HE aim of that religious people known willingly as "Disciples of Christ," or "Christians," is the subject of this discourse.

      If their distinctive aim is not a good and worthy one, then there is no sufficient reason for their existence as a religious people. That they have such existence in considerable numbers and influence, especially in the United States, is a fact; but, unless by such separate existence they aim to accomplish some good work not as likely to be done without them, they are likely only to be the cause of a useless and an inexcusable disturbance in the religious world. Every person, every association of persons--in fact, every thing--should have some good reason assignable for its existence.

      There are already quite enough churches, quite enough denominations, among the professed followers of Christ; and there can be no valid reason given for an attempt to create and maintain another; simply another denomination of Christians. It is believed by many that denominationalism is the [7] greatest internal foe, and some would even say the bane of Christianity today. The Disciples generally hold this view of it. To build up another denomination of Christians and add it to the long list already in existence, therefore is not the aim of the Disciples. And if they ever do so it will be in spite of a much worthier aim with which they started out. On the other hand, candor requires the acknowledgment, that their fundamental purpose is in its very nature hostile to all denominations, as such; not, of course, to Christians among denominations, but to denominationalism itself. To build up and maintain a mere denomination, however superior to those already in existence it might be, is not within the scope of their purpose.

      To aid us in getting at what is the exact and distinctive aim of the disciples it is important that we should have before us the state of things existing in what we call the religious world, in view of which their work was begun. And to aid us in getting a correct view of the situation we will suppose a case. It shall be one fairly supposable; one that might occur. We will take a young man twenty years old, and call him Jones, and locate him in Chicago. He is well educated for one of his age. He is not a church member, and has never even made a profession of religion; but has in common with us all a religious nature, and believes, in a general way, as most young men in Christian countries do, in the Christian religion. He is more than [8] ordinarily an independent thinker; takes a pride in thinking for himself on all questions in which he feels an interest. He determines in his own mind to become a Christian and a member of the church of God. He means to act intelligently in the matter or not at all. He is not going in this way or that, or to join this church or that, because somebody else did; but is going to investigate and understand the matter for himself--how to become a Christian and a member of the church of God, the true church founded by Jesus and the apostles. He is going to take nothing second-hand, but is going to the bottom of the whole matter that he may understand it for himself.

      With this purpose he begins his investigations. And at the outset he meets a Roman Catholic priest, ready to enlighten him. The priest tells him, of course, that his church is the true church of God, the one founded by Jesus and the apostles, the only true church and infallible, that in his church he may be a Christian; out of it he will be a common sinner or at best a heretic. The priest preaches the church and presses its claims till he convinces young Jones that it is at least respectable; respectable for its antiquity, for its large membership, for its wealth and for its learning; claims that it is the very identical church which Jesus and the apostles founded on the Rock of which Peter was the first pope.

      After patiently hearing the speech young Jones decides that in pursuance of his purpose he must at [9] least make himself acquainted with the church of Rome and pass judgment upon her claims. But before beginning the investigation he chances to meet a representative of the Eastern or Greek church, who claims that his is the true, the orthodox, the infallible the only church of God; that in it, one can be a Christian; out of it only a sinner or a heretic.

      After hearing his speech young Jones decides that he must also study and pass upon the claims of the Greek church. This enlarges the field of investigation considerably. And while the young man is indulging some reflections upon the field of study opened by these two churches with their antiquities, their doctrines, traditions, customs, ceremonies and infallibilities he is approached by an Anglican of the city, anxious to enlighten him as to the English church. He too is a clergyman, a rector of one of the parishes of the city. He tells young Jones about his church. It is not Roman Catholic, or Greek Catholic, but English Catholic. He preaches against popery, but for apostolic succession: has a good deal to say about the church, the ministry, the fathers, the councils of the church, its prayer-book, its orthodox creed, its fasts and feasts, days, moons and seasons; pompous rites and ceremonies, its prayers and praises, suited to all climes and seasons--not exactly the work of the apostles themselves, but much the same thing in English, that of their direct lineal successors--almost infallible, if not quite. He tells him of all the learned and distinguished persons who [10] have been born and died in this church, and especially among the English speaking people of the world.

