Beaubien Street "Synopsis"

For the information of the public, the following statement of faith and practice is put forth by the Church of Christ meeting at the corner of Jefferson Avenue and Beaubien Street, in the city of Detroit.

I. We accept the Bible—Old and New Testaments—as the word of God; as furnishing the only certain and sufficient knowledge of God, of Salvation, of Duty and of Destiny: so that we need no other basis of faith, guide to duty, or bond of union, than is therein contained. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2d Tim. iii. 16, 17.

II. While eschewing the metaphysical distinctions and technicalities of philosophies and creeds, on the subject of the Trinity, as being fruitful sources of confusion and strife among Christians, we recognize the tri-unity of the Godhead in the teachings of the New Testament, and accept, in the fullest sense; as a matter of revelation, and not of philosophy; of faith, and not of speculation, every Bible utterance concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Matt. xi. 27: John i. 1-5, 14: John xiv. 16, 17; xvi. 7-15: Matt. xxviii. 19.

III. We regard the Divinity of the Lord Jesus, as emphatically the Christian creed—the truth to be believed; out of which, when believed, flows salvation to the sinner; out of which also, spring the obligations, enjoyments, and hopes of spiritual life. Hence, in laboring for the conversion of sinners, this is the great theme; and in accepting converts to baptism, the only confession of faith to which they are required to assent is, That Jesus is the Son of God, and the Anointed Prophet, Priest and King, through whom we are to obtain “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” Matt. xvi. 15-20; 1st. Cor. iii. 11; Eph. ii, 19-22; John xx. 31; Acts. viii. 35-38; 1st. John v. 1.

IV. Not only do we accept as facts, the death of Christ as a sin-offering, and his resurrection from the dead; but we regard these mighty facts as constituting the very Gospel by which we are saved. 1st. Cor. xv. 1-4. Facts, Precepts, Promises, comprise the Gospel scheme. Jesus, the Divine Saviour, is the center of all these. The facts concerning Jesus, believed; the commandments of Jesus, obeyed; the promises of Jesus, enjoyed; these constitute the essentials of the Christian religion—the marrow and fatness of the Gospel feast.

V. Faith and repentance are the indispensable prerequisites of baptism. An entire reliance on Jesus as a crucified and risen Saviour, joined with such a sorrow for sin as shall lead the heart and life away from wickedness, to the service of the Lord, is [95] enjoined on, and required of every person seeking admission to baptism and church membership.

VI. To such a believing penitent, baptism is “for the remission of sins;” not as procuring or meriting pardon, nor yet as accomplishing spiritual regeneration; but as bringing the believer into contact with the Gospel promises, and conveying to him a scriptural assurance of forgiveness. Hence we teach every person coming to baptism, to trust implicitly the Saviour’s promise—“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark. xvi. 15, 16.

VII. In baptism, the believer is immersed “in the name” or by the authority of the Lord Jesus, “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;” and thus enters into covenant with God as his Father, with Jesus as his Saviour, and with the Holy Spirit as his Comforter. Being buried with Jesus by baptism into death, and rising to walk in a new life, he is entitled to the promises of the Gospel, and is under the most solemn covenant obligations to walk in all the commandments of the Lord.

Presuming not to judge those who have honestly mistaken sprinkling or pouring for baptism, but who show in their lives a cheerful conformity to all the known will of God, we nevertheless feel bound to maintain the integrity of this ordinance, First—because we dare not interfere with divine appointments, to change either their form or their design; and, Secondly—because we see in immersion, which all admit, and not in sprinkling or pouring, which but a part accept, a possibility of ending controversy and promoting union among the people of God. We do not wish, however to place any obstacle in the way of any of the children of God who may desire to partake with us of the Lord’s Supper, or to share in any of the privileges of Christian worship.

NOTE.—We submit the following passages of Scripture touching the action, the subjects and the design of baptism to the careful consideration of the reader.

VIII. Being desirous of returning, as fully as possible, to the purity and simplicity of Primitive Christianity, we have been led, from a careful examination of the Scriptures, to the following conclusions:

1. The first church of Christ was planted in Jerusalem, on the Pentecost succeeding the resurrection of the Messiah. See Acts II. in extenso.

2. Its converts were accepted to baptism and church membership, on their faith in Christ, and repentance toward God—and not upon subscription to any human creed or articles of faith.

