“The Church in England”

“The Church in England” THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND
Lecture by Leonard Channing, February 21, 1950,
at Abilene Christian College (2:30 p. m.)

Thank you, Brother Wallace, for that fine introduction which I feel is very undeserved and unmerited. Incidentally, I must correct him on two points. The first is concerning the teabags. I am quite happy to leave those teabags behind because such a monstrosity is unknown in Britain. We don’t use them and believe me, therein I have come to this conclusion, that the American people can no more make tea than the British can coffee. Also, as regards my desire to become an American, well that wouldn’t worry me in the world. After seeing the abundance here and receiving overwhelming kindness, almost embarrassing to a reserved old Britisher, I really would not worry if Mr. Truman offered me a permanent visa tomorrow. But at the same time I realize that the greatest call for my services, small as they are, lies in Britain, and, therefore, of course there is no reason for the work’s sake I should stay over here and once again my eyes are towards Britain and what I can do there. Incidentally, a slight apology asking your indulgence for a cold. I have picked up an American cold which I find just about as helpful to a speaker as a British cold. But the slight naval twange perhaps is not that I am becoming American or anything like that; it is due simply to the cold. In all other respects, I am a typical Englishman, except fortunately some of them are a bit more handsome than I.

I am deeply grateful for this privilege that the brethren have extended to me of being on this lectureship this afternoon. We have heard a great deal about the Christian colleges in America. We have heard a great deal of A. C. C. and for a long time this great college and its work only existed insofar as what I read and in my mind. But now it is wonderful to come and see all those things of which I have read; see them in action and see many in the flesh of whom I have read. It is indeed inspiring to me and I want to express my sincere and heartfelt gratitude to Brother Glenn Wallace in particular for all the work he has put in in arranging this good will trip, and to Brother Hudson and Brother McGaughey who so ably cooperated with him and to the College Church here and also to the college itself. I am deeply grateful and deeply conscious of the privilege that is extended to me.

I am here, as Brother Wallace said, on a good will tour. There have been many things that have disturbed the smooth and even relationship between the British and American brethren and I am coming here to observe, to learn, and to carry back many of the lessons which I will learn. I am conscious that my greatest work lies in Britain when I get back to endeavor to break down some of the misunderstandings and prejudices that have arisen. My lecture this afternoon, of course, in the time allotted me, can only be a cursory glance and is humbly dedicated to this great task: That we might thereby be able to cement more firmly the ties that exist between us. I am conscious of course, as I set out on this task of a responsibility, a responsibility to my British brethren that I rightly and justly represent them and yet I am going to bring, not a picture that is glossed or glazed not as I hope we should be, but I am going to present to you facts as they are. And I believe that that will help you to understand something more of our difficulties, our problems and our aims in Great Britain.

First of all, I want to look very briefly into the external difficulties that meet the evangelist as he preaches the gospel in Britain today. From a superficial glance at the kingdom of Great Britain we may imagine that it is indeed a Christian nation that is motivated by Christian principles as far as any notion can so be motivated by those principles. We see, for instance, that there is a great deal of religious worship of a kind in Britain. We find that there are religious articles in the various periodicals and magazines. We find that there are talks, religious talks, on the British Broadcasting Corporation, the state controlled radio, and every way we sense that Britain is a Christian country. It is when we look behind this facade that we see the real Britain and we see the real British attitude toward spiritual things. I am sorry to say that the picture is far more ominous and far darker than that which appears on the surface. In the first place, in recent years partly due and accelerated by the war, there has been a widespread falling away from attendance of any place of worship in Britain. It is estimated that only about ten per cent of the people of Great Britain are permanently affiliated to any religious body and attend a place of worship regularly. It is further estimated that something like ten or twelve per cent go to some kind of service on some special occasion. But over fifty per cent are completely indifferent to spiritual things, and another fifteen per cent are actively hostile. Now it is this large number, this large body in Britain—over fifty per cent, very nearly sixty per cent—over half of the population of Great Britain, who are so indifferent to the call of the gospel that presents the evangelist in Great Britain such a problem today. When a man is even actively hostile against you, you know what to do with him, but when yo'u can, as I do in London over and over again, meet the attitude of a sweet smile, and know very well that the words you are speaking are going in one ear and out of the other, are just not registering, then it is the most difficult barrier to overcome.

