managing the so-called larger interests of all. We are assured that the utmost individual and congregational liberty will be preserved.
The supervising body over the union merely asks to be entrusted with "advisory authority" in legislative matters, and executive authority in all common undertakings.
Those originating this benevolent plan are doubtless willing to "serve the churches" by generously constituting themselves the first "advisory body." If supervision in the "larger field" is granted, how can there be either congregational or personal liberty?
Every activity of both individual and congregation must be subordinated to the greater program of the united body.
He who believes that any organization with such power will function without being meddlesome and oppressive has been a poor student of history. It is absurd to believe that authority can be yielded, and still retained.
To me it is passing strange that certain men connected with the movement to restore the New Testament church could have participated in the formation of so pretentious a scheme. It is another illustration of the ease with which some can be diverted from the main issue.
The restoration of the New Testament church, as a means of uniting Christians, was the ideal of the great thinkers who challenged denominationalism in the beginning of the past century, not the preservation of sectism. Despite the superior wisdom of our sages, there is one thing they can not do—destroy a thing and save it at the same time.
A few of our brethren who humbly plead
11