3. “They that gladly received the word were baptized;” no infant membership was recognized.

4. “They continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers.” Acts II. 42. In the teaching of the Apostles, therefore, as found in Acts and in the Epistles, are Christians to find an authoritative utterance of the will of God.

5. From the apostolic teaching we learn: That all the baptized believers dwelling in one locality, constituted the church in that locality.

That every church when organized by an Apostle or Evangelist, was an independent community, so far as its own affairs were concerned, with a government of its own; dependent on and amenable to other churches only so far as the sentiments of Christian brotherhood, or the demands of weakness or poverty, might allow of a mutual claim for counsel and co-operation.

That every church, when fully organized, had a Bishop and Pastor, and frequently a plurality of Bishops, to preside over its spiritual interests; and Deacons, who attended to the wants of the poor, and the temporal interests of the church, and assisted likewise in its spiritual ministrations.

That the churches met on the first day of the week for prayer, praise, preaching, teaching, exhortation, observance of the Lord’s Supper, contributions for benevolent purposes, and the cultivation of brotherly love.

That as soon as the ability of a church or of neighboring churches allowed it, Evangelists or Missionaries, duly qualified and approved, were sent forth to preach the Gospel in other regions, foster infant churches, and oversee them until organized.

That in accomplishing all these functions, the church had nothing but apostolic teachings to guide them, in all matters of expediency outside of apostolic teaching, every church acting on its own responsibility.

That human leaderships, sects and parties were discouraged and denounced as anti-Christian.

That on this simple basis of the Lordship of Christ and apostolic [97] authority, it was sought to unite in one brotherhood, all who received Jesus as their Saviour and King.

We seek to return to this standard of the Apostles’ doctrine. In this age of division and distraction, we esteem it our especial duty to call Christians from the confusions of the apostasy to the order and harmony of the primitive church; from human creeds and philosophies to the Bible; from party to Christ; from denominational names and interests, to the symmetry and perfection of the Body of Christ; from speculative theology, which divides, to the faith and love of Christ, which unite; from all that tends to alienation and partyism, to the units and unity which apostolic teachings present. There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Eph. iv. 4-6.

IX. To sum up all in one paragraph: Christ Jesus is our all; without his Light and Love, we perish forever. His Divinity is our foundation; His life is our example; His death our salvation; His resurrection our hope; His intercession our foundation of grace and mercy; His teachings our guide; His church our school; His Spirit our comforter; His gospel our reliance for the conversion of sinners; His commandments our life; His promises our rejoicing; so that through faith and obedience, we may be blessed with “all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” To trust in the Lord Jesus, to love and obey Him—this is salvation here, and life eternal hereafter.

X. This declaration of our faith and aims is not to be taken as a creed. We assume no right to bind the conscience with any stereotyped formula. Vital religion is a thing of growth in the heart of the individual Christian. We design a mere statement, for general information, of the purposes which have induced us to band together, and the principles we propose to develop. We have no sectarian shackles with which to bind Christ’s freemen—no spiritual prison-house for the confinement of the soul. We present no authoritative standard of interpretation of the Bible. The Spirit that indited the word, can best bring home to the heart the significance of its truths. The practice of the divine precepts, furnishes the best interpretation. We repudiate all human authority in spiritual concerns—Matt. xxiii. 8-12. John vii. 16, 17.

May the God of grace and truth bless the reading of these pages that they may assist in giving consistent views of the Gospel to the human inquirer, as well as in dissipating the prejudices of Christians; so that the former may be led to accept the salvation of God, and the latter be encouraged to seek after the simplicity of faith and unity of spirit, which belonged to the church of Christ before sects disturbed her harmony, or treacherous hands rent her seamless garment.

BY-LAWS

For the Regulation of the Order and Business of the Church.

I. The affairs of the church shall be under the management of the pastor and those associated with him in office—they being [98] responsible to the church therefor—except where any special business shall, at a business meeting, be assigned to a committee.

II. Any immersed believer, expressing a desire to unite with us in carrying out the objects of our organization, shall be entitled to membership, unless satisfactory reasons are known against his or her admission.

III. Members of the church, of both sexes, shall be allowed to participate in the social services of the church, and shall vote on all questions equally.