Now with this, too, there is a widespread — and it is widening—a widespread materialism in Great Britain. Men are looking to the state instead of Christ for salvation. Undoubtedly Britain in recent years has undergone a social revolution and this may have something to do with it. But unfortunately, among the poorer, we find that they are looking to the government to solve their problems, both material and spiritual (if they ever think of spiritual problems), instead of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s very rarely in Britain (and I know that building problems are certainly difficult), but it’s very rarely in Great Britain today that we see a church building erected. Since I landed in this country on January 10, and have come down through various areas from New York, I have seen many new church buildings of various sorts being erected. Undoubtedly, of course, much of it is in error, but at the same time it does show that at least the American people are to a degree interested in spiritual things. Now that is not seen in Britain.

Again, there is another problem, and that is the widespread religious hypocrisy in Britain. That is represented by the state backed ecclesiastical system known as the Church of England. That system has not only apostacized from the faith, but also in many respects become a political tool. Indeed, it is still bound up with politics. The senior clergy of the Church of England are appointed by the government, by the Prime Minister, and the senior clergy sit in the House of Lords, the Upper House of the Houses of Parliament. Add to this the fact that as far as their services and gatherings are concerned, it presents to the man in the street a cold and hypocritical formality, formalism, and we can see the reason why it has lost touch with the common people. Men look upon this system, they look upon the services, they hear of its hypocrisies, and they turn away from Christianity and from Christ disgusted.

There is another problem, too, and that is the peculiarity of the British character. In the first place, the Britisher is a lover of tradition. Now that is all very well in one sense. Certainly, if you want to get on with a Britisher just tell him something of history a few hundred years back and he will be your friend for life. But in things spiritual that is indeed a detriment to the spread of the gospel, because it means this, that the Britisher will hang on to the traditions that have been taught him even after he rejects the system that has taught him those traditions. And so we find almost superstitiously men and women in Britain are still taking their children to be christened, thinking that by that they have a passport to joy in this life and eternity in the next. And it’s a very difficult thing to break down. The argument that is often logically put forward, or seemingly logically, is because my father has followed in such and his father before him and so generations back; therefore, it’s good enough for me.

Then, again, there is another peculiarity of the British character and that is his natural reserve. He will not readily open up to you. He will not readily discuss anything so personal as his soul’s salvation, if he thinks of it at all, and therefore one must work with him and talk with him to gain his confidence, and so the teaching of the truth is by a far greater degree a slower process than here with the American public and the man in the street in this country. These are some of the external problems that we face in Britain. There are many of them but these are probably the most difficult.

Now what of the internal problems that are within the church itself? What are the difficulties there? In order to appreciate this it will mean going a little into church history this afternoon. In many ways the cause in Great Britain has had a longer history and goes back farther than the equivalent work here in the United States. We can trace back the beginnings, or at least the link, with the restoration movement right back to the beginning of the eighteenth century. In the year 1727, John Glass, a minister of the Church of Scotland, withdrew from that body protesting against many of the principles for which the Church of Scotland stood, and founded a few years afterwards several churches taking his name and founding a body known as the Glassites after the name of their founder. Now in many ways John Glass was near New Testament truth, but he was not near enough. For in-stance, he realized the necessity of celebrating the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s day. He also taught a simpler form of faith than had been taught up to that time, and he protested against the emotionalism which passed for gospel preaching of his day. And he had a clear view of congregational independency. But unfortunately he still hung on to the old system and the erroneous teaching of sprinkling.

However, from that body grew another body. They were known as the Scotch Baptists, and they were founded by Archibald McClean and Robert Carmichael who had been former elders of the Glassites. Now Archibald McClean, by study of New Testament truth together with his colleague, came to understand that sprinkling was not the baptism of the New Testament. And once he understood it, he made a journey all the way to London, no mean journey in those days, in order to obey his Lord, and came back and baptized his colleague. Now they held to many of the tenets of the Glassites, but they went further and they came much nearer to New Testament truth and they are important in this respect: The Scotch Baptists were the soil in which the seeds of the restoration movement were sowed. They indeed represented the beginnings of the restoration movement for the New Testament church. It probably began by withdrawal from the Scotch Baptist, and many of the first leaders of the restoration movement in Great Britain were formerly members of that body. Indeed we can go today into Scotland in Kilcoddy in Fife and we can see there a church which was formerly a church building which formerly belonged to the Scotch Baptists—and incidentally, see the very pulpit in which Alexander Campbell preached on his visit to England.

