(Continued from page 55.)

3. Independency. At first glance this view may seem identical with that of local sufficiency, but there are a number of radical differences. However, extremes meet, and this is illustrated in the elements of similarity between these two views.

The characteristic feature of Independency is, as its name indicates, that the local gathering is a unit, whose association with other gatherings is very slight. It is competent not only to decide as to local matters, but as to matters which are not local. Thus the fact that a person has been received or excommunicated by a neighboring gathering does not decide it for other gatherings. Without dictating to the other gatherings, they will decide upon the case afresh, and act accordingly-it may be in opposition to the other gathering. But this divergence is not a ground of separation; the independency permits them to go on together, in a general way, with one who is allowed at one place and refused at another.

Growing out of this is a denial of a "circle of fellowship," various assemblies recognizing one another as holding the same truth and having the same order. They claim that all fellowship is of individuals with Christ-that this individual fellowship with Him is also the fellowship of His Church, the only link and title to be recognized. That in this sense there is no real local assembly, but only the general fellowship of the whole body. Closely connected with this is the teaching that the possession of life is the only title to fellowship, and that we can only debar those who are not really Christians. This is held only by some, and has been modified so that those under scriptural discipline are also excluded.

It is somewhat difficult to cite scriptures adduced for these views from their very vagueness. All scriptures which speak of the common life and blessings of the people of God are given (and rightly) as a reason for there being a common fellowship. But if these are given to the exclusion of those scriptures which speak of responsibility in walk and ways, in testimony, doctrine and association, they are put out of their place. They urge such a scripture as, "Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God" (Rom. 15:7) as proving that if Christ has received one, so we should also. In contrast they cite 3 John as an illustration of ecclesiastical narrowness and domineering which would cast godly saints out of fellowship, even for receiving beloved servants of Christ. They point to the fact that there is "one body," and that there can be no circle of fellowship which is narrower than the limits of the Church of God. Reminded of the need of scriptural discipline, they would urge that at least we are bound to "follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (2 Tim. 2 :22), claiming that if one is evidently sincere we must follow after the things of God with him:in other words, recognize him as in the path of fellowship.

Let us in all love for the people of God, whoever and wherever they may be, examine these views. If they are of God, let us accept and act upon them unfearingly; if not, let us as firmly refuse them. But first let us ask what elements of truth they contain, " for we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." Truth is of God wherever found and by whomsoever owned. Let us therefore not be found to fight against truth.
There is no mistaking this, that whoever recognizes all the people of God as His is right in that, whatever else he may be mistaken in. Let us ever be on our guard against the sectarian spirit-"He followeth not with us." All the Lord's people are dear to Him, no matter how great their ignorance or unscriptural their position. He who would be in the current of the thoughts and affections of Christ must be in the spirit of John 17-"That they all may be one." Further, that spirit which leads to special dependence upon God, which realizes that we cannot receive from man but are in subjection to God, is surely most proper and commendable. Where this exists there will be a corresponding lowliness and an absence of pride which is so blighting upon a true and godly testimony, whether doctrinal or ecclesiastical.

We must however point out those elements in this view which are either contradictory to Scripture, or so one-sided as to result in error. Let us speak first of the truth of the unity of the body. It is right to say that the primary thought of the unity of the body teaches us that there should be "no schism in the body." But if each local assembly is independent of all others, if its discipline is only for itself, is there not at once an ignoring of the very unity which is being contended for ? Does not the truth of there being but one body necessitate a practical unity in order and discipline, if we are to keep or guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace ?

Let us look also at Matthew 18, a passage full of divine meaning in this connection. Here is a case of discipline which has come up, from the personal treatment of one who wishes to gain his brother, to the point where all his efforts have failed, and the brother has refused to listen even to the assembly. He is therefore let alone by the brother who has sought to gain him. The assembly has taken the matter up further-we may suppose-and dealt with the wrong-doer in full discipline. This need not be the case, for it may not be ripe for full assembly discipline; but if the assembly does act according to God and His word, it is a binding action-bound even in heaven. Is it not then bound on earth, in every company of Christians who own the truth of God ? If therefore the action has been of God, to ignore it would be a direct dishonor to Him. We cannot think of His deciding the same question in two ways:therefore independency here means independency of Him.

This has all the greater weight when we see the divine provision for ascertaining the Lord's mind when any act of discipline has been presented for another assembly's action. If there is question about it, there is but one course-to raise the question with those who have acted, and with them to go afresh into the whole matter until the mind of the Lord is clearly ascertained. But to re-open a case away from where it has occurred and decide it as we may believe best is a sure way of not keeping the unity of the Spirit.

We need hardly point out how such acts would weaken all discipline. Instead of bowing under the chastening hand of God, one has his case taken up by those who know comparatively nothing of it, and all sense of the Lord's dealing with him is lost. Similarly the saints, instead of looking upon one who is thus under discipline as a " wicked person," question the action, and thus that exclusion which is God's way of leading a soul to repentance is rendered a weak and ineffectual thing.

Besides this, the identity of saints is lost sight of; the reality of the Lord meeting with, guiding and upholding His saints in a company is forgotten, and we attempt to do in a partial way what has been done more carefully. And if the saints in one locality have not been guided, what ground have we to claim guidance for ourselves ? Thus that which weakens a "circle of fellowship" weakens the local gathering, for it is as really a circle as the larger one.

Further, if there is an ignoring of corporate unity and responsibility, we have no scripture to authorize our separation from the systems or denominations all about us-unless we brand them all as wicked. While it is only too sadly apparent that worldliness and false doctrine have largely leavened the various denominations, we have separated from them for the two-fold reason of their insubjection to divine principles of order, and the lack of holiness in walk and doctrine. The looseness of principle opens the way to all manner of association with evil, and it is this that every one who nameth the name of the Lord must depart from. But if the principle of independency is accepted, we receive apart from separation from association with evil, and therefore are schismatic in having taken a place of outward separation.

This independency also lowers the sense of evil, as the apparent antagonism between gatherings weakens the sense of the actual sin which may be in question.

There is also the danger of thus having some party " shibboleth " which is pressed in an unscriptural way. It is worthy of note that an ignoring of the manifest word of God in some important truth is often accompanied by undue strictness in some minor detail. We are all too prone to strain out the gnat and to swallow the camel.

But enough has been said to call attention to the unscriptural character of much of this teaching. While avoiding what is not according to God, let us freely own what is His truth.

One principle remains however to which we must call attention:that past questions maybe settled by ignoring them. Time does not alter the moral character of an action. The sin of our first parents is present with us to-day. The principles involved in an action are always abiding, and unless these are judged the whole tone of an individual or a company is influenced by it. Questions which are ignored will come up again. The only right way is to go back and face these questions and decide them in the light of God's word. We can then go on happily, with our lessons learned. Otherwise we are in danger of making saints the center instead of our Lord and His truth, and thus under the plea of unity we may foster its opposite. S. R.

( Concluded in next issue.)