IV. At the meetings on the Lord’s day, the services shall be conducted by the pastor and such brethren as may be invited by him to assist. At the business meetings, any member who desires may speak. While we wish to impose no arbitrary rule, it is nevertheless expressed, as the general sentiment of the church, that such speeches should not exceed ten minutes in length.

V. Regular business meetings of the church shall be held annually on the first Monday in January. Special business meetings may be called by the officers, at their own suggestion, or at the request of not less than five members.

VI. The pastor shall preside over the business meetings; or, in his absence, the senior officer present; or, in the absence of all the officers, any one who may be called to the chair by the members of the church present.

VII. No business meetings shall be held on the Lord’s day.

VIII. All meetings shall be opened by reading the Scriptures and prayer, and closed by prayer.

IX. The order of business shall be:

1. Reading minutes of last meeting.

2. Report of the Secretary.

3. Report of the Treasurer.

4. Report of the Sunday School Superintendent.

5. Reports of Committees.

6. Miscellaneous business.

7. Reading and approval of the minutes.

X. The election of officers, except Treasurer and Secretary—who shall be appointed by the Deacons—shall be by the church; a vote of at least two-thirds of the members being requisite to elect any one to office.

XI. Bishops and Deacons shall be elected to serve during good behavior; but they may be required to resign by a vote of two- thirds of the members of the church, or their resignation may be accepted by a majority vote.

XII. The salary of the pastor shall, from year to year, be fixed by the Deacons, subject to approval of the church.

XIII. In matters of discipline, it shall be the duty of the officers of the church to investigate all charges regularly made, and report to the church their decisions for approval. In case of a decision, when approved by the church, being complained of as unjust by any party involved in said decision, upon request made by such party to the officers, the matter of complaint shall be referred to a committee mutually chosen from sister churches by the officers and the complainant, and the decision of that committee shall be acquiesced as final. [99]

XIV. The officers shall meet at least monthly for consultation on the interests of the church.

XV. It is understood that while we enter into these regulations to preserve order and expedite business, the great law by which we propose to be governed in all our public and private intercourse, is the law of love.

XVI. Any member of the church, desiring to withdraw membership, whether the reasons for such withdrawal are approved by the church or not, shall be entitled to a certificate of his or her standing, at the time of such withdrawal.

XVII. In all matters of order in the business meetings, not provided for in these rules, the presiding officer shall be governed by the rules laid down in Cushing’s Manual.

XVIII. No change shall be made in these rules, nor in the established order of the church, except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the church; notice of said change to be given at least three months before the next regular business meeting.

CHURCH OF CHRIST

REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING.

There is not a sound man in our ranks who has seen the preceding “Synopsis” that has not felt scandalized by it. I wish we possessed even one decent apology for its appearance. It is a deep offense against the brotherhood—an offense tossed into the teeth of a people who, for forty years, have been working against the divisive and evil tendency of creeds. That it was meant as an offense by the brethren who have issued it, I cannot think. Still, their work has a merit of its own, a merit which no lack of bad intention on their part can affect. Our brethren will accept this “Synopsis” for what it is, not for what it may possibly not have been designed to be. We are told that this “declaration” is not to be taken as a creed. But will this caveat prevent it being so taken? Never. When Aaron’s calf came out had he called it a bird, still all Israel seeing it stand on four legs, with horns and parted hoofs, would have shouted a calf, a calf, a calf. The [100] brethren “meeting at the Corner of Jefferson Avenue and Beaubien Street, Detroit,” may call their work in classic phrase a “Synopsis,” or gently, a “declaration;” but we still cry a creed, a creed. It is not the mere title of a work that constitutes it a creed, but its matter and form, together with the manner in which it is issued and the sanctions by which it is accompanied. This “Synopsis” is a creed without the appropriate label—a genuine snake in the grass, wearing a honeyed name.

On its appearance in the American Christian Review, brother Franklin expressed his strong disapprobation of this “Synopsis;” while “John,” in his burlesque of it, has left us in no doubt as to the estimate in which he holds it. With these sound men I fully agree, except in so far as they seem inclined to treat the “Synopsis” as a small matter. With the writer of this it has a painful significance—painful because symptomatic of the following items:

1. That some of our brethren have lost their former well-grounded opposition to creeds, and are now ready to traffic in these unholy things. This indicates a diseased state of the body. How far this disease extends will be seen by the extent to which the “Synopsis” is indorsed.