Another body which ought to be mentioned at this time was that founded by the Howdain brothers. That again strove to get near New Testament truth and when Alexander Campbell visited or was forced to stay in Scotland, he came in contact with the Howdain brothers and their work, and it had a profound effect upon them. But'we can go further back at this time and we can see that there were churches founded upon New Testament lines long before Campbell, either Thomas or Alexander, ever began to write or to preach. For instance, in the year 1804 there was such a church founded in Dungannan, Ireland; also a few years later in Denvershire and two or three in Scotland. But the most remarkable of all is a piece of research that has come to light in recent years, and for this information I owe the president of the Digressive College in England, though unfortunately it is hard to learn the lesson that it teaches.

It has been found that there were churches of Christ founded on New Testament lines as far back in Britain as the year 1669 in the reign of King Charles II in the days that this great nation, this great America, was still being colonized. Now you know, this is a remarkable fact, it has been found that those churches (and we have records in an old minute book that has been discovered)—it has been found that those churches called themselves churches of Christ, that they practiced baptism by immersion, that they celebrated the Lord’s Supper each Lord’s day and that they had a clear view of congregational independency appointing to each of those churches—and there were eight existing in the Ulverston district of Lancashire in North West England—appointing to each one of those elders and deacons. Now* this is a remarkable fact, brethren, many of the denominationalists over here and to a lesser extent in Britain, call us by the name Campbellites, as if the name Campbell, or Stone or Kelly or Scott or anyone, else of the pioneers, had anything to do with the founding or the setting of the New Testament church.

These facts prove, as the facts concerning the Christians in India prove, of which Brother McMillan told us this morning—prove historically that which we have heard scripturally, that any man who is unprejudiced, who is unbiased, who is not blinded by the traditions and teachings of men, can come through the word of God alone to a knowledge and understanding of the will of God, not only concerning him as an individual, but concerning the community to which he belongs, that they can see patterned in the New Testament clearly all that is required to set up a New Testament church. And so clear is that pattern that the New Testament church can reproduce at any time, at any place, in any age. Now this is proved by those facts in Britain. In an age when the Bible was indeed rare, in an age when a man had to give his years, his life-savings almost, to possess any part of a copy of the Scriptures, yet there were brethren there worshipping truly and purely on New Testament lines, guided by the word of God alone. However, when we look at the restoration movement proper, we associate it with the influence of Alexander Campbell in Britain.

Alexander Campbell was born in Ireland. His father, ,Thomas Campbell, was a minister of the church of Ireland. In the year 1801 Thomas Campbell sailed for the United States for health reasons and very shortly afterwards Alexander Campbell was bidden to follow with the family. His ship was wrecked on the west coast of Scotland and so instead, he spent a year in Scotland studying at Glasgow University. It was then that he came in touch with Grevel Ewings who was principal of the college which the Howdain brothers had set up in that city. But Britain heard no more of Alexander Campbell for many years, and perhaps the restoration movement would not have been known so early in Britain if it had not been for one casual contact that was made in the year 1883. An American student was in London at that time, a Mr. Wise, and having walked into a Scotch Baptist church he contacted a Mr. William Jones, who was elder of one of those churches. Now Jones had heard of the writings of Campbell; he had heard of Campbell, too, as a consequence of a debate he had had with Owens a few years previously, but until this young man had told him of Alexander Campbell, he had not realized that the view of Campbell was so near his own. Correspondence ensued and soon Campbell was sending his writings over to Jones, and so impressed was Jones, that he launched a special publication with the express purpose of republishing the writings of Campbell known as the Millennial Harbinger and Church Advocate. That went on for about 16 months and it had a profound effect in Scotch Baptist churches because many that were seeking the truth in that body realized that though they were near the truth in many respects, they were not near enough, and there began to be withdrawals from that body. The first withdrawal of this kind was made by a man named James Wallace in the Midland district of England in Nottingham. He withdrew in the year 1836 with 14 others on December 25 and began a church which was purely and simply of New Testament lines. And there in Nottingham was the first church immediately connected with the restoration movement which, was indeed in every respect a church of Christ. Their numbers grew to 40, 60 and then 200, and all over Britain the same thing was happening. Men and women were coming back to the truth and setting up churches on purely New Testament lines.

However, the work in Britain lagged behind the work in the United States. There were at that time no evangelists, few brethren, very little in the way of churches, and no gospel papers except the paper which James Wallace had launched, the “Christian Messenger,” for the express purpose of carrying on the work that Jones had begun of republishing the works of Campbell. The first full time preacher of the gospel in Britain was a man by the name of James Reed, and he began working with the churches in the year 1837. He was a pastor of an independent church in Dundee and he not only discovered and obeyed the truth for himself, but he went further by teaching his congregation. Very shortly afterwards the whole congregation of 110 members obeyed the truth and there was set up a church of the Lord Jesus Christ in the city of Dundee. Would to God that men were so receptive to the gospel today.

