It is the uniform testimony of the history of the Reformation that every reform effort was attended by a much greater power and demonstration of the Spirit of God before it culminated in a new sect than ever was manifest in that sect afterward. I think I can safely challenge a single exception to this fact. During ten years labor in the denomination that grew out of the labors of J. Winebrenner and his coworkers, it was the constant admission of the old fathers and mothers that no such power of God had been witnessed in that body as was before they assumed and received the name of another religious denomination. The same is true of early Methodism, and in a remarkable manner is it true of the Free Methodists. Let me give you a few extracts from the "History of the Origin of Free Methodism," by Sister Sidney M'Creery, who with her husband, Joseph M'Creery, was associated with B. T. Roberts and William Kendall from the beginning of the great holiness revival that resulted in their separation from the Methodist Episcopal sect. Hence she testifies what she knows and declares what she has seen.
The record is that for six years they worked and prospered wonderfully under the power of God and freedom from all sect yokes, and that from the formation of a new sect by B. T. Roberts the glory departed from the Nazarites, as they had been called. She says:
"B. T. Roberts in his discipline says the Free Methodist organization was a necessity. Was it? Let the hundreds testify who were so wonderfully and lovingly united together in the Holy Ghost. The truth is this: God's heritage and work were spoiled by the laying on of man's hands.
"While enjoying this spiritual fellowship all was peace and harmony and the work of conversion went on, the saints rejoiced, and the sectarian devil was mad, sinners in Zion were afraid and trembled as they saw the weakest saint upon his knees.
"B. T. Roberts started out with a trap in hand, making a new test of fellowship. He visited far and wide among the live pilgrims, preaching sect fellowship as the one thing needful, and that they could go no further without it.
"In most cases it took them by surprize. They examined themselves and reasoned thus: We are already in fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and in holy spiritual fellowship with the saints, and God has given us the victory again and again while fighting against the unholy sects. What can the sect yoke do for us? We are now free to go everywhere preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus. Thus many stood out for a while. Oh, what robbery, what treachery, to pervert and use this work of God, which began so gloriously, to the building up of a carnal and selfish organism! At every gathering, large or small, the sect yoke was presented and held forth as 'the cross'.
"My husband was satisfied with God's way of ordering the battle; yea, more than satisfied; he rejoiced and was exceeding glad to see the prosperity of Zion in our midst. While B. T. R. said in action by the formation of his sect, 'I have suffered enough reproach and shame; I will number Israel and become as other nations,' then the work of building up 'our church' commenced. How the enemy triumphed! At all the gatherings the spirit of sectarian zeal was worked up to the highest pitch, and so fulfiling the scripture which saith, 'Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.'... "And today he (B. T. R.) has no more influence than any other sect bishop, whereas he was once a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them who did well. From this time the battle of the Lord ceased and the enemies rejoiced. Some who remember the former days of liberty and power ask B. T. R. why the same power is not manifested now as formerly. He answers on this wise: God then gave the people a special blessing for a special work. Very good; but why not continue under these special blessings and in this special work? What an absurdity, what inconsistency to build another sect in order to go through the same variations and evolutions of its predecessors! Was it pleasing in the sight of God to manufacture another class of backsliders? Was it a necessity? Wherever I go I find the burden of Free Methodist preaching is to backslidden membership, whereas before its formation—while they remained in God's order, where he placed them—every man, woman, and child was able to do a full day's work. In visiting many places I find them (the F. M.'s) nearly, if not quite, extinct. In missionary fields the work takes well for a season, but when they begin proselyting and making it a 'necessity' to gather them into their peck measure, then the Lord leaves them to themselves. As I am passing through the land I often meet with those with whom I was acquainted during the war of the Lord, and immediately they refer to the former days of power and salvation and say, 'We don't have such meetings nowadays; I would go a long distance to enjoy such privilege.'"
We might multiply quotations, but these will suffice to show the fact that the formation of sects is the destruction of Christianity. Thus it is an undeniable fact, that when men enjoyed the stigmatized "come-out" "stock of ignorance," they have been used of God far more than after they suddenly became wise (?) in building up a wall about themselves or entering a sect pen built by some one else.
The Vanguard calls coming out of Babylon "a kind of spiritual rash"; and Pure Religion and Gath Rimmon both think that very smart, and serve it up to their readers. May the Lord forgive this lightness. Had we not better look into the Word of God and see what the Lord saith, than to indulge in mere witticisms? Does the Word of God teach that it is a "spiritual rash" to belong to Christ alone and hold only to him, "the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all"? Was Christ afflicted with a spiritual rash when he said, "There shall be one fold and one shepherd"? Was that the infirmity that Paul had when he said 'there should be no schisms in the body'—no Methodist schism, no Wesleyan schism, no Free Methodist bond schism, nor United Brethren; yea, no schism?