2. That these brethren are no longer willing to be styled heretics for the truth’s sake, but now wish to avoid that odium by adopting the customs and views of the sects of the day, and thus to become themselves a sect.

3. That what the world needs in order to learn the faith of these brethren is not the Bible alone, but the Bible and a “Synopsis of their faith and practice.” With them, then, the Bible is an insufficient enlightener of the human family.

At these symptoms of degeneracy our brotherhood will feel something more than regret. They will feel profoundly ashamed. The church from which this “Synopsis” emanates was not long since written into most favorable notice by an article in the Millennial Harbinger, from the pen of Brother Pendleton. Besides, the church is tended, or as they perhaps would phrase it, presided over, by our accomplished Brother Errett. Had we not then a right, a reasonable right, to expect from a church thus favored something better than this wretched “Synopsis.” Did these brethren pause to ask themselves what other saints in the ranks in which they stand would think of their deed? Or did they care what they would think of it? We much fear the latter question involves the truth in the case. They must have known the deep aversion of their brethren to creeds; and equally well did they know that this “Synopsis” would be regarded by them as a creed, though the contrary were avowed in a thousand forms. Still they published it. In what light then must we view it? In none, it [101] is shame enough to fear, save as the bold, defiant act of the church in Detroit to have a creed in despite of the faith and feelings of their brethren. There are several contingencies which combine to render the publication of this “Synopsis” just at this time not a little suspicious. But of these we shall not speak now.

It is proper, however, to notice the “Synopsis” more in detail. Let us then descend to particulars. In Article I, we have this remarkable “statement:” “We accept the Bible—Old and New Testaments—as the word of God.”

Is it possible! We cannot believe it. That, “the church of Christ” in Detroit should accept the Bible, id est, Old and New Testaments, as the word of God distances our credulity. No “statement” however could have been more necessary for “the information of the public.” But for this “statement,” that stupid public would certainly have concluded that “the church of Christ” in Detroit accepts “the Bible—Old and New Testaments”—as the mythic product of some defunct monk; or, what is far more likely, that “the church” does not accept it at all. The wisdom of the statement none can deny.

In Article II, we have the following: “While eschewing the metaphysical distinctions and technicalities of philosophies and creeds, on the subject of the Trinity, as being fruitful sources of confusion and strife among Christians, we recognize the tri-unity of the Godhead in the teachings of the New Testament.”

If the latter part of this pompous “statement” is not libel on the first part, then it is difficult to conceive the existence of such a thing. “We eschew the technicalities of creeds;” yet “we recognize the tri-unity of the Godhead in the teachings of the New Testament.” We blush for the blindness and frailty which uttered this. But when men resolve to be unjust to the truth, and regardless of the feelings of their brethren, God has a singular way of making them appear contradictory and ridiculous. “We eschew the technicalities of creeds”—this was designed to be sand for the eyes of our brethren and a ground of amity: “we recognize the tri-unity of the Godhead in the teachings of the New Testament”—this is an humble petition to Orthodoxy to be permitted to return to her embrace. Surely she will not spurn the humble plea.

We cannot but regard “the church of Christ meeting on Beaubien Street” as now and then particularly happy in some of its modes of thought and expression. “We recognize the tri-unity of the Godhead in the teachings of the New Testament.” Whether this “church” believes in the tri-unity of the Godhead or not is adroitly enough not said. The presumption is, since the Bible—Old and New Testaments—is silent on the tri-unity of the Godhead, that “the church” does not believe it. All “the church” [102] does is to recognize the tri-unity of the Godhead in the teachings of the New Testament; but whether “the church” recognizes it as a thing sanctioned or a thing eschewed, we have no means of knowing.

Article III. thus sets out: “We regard the Divinity of the Lord Jesus as emphatically the Christian creed.” Now let the reader not be deceived in regard to this statement. This is not the Christian creed; this is incense offered at the shrine of orthodoxy. Hitherto we as a people have said to the world, the Bible is our creed. But in this it seems we have been wrong. For the Christian creed is the Divinity of the Lord Jesus. Nay, more, it is “the truth to be believed; out of which, when believed, flows salvation to the sinner; out of which, also, spring the obligations, enjoyments, and hopes of spiritual life.” It is not enough, then, to present simply the Bible as the Christian’s creed, nor yet simply to believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God; neither is it enough to accept simply Christ as the way, the truth, and the life. No. All this is not enough; for the Divinity of Christ is the Christian creed. And further still, “in laboring for the conversion of sinners this” (the Divinity of Christ) “is the great theme.” When, then, Philip went down to the city of Samaria and, in his labors for the conversion of sinners, preached simply Christ to the people, how grossly he blundered! For the great theme in laboring for this end is “the Divinity of the Lord Jesus.”

