Dear Mr. Editor :

Your editorial in Help and Food for May referring to the reception of "A well known Evangelist" opens up a question that is becoming increasingly serious, and we might well ask ourselves, "Where are we at?"

There was a time when divine principles governed those gathered to the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ-when that meant something to both heart and conscience-when a man's oratory or gift was not a sufficient warrant for his reception or endorsement-when Jer. 15:19 ; 2 Tim. 2 :15-22 ; Heb. 13 :13, and other significant portions of the Word had weight, and which, thank God, is still blessedly true of many gathered saints. But the broad tendency to-day is to let down the barriers which the Truth has erected-to remove "the ancient landmarks" (Prov. 22 :28). The specious plea is made that, "He is such an orator; has such blessing; preaches the gospel as clearly as 'Brethren' do, and has such crowds," and so on. So our meetings are counted dull and uninteresting, and saints flock to swell the numbers attending more exciting services, and then come with the question, "Why cannot we have such meetings? " The answer lies at their own doors.

To forbid these preachers we neither could nor would (Luke 9 :49, 50), but our path lies separate from theirs. Gathered to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ forbids the lowering of the divine standard, and demands of us that we "earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." There should be no "looking back" (Lu ve 9 :62). Standing for the truth of God puts us into the place of reproach, but, "If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye" (1 Peter 4 :14). We may be assailed by such remarks as, "Look at the divisions amongst you 'Brethren'-see how weak you are-how little you are doing to reach sinners," etc.-which may be sorrowfully true, and we must allow it to search our own hearts. But even those divisions, sad and dishonoring as they are, prove that, rather than tolerate evil, we are willing to suffer them for righteousness' sake.

How often too we are assailed with the remark, "You are a sect just as much as any other." Some, indeed, may have a sectarian spirit, but to assemble as members of the Body of Christ as we do is not sectarian. Some, also, take advantage of this unsectarian position to go where they please, which only proves how little power truth has over them. We have no board with ruling authority-I do not mean that we have no power to exercise discipline; for "Brethren" do have it in a truly Scriptural sense-but we have no human rules to enforce a certain line of conduct upon saints. The Word of God is our sufficient guide, our Statute Book, but only the obedience of faith avails there. Is it holy to plead Laodicea as a warranty for looseness? Must we be Laodiceans ? Should we not be Philadelphian in spirit without claiming to be Philadelphia, and remember that "to obey is better than sacrifice"?

Shall we not then cry to the Lord that there may be a turning back to first principles, a rallying to the Truth, holding up afresh the hands of, and supporting more fully the servants of Christ who " for His Name's sake " go forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles, and who assume no official place? We should remember too that to judge gifts is to judge God (1 Cor. 4 :6, 7). He who gave a Paul whose speech was "contemptible" was the same who gave Apollos, who was an "eloquent man."
If the Church has degenerated, the Truth has not. If she is no longer a collective testimony, all the more reason for those who claim to have taken the path of separation to go on in the practice of what is involved in that path, and so give heed to the exhortation of our blessed Lord :"Hold that fast which thou hast."

May God unite us afresh in power and in practice for the "defense of the truth."

Sincerely in Christ, F. J. Enefer