Now James Reed went among the churches teaching and preaching, but he did not see how the cause in Great Britain could be promoted without some co-operative effort between the churches. So largely as a result of his effort in the year 1842, a United Meeting was called and a committee was set up, a committee of three, of which James Wallace was one, to promote evangelism, to encourage men to enter the field and also to gather funds for their support. Now from that one committee has come the digression which we in Britain today fight. This committee was set up by sincere men and women with the purest motives in the world, merely of promoting the gospel in Britain, yet unfortunately those who were lovers of God’s truth and have been following it, have not followed it to the degree of realizing that no such central organization in any shape or form was to be found in the New Testament. And unfortunately, as a result of their effort there has grown up a complete ecclesiastical system which has well nigh warped the cause of New Testament truth in the kingdom of Great Britain. That committee functioned for five years. The British brethren were very suspicious of it, and rightly too. The whole.time that it functioned only three evangelists entered the field and only L400—$12,000 was ever subscribed, and it faded out of existence, and would that it would have faded permanently out of existence. In the year 1847 efforts to bring Alexander Campbell over were successful. James Worlick had invited him to that country ten years back from that date, but until then some were opposed; however, Campbell eventually came to Britain. He did some good in Britain. He toured the churches but unfortunately Campbell met prejudice from the British churches wherever he went. Incidentally, and digressing from the subject, owing to the activities of the Anti-Slavery Society in Edinburgh, Campbell spent a week in prison in Scotland. Now, brethren, don’t think that’s a typical English or British welcome! Anyone who may be thinking of coming to Britain, I assure you we don’t treat you that way. But Campbell presided at the second general meeting of the churches of Christ in Great Britain. But owing to certain views that the British brethren then held and still hold, they were prejudiced against him in many ways and they virtually boycotted that meeting. Instead of the 80 churches that existed in Great Britain at that time and the 2,300 members, there were only some- fhing like 26 churches represented, and really Campbell’s tour was not the success that it ought to have been. In the year 1848, the following year, Britain had to fight further digression, this time from without for Doctor Thomas, the founder of Christadelphianism, came to Britain. He had been associated with the churches here in the U. S. A. and actually he had been baptized by Walter Scott, but he had severed his connections and began formulating the views which afterwards became known as Christadelphianism. The British brethren, news traveling slowly at that time, did not know of his severing from the church, and they received him, and by reason of that he was able to get in among the British churches. They were weak, very weak, at that time and this blow almost overwhelmed them. Many were separated from the New Testament church, many churches went out of existence, but thank God, the leaders of the movement in Britain were not swayed. In the year 1854, the Central Evangelistic Committee having faded out, there was again an attempt to set it off, which this time unfortunately was permanent. And from that body has really and directly grown the ecclesiastical system in Britain that we fight today. That body has supported three evangelists of note that we ought to mention at this time. The first was David King, a man of whom Britain knows much, a man who became the leading writer, the trainer of the brethren, the leading evangelist and the leading debater of Britain. David King was a remarkable man. He was formerly associated with the Camden Town church, which is now the Kentish Town church with which I am connected, and his conversion came about — and this is an interesting point to you brothers and sisters — his conversion came about by reason of a tract written by an American brother sent over to England. For years he looked for someone to baptize him for remission of sins and finally found one there in London.

He was a remarkable creature. Some of his achievements make very interesting reading. For instance, he went down to an Adventist church in the south of England in Sussex, preached for them several Sundays, and as a result of his preaching, the whole church of 150 members came over and obeyed the gospel and became a church of the Lord Jesus Christ. That church is still there today, though unfortunately digressed. In Birmingham he did the same thing, winning over a Baptist church. In debates he was just as remarkable. He debated on one occasion with a lecturer, a secularist lecturer of Leeds University, a man by the name of F. H. Gordon. A six-nights debate was to take place, but after the fourth night he had the remarkable experience of having his opponent stop the debate and renounce his secularist views and become a Christian. Brother David King was a powerful influence upon the church. He had very strict views with regard to clericalism. He had very strict views as regards the communion and he has left his mark upon the British churches in this region, but unfortunately through some of those views—and whether they are right or wrong, we’ll not go into for the moment—through some of their views differences began to creep in between British and American brethren which well nigh, in his day, led -to an open breach. Even Benjamin Franklin, so great a man as he, was discouraged from coming over and preaching in Britain because of those views.