But Article III, in the “Synopsis,” is a prolific Article. It further says, “in accepting converts to baptism, the only confession of faith to which they are required to assent is, that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, through whom we are to obtain wisdom, righteous sanctification, and redemption.”

Hitherto we, as a people, have not been accustomed to regard persons as converted until they are baptized; but in “the church of Christ meeting on Beaubien Street,” persons are first converted and then accepted to baptism. Detroit is the place in which to manufacture synopsis and make improvements. But the cumbrous confession to which these converts are required to assent is alike unknown to the Bible and to our brethren. It is, as a confession, a purely domestic piece, discreditable to its authors, degrading to those who assent to it, and an insult to the New Testament. How sublime to say, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God, in comparison with assenting to the preceding wordy collocation.

One of the first signs of degeneracy in Christianity is, that its modes of thought and forms of speech become distasteful to us. Tried by this rule, and “the church on Beaubien Street” has reason [103] to tremble. The mere fact that this confession is composed of words taken from the Bible, by no means constitutes it the confession of the New Testament. All the words of a sentence may be Bible words, and yet the sentence itself be false. Such is the case with this new-coined confession.

In Art. IV. we have the following: “To such a believing penitent baptism is for the remission of sins, not as procuring or meriting pardon, nor yet as accomplishing spiritual regeneration; but as bringing the believer into contact with Gospel promises, and conveying to him a scriptural assurance of forgiveness.”

A bold man would he be who should undertake to say what this means: “Baptism is for the remission of sins, as bringing the believer into contact with Gospel promises.” Save the church and world, kind Saviour, from such nonsense. If this be not an instance of eclipsing the plain sense of holy writ by a meaningless exegesis, it would be hard to produce one. Baptism is for the remission of sins in this sense—that the believing penitent is to be baptized in order to obtain forgiveness. The truth plainly told is a gain to the truth.

Let the reader turn once more to Art. VII. and read it a second time. This done, and we cite the following: “We do not wish, however, to place any obstacle in the way of any of the children of God who may desire to partake with us of the Lord’s Supper, or to share in any of the privileges of Christian worship.”

Whom, we now ask, is the expression “children of God” in this extract designed to embrace? Clearly those “who have honestly mistaken sprinkling or pouring for baptism.” Such, then, are held by “the church meeting on Beaubien Street,” to be Christians. “Baptism is for the remission of sins;” yet these persons have mistaken, sprinkling or pouring for baptism, and hence are not baptized. Yet, they are “children of God,” Christians, plainly their sins are forgiven!

These honest persons have “mistaken sprinkling or pouring for baptism.” They are hence not baptized. “Baptism is for the remission of sins.” Their sins, therefore, are not remitted. Yet, “we do not wish to place any obstacle in their way” if they “desire to partake with us of the Lord’s Supper.” Let this “church” never again use the word consistency; but rather let them henceforth hoist some sectarian banner and cry to the orthodox of the day, let there be no strife between you and us, we pray, for we are brethren. And further still, these unbaptized, and, therefore, unforgiven “children of God,” if they desire to share in any of the privileges of Christian worship, must be permitted. They may sing and pray and preach “with us” though unbaptized, and no obstacle is to be placed in their way! [104]

Again, in Art. VII. appears this statement: “Presuming not to judge those who have honestly mistaken sprinkling or pouring for baptism,” &c. Presuming not to judge them! Certainly not; and yet you judge them to be “children of God.” Nay more, you adjudge them to be worthy to partake “with us of the Lord’s Supper,” and hence wish to place no obstacle in their way. “Presuming not to judge them!” And yet should the writer of this piece presume to judge them, you i.e. some of “the church meeting on Beaubien Street,” would presume to judge him to be a bigot, and would be ready to separate from him in disgust. There is no charity so capricious and whimsical as that which is just setting out on its way to Rome.

