vestments is because of environment. They have been trained that way. Here again we see the natural tendency of sects to make sectarians and thus reproduce their kind. When particular forms and ceremonies, which are not required by Scripture, are enforced upon men by a self-constituted, self-perpetuating ecclesiastical authority, the inevitable result is to stamp the same principles upon succeeding generations and thus perpetuate the sect system exercising such authority.

The sect spirit

In a final effort to lessen the odium attaching to what is now widely recognized as an evil, some assert that the cause of mischief is the sect spirit. This statement contains truth, but it does not tell the whole truth. One of the worst evils of human slavery was the extreme tyranny which some slave-masters exercised. But the real fact was that the system itself tended to convert good men and women into tyrants. The special manifestation of evil was both effect and cause. It was the natural tendency of the system to make tyrants, and tyrants perpetuated the system. So also with sectarianism. Though all can realize a theoretical difference between the sect spirit and simple denominationalism, yet the very tendency of the system itself is to create party interests and to introduce party rivalries, which naturally foster the sect spirit. Without that devotion to party and party interests -a devotion almost equal to their devotion to the

gospel itself-sects would perish. If sect-members should become so universal in their love and sympathy as to devote themselves to the work of Christ alone-forgetting party interests-sects would die. The sect spirit is, therefore, essential to the maintenance of the life and individuality of the sect body.

The remedy for sectarianism is not a return to imperialism.

What is the remedy?

The world-church idea as exemplified in the papal church is not the goal of Christianity. Such might hold dominion over men in the barbaric ages of the world, but its universal sway has ceased. The Inquisition will never be reestablished. The unity of the church is not to be found in an imperial hierarchy.

Nor is Christian unity to be obtained by adherence to the historic creeds. These documents may express many noble sentiments respecting Christ and his truth, and they may express the fullest knowledge of the truth known in the days when they were written. But knowledge of the truth is progressive, while creeds are stationary. No human document, therefore, can serve as a permanent basis upon which to build our faith. And then, too, we have seen that creeds are in their very nature divisive. Hence they can not be made the basis for the realization of unity.

Nor is the unity of the church to be found in some particular form of exclusive church polity,

as Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, or Congregationalism. We have conclusively proved that that conception of the church patterned after the forms of political government, in which government and authority are vested inherently and exclusively in human hands, is foreign to the original conception of the church as it existed in the minds of its Founder and his apostles. The government of the New Testament church is a theocracy. Christ is head. He rules through his Holy Spirit by moral suasion and spiritual influence, and the ministers and helpers whom he calls and qualifies share in that oversight and responsibility to the same extent that they are able to wield the same moral and spiritual power. This is the only church authority and government recognized in the New Testament.

Here I shall digress long enough to point out by way of contrast the true form of divine governThe perpetual ment. Every one is familiar with theocracy the theocratic government of

Israel under the Old Testament dispensation. God ruled. He who carefully reads the New Testament can not fail to discern the same type of government in the church before the rise of human ecclesiasticism. The first preachers of the gospel spoke with an authority not derived from a human source. When Peter and John were threatened before the Council and commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus Christ, they gave the

sublime answer: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we can not but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4: 19, 20). The same principle stands out in bold relief in the experience of Paul. Although that great apostle was forward to cooperate with other apostles and ministers of Christ, one can not fail to see that his whole career exemplified the principle of theocracy. He "was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision."

An important parallelism

Permit me to call attention particularly to an important parallelism between the government of Israel under the theocracy and the government of the New Testament church before the rise of ecclesiasticism. God led his people out of Egypt by Moses and Joshua. These men are a type of Christ, who leads his people. After the Israelites were settled in Canaan, they had no central government, but each locality or city was autonomous, having its local judges or elders. In a time of crisis God raised up a judge to lead the people in the necessary cooperative efforts to preserve or regain their liberties. Their miseries were always the result of their own sins, not a failure of the divine form of government. Their appointing a king and thus setting up a centralized human government was called rejecting God as ruler. And this is exactly parallel with what ecclesiasticism has done and is

doing with the same results. God's government of the church is set aside and rejected.

Not church federation

Nor will an organic union of all the sects solve the problem of unity. In the first place, the tendency of such a union is toward imperialism, the creation on the federation plan of another world-church. In the second place, such a federation would strengthen rather than lessen the authority of human rule, while the compromises necessary to make such a project possible would lessen in the same degree that freedom of the Spirit by which alone the full gospel can be given to the world. And in the third place, such a federation would not be the church of God, for the very framework on which it would rest, human ecclesiasticism, is foreign to the original conception of the church. It would be only a human arrangement patterned after the model of a world-empire. And for another reason such would not be the church. The divine ekklesia includes in its membership the whole family of God. Thousands of men and women who are united to Christ and in fellowship with all the saved are not members of the formally organized sects. Therefore the union of all such churches in one federation would not include the whole family.

Thus, the remedy for sects is not church federation, nor a return to the historic creeds, nor the adoption of one of the exclusive forms of church polity; neither is it an attempt to hide the sin of