      Young Jones hears the Anglican patiently and concludes that he must also weigh his church and decide upon its claims. And while he is considering the question where to begin and in what order to proceed in his theological and ecclesiastical investigations he meets a Protestant clergyman of the city, who, having heard of the enquiring turn his mind had taken recently, had come to enlighten him upon the great subject in which he was interested. He finds young Jones in some mental worry and confusion about true Christianity and the church of God, and undertakes at once to relieve him of his burdens by preaching Protestantism to him. He tells him, to begin with, that all the Catholic churches so called, the Roman, the Greek and the English, are only human, and in many respects very human; that their claims to infallibility are simply preposterous--three of them, at war among themselves, and yet each claiming to be infallible! He preaches Protestantism; tells him about the great reformation, about Martin Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, etc., etc., tells him that the Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants; tells him of the great doctrine of justification by faith only, of personal regeneration, experimental religion, of conscience etc. etc.; and concludes that the way to be a Christian is to seek and obtain an [11] experimental knowledge of regeneration and forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus Christ; and that the matter of church membership is of minor importance comparatively.

      True, he continued, every Christian should join some church; but as to what one was in his judgment a matter of individual taste. In fact, while he thought every Christian should unite with some evangelical church, he did not hold church membership to be in any sense essential to salvation. Every one should be allowed to join the church of his own choice. He thought it well, if convenient, for young people to go into the church of their parents. Particularly he thought it looked well for husbands and wives to belong to the same church. He, of course, thought his own church the most Scriptural of all in its faith and practice; and he supposed every Christian thought as he did about the particular church of his choice.

      Mr. Jones at this point interposes a question as to how many churches there are. The clergyman did not know exactly as to that; in fact he thought there was but one church of God, and all the so-called Protestant churches are but so many branches of that one church, each one claiming to be most Scriptural and evangelical in its doctrines and practices, and that this was the question about which Christians differed, and, he held, had a right to differ. Some thought, and he strongly inclined to that opinion himself, that it was a wise providential [12] arrangement that there were so many evangelical denominations, so that every one could find one suited to his own taste; and he thought there should be no angry discussions of the matter, but the fullest inter-denominational fellowship and communion of all evangelical Christians.

      As young Jones had set out to understand for himself the way to become a Christian and a member of the church of God, the views of his Protestant friend added somewhat to his confusion. They were entirely too indefinite for him. In fact there seemed to him something in them bordering on the haphazard, especially in reference to the matter of church membership. It seemed to him that one might miss the church of God entirely if it be a thing so wholly undefined and with so many branches--so many evangelical branches. Of course evangelical was meant to distinguish certain branches from others unevangelical. And, again, allowing that there were so many evangelical branches and that one could certainly distinguish these from the unevangelical, there comes up the difficulty of deciding as to which of the evangelical branches is the most evangelical, the most Scriptural in its teaching and practice. He seemed to be getting into greater difficulties and deeper confusion for every lesson he took.

      So Jones concludes to retire and review the whole matter. He does so and finds himself in about this predicament: Here are three churches, the Roman, the Greek and the English, each claiming to be [13] Catholic, each claiming to be the church of God, each claiming to be the only true church, each claiming more or less stoutly to be infallible; and each one opening up before him a field of investigation that would require years of study. Then here is Protestantism with its innumerable evangelical denominations, and denominations unevangelical, each having its creed and customs, and each claiming to be most Scriptural in its faith and practice. Now must he go all over this vast field, must he investigate all these churches and denominations, and decide upon all questions of difference between them, before he can become a Christian and a member of the church of God? And is he certain that should he live long enough to explore this vast field, he will in the end find a place where his soul can rest in certainty and peace? He is completely dazed--not exactly that, for that implies light: he is overwhelmed in confusion; and begins seriously to study the spiritual meaning of the word Babylon, as he has never done before.