In Art. VIII. “the church” in Detroit says, “we have been led, from a careful examination of the Scriptures, to the following conclusions:” and amongst others, they enumerate this one: “that every church when fully organized had a Bishop and a Pastor, and frequently a plurality of Bishops.” Not so, my brethren. No careful examination ever led to this conclusion. This one-Bishop and one-Pastor doctrine is incipient Popery, and no legitimate inference from the Bible. Celibacy and transubstantiation sprang from the same fertile source, and by the same licentious logic, from which this conclusion comes. Of course “the church” in Detroit has one Pastor and one Bishop. Now we humbly beg to add that it ought still to have an organ, a fiddle, a liturgy, and that its Pastor should wear surplice and be dubbed the Rev. so and so. Never again would “the church meeting on Beaubien Street” be disgraced by the charge of heresy; and surely the exemption would be cheap at the price.

In Art. X. “the church” says: “We present no authoritative standard of interpretation of the Bible. The Spirit that indited the word, can best bring home to the heart the significance of its truths.”

Of course what the Spirit can best do, it and only it ought to do, and it alone does. It therefore brings to the heart the significance of its truths. Let no one henceforward slander “the church” in Detroit, by denying that it believes in an influence of the Spirit distinct from and above the truth, a direct influence, an influence bringing home to the heart the significance of the truth. “The church” in Detroit is orthodox—thoroughly orthodox—on Spiritual influence. Neither Calvinist nor Arminian dare question its soundness more. Frail thing, how departs thy strength and glimmers away thy inconstant light.

On two points only is “the church” in Detroit not orthodox to excess. It is a little bigoted on baptism; but then since it “presumes not to judge those who have honestly mistaken sprinkling [105] or pouring for baptism,” this point of difference may be fairly set down as not worth a pinch of snuff. Again, “the church” is a little testy on infant “membership.” But then when these infants grow up, if they will only “honestly mistake sprinkling or pouring for baptism”—a thing they can most easily do—“the church meeting on Beaubien Street” will not presume to judge them, neither will it place so much as a single obstacle in the way of these “children of God should they desire to partake with us of the Lord’s Supper.” Besides, “the church” seems in a most relaxing mood just now; and no doubt the day is not distant when she will wholly abandon her naughty view on both these points. Then no “obstacle” can keep her from the amorous bosom of orthodoxy.

On the by-laws of “the church,” a few thoughts seem in place. Indeed, we cannot consent to be so discourteous as to pass them in utter silence. These by-laws, note you, reader, are laws—positive, stringent decrees enacted by the church of Christ in Detroit. True they may be altered by a vote of two-thirds of the church; but how rare a thing is it to get two-thirds of a church to vote on anything. These laws may be confidently pronounced more unalterable than was ever code of Mede or Persian. Whether “the church meeting on Beaubien Street” claims the power to alter the “rules laid down in Cushing’s Manual,” we cannot say. Cushing’s Manual regulating the order of a “church of Christ” in its business meetings! Divine thought! My soul is in ecstacies over thee. Ye saints who for forty years have been struggling to return to the ancient order of things—see ye not where ye have blundered. How is it, ye slow bellies, that ye missed Cushing’s Manual. I am wild with visions of reform. The Millennium, the Millennium—it is at hand; by Cushing’s Manual it is here at a bound.

No. IV. of these by-laws thus limps off: “At the meetings on the Lord’s day, the services shall be conducted by the Pastor and such brethren as he may invite to assist.”

Now, let no dog ope his mouth to aid in conducting the services of “the church of Christ” in Detroit in its meetings on Lord’s day, unless the Pastor invite him to assist. Thus has “the church” enacted away its liberty, and with it, let us hope for its own sake, its shame and self-respect. The services shall be conducted by the Pastor. This smacks loud of the man of sin. When tyranny stalks thus into a church of Christ, reverence for the word of God and affection for the saints generally step out. That any church of Christ should ever so far disgrace itself as to bind on its neck a yoke like this, is one of the mysteries of human infirmity. [106]

The brethren in Detroit owe it to themselves, and not less to the saints with whom they fraternize, to repudiate at once this “Synopsis,” and to rescind these laws. That they have erred and wounded their brethren needs no proof. When they retrace their steps, we shall delight to honor them; but while they maintain their present footing, we must content ourselves to mourn their folly.

A SYNOPSIS OF THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

SYNOPSIS.

BY-LAWS

CHURCH OF CHRIST

REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING.