, but is confined strictly to a matter of faith. It was never said nor meant that nothing but faith is required, but that nothing as respects faith and the object of faith is required but this. Baptism is not a truth to be believed, but a commandment to be obeyed. When persons are invited to come on this basis of faith, it is always with the understanding that they are to walk in the commandments of the Lord Jesus. To say, therefore, that we are inconsistent with this creed in requiring those who accept it to walk in the commandments of the Lord Jesus, is wide of the mark. And to represent immersion as our real creed is to change the meaning, of the word creed, and involves an evident sophistry."

      Mr. Errett had the charge of intolerance against our plea to combat. This allegation he met and refuted, as follows:

      "It is growing into fashion now with the most modern advocates of Christian union, to charge us with intolerance and exclusiveness. As a piece of [396] controversial tactics, this may be considered somewhat adroit. For fifty years, while these men were devotees of sect, and found ample range for their Christian charity within the range of one denomination, and sometimes a sect of insignificant proportions, the Disciples were plying the charge of intolerance against sect advocates with great power and pungency. If now they can steal our thunder and turn the tables against us, it will be, to say the least, a skillful maneuver. It is quite possible, however, that this charge may be a trick of controversy, rather than a matter of fact. Come to think of it, we remember that it is the stale old charge that was urged against us long ago, by the sects to which these modern advocates were then giving their strength. We were then charged with intolerance because we would not admit that the sects, as such, were churches of Christ, and because we called on all believers to come out of Babylon and return to Jerusalem. Now, since these gentlemen yield the point then in controversy, and join us in denouncing the sect principle as unscriptural, mischievous and sinful, they condemn us as intolerant because we will not swing with them to another extreme, and abandon divine appointments, as well as human inventions--the word of God, as well as the traditions of men."

      Pretty soon another danger confronted the movement, and that was an effort to substitute for the real union which the Disciples had in view, a pseudo-union that would not disturb the existing conditions of Christendom. This feint in the direction of union consisted in union revivals, in which the Disciples were invited and urged to participate, but with the implied understanding that they were to maintain silence in regard to their peculiar "tenets," while others were left at liberty to exploit their unscriptural notions and practices. This new danger Mr. Errett met as follows:

      "And when union is talked of, about the first step towards it is a union of forces in a revival in which all are to join in praying for the descent of the Holy Ghost--for the baptism of sinners with the Holy Ghost and with fire--for a baptism of power by which sinners may be made to know that their sins are forgiven--for an immediate revelation from heaven of Christ's power to save; and sinners are encouraged to arise and tell how God has spoken peace to their souls in answer to prayer. There is to be nothing denominational in these meetings; yet this idea of conversion and pardon is insisted on just as if everybody accepted it as God's method of conversion. If any one were to arise and tell agonizing sinners that God is entirely willing to forgive them--that they can not by all their struggles make him more willing--that his grace is ever accessible--that they have but to accept it, believing in Christ Jesus, turning away from their sins, and being buried with Jesus by baptism into death, relying on his blood-sealed promise that 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved'--were any one, we say, to speak out thus in such a union meeting, or go to anxious sinners at the altar and say to them, 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,' he would be instantly cried down as uttering sectarian doctrine and disturbing the peace of the union meeting. It is sectarian and denominational to tell sinners just what Jesus Christ and his apostles told them, but it is not at all sectarian or denominational to insist on a doctrine of the Spirit's work, and on a process of conversion, which is utterly destitute of support by any teaching or practice in the New Testament since the day that our Lord authorized the gospel to be preached in all the world to every creature."

      Mr. Errett contributed his great influence to the holding of the plea to these moorings. He clearly perceived that any compromise here would thwart the purposes of the movement and plunge it into bewildering confusion, and end it in conspicuous failure; and with might and main, with tongue and pen, he labored to hold it to the open sea upon which it first set sail, and we are largely indebted to him for the gratifying fact that the ship did not founder upon the reefs of unscriptural practices and human dogmas. It was contended in his day that the boundaries of the [397] movement should be so extended as to admit and hold sprinkled, or poured, believers, on the idea that the plea would move more rapidly. Addressing himself to this feature of the case, Mr. Errett said:

      "Finally, the 'Union' intimates that we are hindering our plea by what it deems our uncharitable exclusiveness. Even if this were so, we can not help it. We are responsible for the way we deal with God's truth, but we are not responsible for the results of faithfulness to our convictions. But we wish to say with all emphasis that we have the best of reasons for believing that the 'Union' is mistaken. At the beginning of the plea of the Campbells for union, it was unembarrassed by any of this so-called exclusiveness. They were Presbyterians. They sought the union of professed Christians without regard to immersion, and without the rejection of infant baptism. Their effort was a signal failure. The dear, pious people, who were so eulogized for superior spiritual worth, and pronounced to be so 'loyal in heart and purpose,' turned a deaf ear to the plea for union. They were so sect-bound and creed-bound that they would have none of it. But after the champions of this movement were led to surrender infant membership and affusion, and planted themselves on the ground we now occupy, their plea began at once to assert great power, and within fifty years has met with a success that has hardly a parallel in the history of religious movements. We have no reason, even on the ground of expediency, to change our ground. We therefore say to our brethren, in view of every consideration of truth, consistency, charity and expediency, stand firm; 'diminish not a word.' As the grounds of difference are narrowed, there will be strong efforts, under the plea of charity, to bring about a surrender of gospel teaching concerning baptism. Pedobaptists are bent on forcing this issue. In vain we tell them that they can easily, without a surrender of conscience, agree to that which they and we alike accept as valid baptism. This is scouted by them. They are bent on classifying baptism with things indifferent.

      "We will yield to the prejudices and preferences of any and all, and sacrifice all cherished habits, tastes and expediencies. But in regard to the faith and practice revealed in the New Testament, we must be sternly uncompromising. If the battle must come on this question of baptism, there we shall stand on apostolic ground, and repeat, day and night, without ceasing, 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism.'"

[CCR 395-398]