      Many an honest soul with earnest desire to understand what Christianity is, what and where the church of God is, has been lost in that confusion in which for a time we must leave young Jones. Some, alas! have never come out. Others in their disappointment and despair have fallen into unbelief and denounced all religion as a fraud and a failure. But that we may still further and more fully get the situation before us--that is, the state of things in [14] the religious world in view of which the movement in which the Disciples are engaged was begun--we will resort to another supposition. We will suppose a convention of all Christians--a pan-Christian convention--in Chicago. All churches, and all branches of all churches, fallible and infallible, evangelical and unevangelical; all are represented in this convention. This is a supposable case, although it must be granted that such a thing is not likely to occur any time in the very near future. It is simply our supposition. That's all. We will suppose the representatives from all Christendom convene and an organization is effected without difficulty--another unlikely thing! But it's our supposition. And if something marvelous should follow such a convention, it need not be a cause of great surprise.

      So we will suppose, and escape the imputation of irreverence, we hope, that the Apostle Paul appears in the meeting. He succeeds in satisfying all present that he is the Apostle Paul returned from the dead. He informs the brethren of the convention that God has sent him back to the world to serve him here awhile again; that he instructed him to come back and take his position in the church to which he belonged when here before, to preach the same Gospel, to labor for the propagation and spread of the same Christianity for the spread of which he labored when here before. He asks the brethren, where is the Christianity he planted, and where the church to which he belonged? [15] What would the convention do with him? Would it undertake to comply with his request? And should it undertake to do so, how far would it be likely to go without difference, discussion and division? Would the representative of the Roman Catholic church say that Romanism was the Christianity Paul preached and that he belonged to the Roman Catholic church? And if he did so claim, what would the other delegates say? And if they were to agree to it, which they certainly would not, what would Paul himself say? Would he not say--would he not be compelled by truth to say that he never in all his life heard of the Roman Catholic church, or of the Roman Catholicism? Paul a Roman Catholic! Just think of it!

      Was there any such thing as Roman Catholicism in Paul's time We have the history of his time. Is there anything in that about the Roman Catholic church? It seems almost like ridicule to ask the question. To speak of Roman Catholicism or of the Roman Catholic church in Paul's time is a palpable anachronism. And what is true of the Roman Catholic church in this respect is equally true of every church and denomination represented in our supposed pan-ecclesiastical convention. Paul in all his lifetime never heard of one of them. The history of his time is as silent as the grave about them all. Did Paul ever hear of the Greek church? Did he ever hear of the English church? Did he ever hear of any of the Protestant churches? To ask these [16] questions is to answer them in the negative, as every one acquainted with the scriptures knows. No intelligent and candid person will claim that any one of these churches existed when Paul was here. It can be claimed and it is true that each one of them holds and teaches some things taught by the apostle. This will not be questioned. But the fact that each one of them can maintain such a claim only complicates the matter more and more.

      It is claimed that each one with its creed and customs has been evoked from what the apostles taught. But this cannot be true, for they do not agree one with another. They clash and are at war with each other. But what we wish to emphasize is the fact that no one of them, as a church with its creed and customs, existed in the time of the apostles. This must be admitted by all of them. Some of these churches are very old. This will be granted. But as churches they have all been born since Paul lived and died. Hence our supposed convention cannot answer the question for the Apostle as to the church he belonged to when in the world. There is absolutely no hope that any such convention could ever settle that question.

      We are brought then to this conclusion: That the Christianity preached by the apostles, and the church they founded in the world and of which they were members, are older than all the creeds and churches and denominations of the present day. Christianity and the church of God are [17] older than all the creeds and denominations now in existence.

      Now the question arises: Do we desire to find that primitive Christianity and church? Are they better than the denominationalism we have? We answer, yes. Yes, a thousand times over. In this conviction we are settled.