Another man that ought to be mentioned is Joseph Bryan Rotheram, who you will remember as the author and compiler of.the Rotheram Emphasized Bible. He was a Briton and formerly a Baptist pastor.

One more evangelist who is outstanding in that age is Sidney Black. Now he ought to be mentioned because he was responsible for founding the largest church that Britain has ever had in Fulham, in London—some 678 members, and owned the only orphanage that the British have ever supported. Unfortunately, both orphanage and church have now digressed to the Baptists. The British churches had other difficulties to face. Towards the end of the last century there was a brother in the north\yest district of England, Lancashire, who was impressed by the disciple preachers, by some who visited Britain, and as a result he came over to the United States, met the Foreign Missionary Society of the Christian Church as it was then called, and arranged for disciple preachers to come over. They well nigh wrecked the cause in Britain as they did elsewhere. The British brethren established churches in France, in Paris, and the disciple preachers wrecked them and they are out of existence today. The British churches established the cause in Australia and New Zealand and in South Africa, and the disciples have done the same thing there — very nearly wrecked that cause. And they have very nearly done the same thing in Great Britain.

They came over to teach the brethren how to evangelize their own country, but they failed miserably. They succeeded in founding, or at least the only churches existing afterwards, were 17 churches and they formed a separate association, the Christian Association of Churches. Consequently, there was friction betwen the Christian Association and the British Association, namely as it is called, the Co-operation of the Churches of Christ. This went on for 40 years until finally the digressive churches, the American Disciple churches, were received into the Co-operation of the Churches of Christ.
Those preachers were indeed modernists and liberalists. They were passed as one-man pastors. They were open communionists and they were modernists in their teaching, and they have only added to the digression which the cause in Britain has suffered. But thank God, from this growing apostacy there were men who had the cause of New Testament truth at heart and had the courage to protest. In 1917, one did protest—Brother Walter Crosswaithe, the present veteran editor of the only gospel paper in Britain, The Scripture Standard. He withdrew in the year 1917 and worked for the pulling back of the church into the truth. In the year 1924 he called a protest meeting and from that there has arisen not only a protest of individuals, but whole churches protested and gradually the churches began to withdraw from the Co-operation of the Churches of Christ. In turn, unfortunately, from this protest meeting a com-mittee was set up to fight digression — a committee of loyal brethren. Now you’ll say, well surely the loyal brethren are in every way copying the very passage of the brethren before and the very thing that caused digression before. That is true, but remember that these brethren had been brought up in the committee atmosphere. They knew no other way as isolated brethren of protesting against this digression, and undoubtedly the Old Paths Committee, as it is called, veered from the truth. We certainly owe to them today in Great Britain the fact that those who are loyal and have come back to New Testament truth are there as a direct result of t&eir work and the work of Brother Walter Crosswaithe. Now the churches are gradually, more and more as individuals and as churches, withdrawing from the Co-operation of the Churches of Christ. But there was a further desire to get back to New Testament truth. It was thought by many British brethren, especially the younger element, that the committee was wrong, and so in the year 1945 as a result of the cooperation and the fellowship that we had with the American brethren, the Kentish Town church in London was the first church to take the step of supporting their own preacher, their own evangelist', that is in regard to myself, and now other churches are following suit. There are four churches supporting four evangelists. There are in all today eight loyal gospel preachers in Britain, and there are something like 44 churches outside of the corporation, but above all in Britain there is a desire not only to get back to New Testament truth but to hold to it and there is a new spirit of evangelism arising among the loyal British churches.

We are not only working with those outside of Christ, but we are working with those inside the digressive movement. We are bringing them promise, and daily there are more and more individuals and churches coming from that digressive group which now indeed from one committee has grown into a monster — a monster of ecclesiasticism with 20 committees, with a central council representing the churches of Christ of the British Council of Churches, and the Federal Free Church Council as a denomination among denominations with district committees and with a theological college that is daily turning out modernistic preachers, teachers, leaders and elders.

Now my time has almost gone, brethren; in fact, it has gone, but just let me speak on two major points of difference which has caused difficulty among the British and American brethren. Upon the question of the communion (at the morning worship) that is, the gathering around the Lord’s table is exclusively for believers alone, for immersed believers alone, and as a result they have not only laid stress upon the teaching that it is for immersed believers alone, but they actually discourage visitors from being present at that meeting. Now I believe that there is something that is good in that and I believe that there is something that is in error, and in these things I believe, brethren, we can learn from each other. And that is what I am here for: to tell these things frankly so that we can indeed understand purely and simply the situation as it exists in each country. I believe in the first place there is always the necessity not only generally, but expressively and specifically, to teach at the morning meeting that the emblem is of no avail and can have no meaning for the one who is outside of Christ, who has not taken upon himself the likeness of the Lord’s death, burial and resurrection by faith, repentance and baptism. On the other hand, I believe the British churches have made a mistake in that they have failed to realize the significance of Paul’s words in I Corinthians, that it shows forth the Lord’s death till he comes; that is, to the unbelievers. But I believe co-operation and understanding between us will endeavor to overcome this difficulty which has been a source of prejudice and that was a source of prejudice even in the days of Campbell. That was one of the reasons why Campbell was virtually boycotted in his visit to the British Isles. The second is the British brethren’s emphasis upon mutual ministry; that is, the right of every brother to edify the church as he has ability. Now there is a good point there and there is a point of error. In the first place there is always a need to lay stress upon the necessity for developing the talent within the individual congregations. And I believe we ought to really indeed launch fully, far more than I have seen here at present, a training program among our young men in both countries for that purpose. Then, too, much misunderstanding in this connection has arisen between British and Americans, by the British rather, through the different use of terms or different use of certain words in our various countries and cities. One is the term ‘‘minister.” Now British brethren have seen on American correspondence the word “minister” at the head of a page. Now “minister” means in Britain the pastor, and so British brethren are unable to differentiate between the law of digressive churches and in some respects have assumed that the evangelists or the preacher of the individual church over here is a pastor. Now I have seen no evidence of the one-man pastor over here, and thank God I haven’t, but on the other hand, brethren, I believe there is a point there. We often use the term “the minister” and that I believe is scripturally incorrect. It is wrong to speak of the minister and the mission. I am a priest, but not the priest. I am a jninister, a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ but not the minister, and therefore there is a difference. I believe that we must guard in both countries against the rise of clericalism, against the rise of a separate and separated class which are preachers alone, and we must get back to God’s ordained gospel and hold to it; that is, the government by elders in the leadership in the individual local congregation. On the other hand, I believe the British brethren are in error in that in their conception of mutual ministry they have formed two assumptions and both of them are false. The first is. that each brother is a potential speaker, and secondly, because he is a potential speaker, he has a right to the platform. I believe that that conception is doing harm to the cause of Great Britain today. Another thing, brethren, and I would pray that you would use every influence that you can to check this in Britain, that the British churches and the British faith is rapidly becoming the dumping ground—and I am going to be colloquial in this — rapidly becoming the dumping ground for the literature of every hobbyist in America. Unfortunately, probably those brethren in America here have been well summed up and their field is limited here and therefore for that reason they will go over and place their perversive doctrines in Britain. Undoubtedly this has led to further misunderstanding. The British brethren turn up some gospel paper, which is indeed extreme, and look at it and say, “Look, the American brethren for you.” And that harm is being done by those who are disloyal to the New Testament truth, and T will pray, brethren, that you will use every endeavor as far as lies in your power to stop that happening in Britain today.

Now may I draw the conclusion with just one lesson. The apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders, he said, “after my departure grevious wolves shall enter in among you.” Grevious wolves — and notice wolves, “ravenous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” The greatest danger to the church and its truth, brethren, lies from those false teachers who have arisen from within and not those who have endeavored to get in from without. And I believe that we must always watch that. Paul warned those elders; he said for the space of three years and with tears I warned you, and he left with them this charge. “Therefore watch,” for, brethren, I believe the lesson of the British theme for you American brethren and people is this—the same words, “Therefore watch.” It isn’t sufficient to say we have the truth. It isn’t sufficient to say we are a New Testament church. We must be always stepping back to New Testament truth and once we are there, we must watch and continually be on our guard that we stay there, that no influence from within or without may indeed draw us away from the truth as it is revealed in Christ through his word. I pray, brethren, that in our individual lives and as a community, as a church, we may be on our guard and that together in future years misunderstandings, prejudices and all the other things that separate us and have separated us in the past, might indeed be overcome, and that we might walk together and abound together for the cause of New Testament truth and the establishing of the church of the Lord, that that church may become in both countries all that the Lord desires it should be to be pure in doctrine, to be powerful in wisdom, and to be persevering in its work for the Lord Jesus Christ. Think of us, brethren, pray for us, and work towards that one and glorious end for his cause.