      Well, can the New Testament Christianity and the New Testament church be eliminated from the creeds and churches of today? We think not. Every effort to do so will be a failure. In fact, every Protestant creed and church are but the result of an effort to do that very thing--to get back to Jesus and the apostles--to get back to primitive and New Testament Christianity. And every such effort has only increased and complicated the difficulties of the situation, by adding one more creed and one more denomination to the number theretofore in existence. Here are the mazes in which young Jones was lost.

      Christianity and the church of God were before all the creeds and denominations of today. The Christianity and the church of the New Testament were established by the apostles. They were in the church and were Christians without knowing anything about the denominations and parties of our time. They were not Roman Catholics. They were not Greek Catholics. They were not English Catholics. They were not evangelical Protestants. They were Christians. They belonged to the church of God: not to a branch of it but to the church itself, [18] the body of Christ. Their Christianity and the church to which they belonged were divine.

      Can we find that primitive Christianity and church? We have decided that we can, and that by the help of God we will direct all the people of God and the world to it. We believe that it is to be found in the New Testament and only there. This is generally conceded when the New Testament is said to be an all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. Then we must return to the New Testament; not through the creeds and churches, but directly. We will never get back if we undertake to go through all the creeds and churches in the order in which they came into being. Never in the world. The way to get back is to let go all creeds and parties, all humanisms, and go back. Let go just now, and right where we are, and return at once. That is the only way it can be done. Cut entirely loose, and at once, from all human creeds and parties, and return and take our stand with the apostles and first Christians. Can we do it? Certainly. The New Testament will afford us all the necessary light and means. If not, then it is not an all-sufficient rule of faith and practice But we believe that it is, and to return to its teachings for our faith and practice, to make it, and it only, authoritative in all things essential to salvation. This is our fundamental aim.

      We do not believe that we are the only people who desire primitive Christianity, while all others [19] prefer denominationalism. Nor do we believe we are the only people aiming to return to the church of the New Testament. We are aiming to accomplish what is almost universally desired by Christians. The advantage we claim is in the method we propose. The efforts Protestants have made heretofore have failed because their method was wrong. Every Protestant party has aimed to get back to New Testament Christianity by offering to Christians a better and more Scriptural human creed than any that had been tried before; and instead of getting back to the New Testament the creed only made a new party or denomination. If we wish ever to get back to apostolic Christianity we have got to put an end to the whole business of creed making. Instead of making better creeds than former ones we must get rid of them all. They must all go. If we would return to the New Testament, and if we would understand it when we get to it, we must not be trammeled by our human creeds. There are persons who can see no way of serving the Lord without a creed, a human creed. Such persons should have something put down to their credit for their education; but they are greatly in error. They think that every body of Christian people should write out its faith; should formulate a creed and publish it to the world; that common honesty and fairness require this. We sometimes hear such persons reason, as they suppose, in this way "Nobody believes and is governed by the Bible [20] itself, but by his understanding of it, whether written or unwritten; then why not write out his understanding of the Bible that all may see and know what it is."

      They often say to Disciples:

      "We have a written creed and you have an unwritten one, and that's the difference between us, as to creeds."

      This is rather specious. Let us look at it. Let us suppose that we cannot believe and be governed by the New Testament, as we propose, but only by our "understanding of it" as asserted; and that we ought to write out our "understanding" that every body may know what it is. Well, when we write out our "understanding" of the New Testament, can we then believe and be governed by that, or by our understanding of it? Only by our" understanding" of it, of course; and must we not write that out for the same reason that we wrote out our first "understanding"? Then we will have written our "understanding" of our understanding of the New Testament!

      And so we must proceed perpetually, unless at some time we succeed in doing what the Holy Spirit through inspired men could not do, namely, in writing out something in which we can believe and be governed by without having to write out an "understanding" of it! Can we hope to do that which the Holy Spirit could not or did not do? We think not. It is better not to begin the endless business of [21] writing out interpretations or understandings of the New Testament.

      Do parties who have their written creeds succeed any better with them in stopping the mouths of false teachers, in getting rid of heretics, than we do without such creeds? That's a question we might do well to consider. The fact is, human creeds only increase the trouble they are made to prevent, or to rid the church of. And this because, as interpretations of what the Spirit of God has said, they interpret too much. They make more essentials to salvation and more conditions to Christian fellowship than the Holy Spirit has made. The difficulty generally with men as lords is that they lord too much. The fundamental difficulty with all human governments is that they aim to govern too much; and hence in nothing govern very well. In religion we should not try to contract the wide margin God has left for individual freedom of thought and conduct.

      But it is objected, again, that if we abandon all creeds, churches, and denominations and return at once, as we propose, to the New Testament we shall fail of "succession," "apostolic succession." That is, we will thereby fall out of the line of succession. With some people that would be a great matter. Many are depending upon apostolic succession for their salvation. But the fact is, that apostolic succession in the sense of an unbroken series of ordinations from the apostles down to their alleged [22] successors of today--that is, a succession of official men all through the Christian dispensation--is simply an ecclesiastical figment. The Roman Catholic church claims it stoutly. So does the Greek church, but perhaps a little less stoutly. So does the English church. And so also the Syrian, the Coptic and the Armenian churches, the Protestant Episcopal church in the United States, and various Protestant denominations. But so long as there can be nothing found about it in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, we care but little about it. Let it go along with all the other rubbish we must lose in returning to the New Testament. The succession we want is that of the truth and not of men. We want the truth the apostles had and preached. We can find that in the New Testament, and only there.

      If we believe just what the apostles believed, confess just what they confessed, and do just what they did--if, in other words, we believe what they required people to believe, confess what they required them to confess, and do what they required them to do, and are content to be what they required people to be--will not that reproduce apostolic Christianity? That is the succession we want. All the claims to a succession of ordained men from the apostles down to the present are simply preposterous.

      There are many who admit the all-sufficiency of the New Testament as a rule of faith and practice, and that a return to it as the only authoritative creed is desirable; but deny that we have succeeded [23] or are likely to succeed in doing so. In other words, they admit that our aim is a good one, but claim that our effort to carry it out has been and is a failure. They deny that we are any more apostolic in our faith and practice than others who hold to their human creeds, denominational organizations and names. They think they see and are able to show that we are no nearer New Testament Christianity and the New Testament church than when we abandoned denominationalism. They think we are as much a sect as any of the sects our fathers left and against which we have been inveighing these seventy years past.

      We are fallible. Mr. Campbell and his coadjutors were all fallible men. This we admit. But we claim confidently that our aim is a good one, but admit that we may not have been entirely successful in our effort to carry it into effect. We need the help of all such persons as can show us wherein we have failed. They can be of great assistance to us. And all such persons as believe our aim is good but our effort a failure ought to be willing to help us. Better that, than misrepresent and abuse us.

      But now let us take a brief look, and as impartial a one as we can, at what the Disciples have accomplished. There are in the United States alone, we will venture to say, not less than eight thousand churches or congregations of them, aggregating a membership of little if any less than seven hundred thousand. They have established several [24] universities, a good many colleges and a great many schools. They have published a great many books and tracts, and are sustaining quite a number of newspapers. They are nearly all preachers; all advocating a return to the New Testament in all things essential to salvation or to fellowship and communion in Christ Jesus. All this has been done without a human creed, without any denominational organization or centralization, without any party name, simply as disciples of Christ or Christians. There is no uninspired writing today that is in any sense authoritative among us. This all well informed and candid persons will admit. Others have sometimes said that some of the writings of Mr. Campbell are authoritative over us. It is sufficient to say simply that this is not true.

      Our congregations are getting on quite as peacefully and prosperously, too, as any of the denominations do with their creeds. We find quite a sufficiency in the New Testament to believe, as well as for our government. We are learning, too, to have opinions without forcing them upon others; to allow others to entertain opinions to which we can not subscribe. We are learning that there are many things even in religion that none of us is able to explain to the satisfaction of all others. We believe that God will hold us responsible only for what He has plainly revealed to us. As in other matters He leaves us free, we ought to be willing to leave each other free. We should not want to bind each other where [25] God has left us all free. Naturally men are tyrants; the more ignorant, the greater. We are learning to allow others to be free as ourselves where God has not bound us. Nor do we have to receive and countenance every false teacher that comes along simply because we have no human creed. We can let go such when it becomes necessary with as great facility as the parties who have creeds, made and adopted for that very purpose.

      The Disciples, then, have demonstrated the feasibility of Christians getting on together without any creed but the New Testament, which fifty years ago Protestants almost universally proclaimed an impossibility. We have succeeded in getting back of all the creeds, and in this respect, are standing just where the Christians did when the apostles were here. Not only so; we have lived to see human creeds, once held to be so necessary, all certainly and rapidly going into decadence; falling into desuetude. It is only a question of time with them. The knell of their doom has been sounded.

      And now, coming to the New Testament as the only authority in matters of Christian faith and practice, we have to be careful. There must be no deviation from our method either to the right or the left.

      What must a sinner believe in order to get salvation and membership in the church of God? Our answer must be just what we can put our finger upon in so many words in the New Testament. All that [26] the apostles required we must require, and no more. We must accept their own statements of the subject matter of belief, and not substitute our explanations of them. Our explanations will not make them plainer. Then, again, the explanation business once begun will prove interminable. For instance, when the Apostle, speaking of the written testimonies of his Gospel, says: "These are written that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." (John xx:31.) We must be satisfied with that simple statement and require persons to "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." No light needs to be thrown upon this simple apostolic statement other than that derived from other statements of the subject matter of belief to be found in the New Testament. If we require sinners to believe just what the apostles did, no more, no less, we will succeed in carrying out our aim in this respect; will we not?

      As to the verbal confession we require of those who would come into the church, we must be able to put our finger upon that also in the words of the New Testament. There will be great temptations to make slight departures. It will be so easy, so orthodox, and so compromising, to add a little to "the good confession" of the New Testament! But we must stand firm.

      And so as to what sinners are to do, we must stand upon the words of the commission and of the apostles in their preaching under the commission. [27] What the apostles required persons to do to be saved, that and all that, and only that, we must require. We have in Acts of Apostles their instructions to sinners in all conceivable conditions: to such as had not heard the word of the Lord and believed (Acts xvi:31); to such as had heard the word and had believed (Acts ii:38); and to such as were penitent, praying, believers (Acts xxii:16); and we must closely track these instructions, in telling sinners what to do.

      In respect of what must be believed, what must be confessed, and what must be done, by the sinner in order to get salvation, it may be claimed, fearless of contradiction sustained, that the disciples have returned to and do stand upon apostolic precept and precedent. If any one thinks not it is a matter easily tested. We are willing to be tried. Let him who thinks he can, show that, in respect of the belief, the confession and the obedience required of sinners by the apostles, we require more or less than they did. A fair and an honest trial will convince intelligent doubters. It is true that in the creeds and customs of the churches and denominations there is so much, along here, wholly unknown to the New Testament and with which the people educated in such creeds and customs have become familiarized, it is difficult to draw the line between truth and error and make them see it readily. With many, custom is as potent as plain Scripture teaching.

      In the formation of churches, in our public [28] observances, and devotions, and in all that we call church government and discipline, we have to be equally careful to make nothing essential to fellowship or anywise authoritative, but apostolic precept and precedent. This we are aiming to do. If in anything we are yet wrong, a strict adherence to our rule will assuredly bring us right. Only let us be sure not to go into the business of legislating and making; rules of government. We shall have some differences and discussions. But there is nothing alarming; about that. We are not all dead people. Creeds do not put an end to discussions among those who adopt them. If differences and discussions are evil, human creeds are not a cure for them. Our differences and discussions do not grow out of the fact that we have no human creed; but out of the fact that we are mortal men and women, and fallible like other folks. Is it not a fact that no association of men and women has ever existed for any length of time in this world without differences and discussions? Are we sure that dead calms are always and everywhere desirable? The winds put a rough surface upon the waters, stir up their depths, uproot trees, tumble down houses, and often destroy life; but they do more good than harm nevertheless. While they make themselves often very disagreeable it is, however, better to have them blow occasionally. Spiritual stagnation is not always the best thing to have. Why, the very thought even of a spiritual state of things in this world that allows [29] of no liberty of opinion, no differences and discussions is perfectly suffocating! But this can be said of the Disciples: That in all these matters made essential to salvation and membership in the church of God by the apostles no people are characterized by more perfect accord and harmony--that is, no living, free people.

      Of course, in carrying out our purpose, quite a revolution will be wrought in all our nomenclature. We shall have to call New Testament things by New Testament names. This will throw us out of accord with the churches and denominations. In speaking of the body of Christ in general, and of the churches in different localities, and of the disciples or Christians as such, we must apply only New Testament names.

      It is just at this point that we meet the fiercest and most determined opposition from the denominations. It is almost an impossibility for many among them to understand us, it would seem, and when they do, the more bigoted among them most stubbornly resist us. They insist that we ought to take upon ourselves some party name--some unscriptural name--as they have done, so that in speaking of us they can do so without applying to us New Testament names.

      If we would only meet in convention, or in some other formal way, adopt a name not once applied to the disciples by the apostles--no matter though we did it under guise of a convenience for the [30] census bureau--we would at once be generally recognized as an "orthodox denomination of Christians." As it is, however, we are called "Campbellites," "New Lights," "Reformers,"--anything but a New Testament name. We are accused of arrogance, in appropriating to ourselves the names that all Christians in all churches are equally entitled to--as if we were the only "Christians" or "disciples of Christ" in the world! But however arrogant we may seem in the eyes of such as do not understand us as well as we understand ourselves, we must stand firmly on our line here. Surrendering here we surrender our principle, and surrendering our principle we surrender all. There is no arrogance in our position. It only seems so to such as do not see what a huge wrong and departure denominationalism is.

      Do not those who refuse to call us "Christians" themselves profess to be "Christians?" Do they not profess to be "disciples of Christ," at the same time they refuse to so designate us? They certainly do. Then where is our arrogance? Really, what partisans have against us is not simply that we profess to be "Christians" or "disciples of Christ," but that we will not profess to be something else; that we will not profess to be partisans. They would be willing for us to progress to be "disciples of Christ" or "Christians," and make no complaint about it, if we would only take a name meaning something outside of the New Testament, for them [31] to call us by. But we cannot do it. The New Testament believed and obeyed makes Christians and not partisans, and when all professed followers of Jesus return to the faith and practice of that book, partyism and denominationalism will disappear. Then where will be our arrogance?

      Finally, we are told that our position unchristianizes all others but ourselves. That is, in accepting only New Testament names for ourselves and for our congregations, and in calling the body of Christ at large only by New Testament designations, we dechristianize all who wear party names. We, however, fail to see the matter so. We dechristianize nobody. Does our professing to be Christian unchristian anyone else? Surely not. Well, does our refusing to be or be called, anything else, unchristianize others? Certainly not. How, then, do we unchristian all but ourselves? Does our wearing the Christian name logically imply that nobody else is a Christian? It certainly does not. As a matter of fact the disciples have ever held from the beginning of their effort to return to primitive Christianity, and do hold that every Christian, whether identified with any of the denominations or not, not only has a right to be, but ought to be, simply a Christian and to wear only New Testament names, as we ourselves are aiming to do.

      We claim no exclusive right to anything in the New Testament. We claim for all that it contains primitive, apostolic Christianity; that we all can [32] learn from it what the Lord would have us believe, and do, and be, and hope; that it may be as easily understood as any of the human creeds; and that if all Christians, and all who would be Christians, will turn away from human standards to this divine one, they may get rid of all that is human and false and be united upon what is divine and true that thus, and only thus, can all Christians be united in one body. [33]

[NTC3 7-33]