Copied from the Editorial writings of Elder C. H. Cayce, Volume 6 page 213

Church Sovereignty
July 16 1936

When Fuller, Carey & Company introduced their new doctrines and new measures among the Baptists about the year 1792, and then in the years following advocated those new measures, and pressed them to the division of the Baptist family, they did so under the pleas of church sovereignty. If one will read the history of the church during those times, he will see that the followers of these men claimed that each church was a sovereign, and had the right to engage in those new-fangled measures, and that no other church had a right to object. Their claim was that if one church desired to engage in such practices, she had the sovereign right to do so, and that no one had a right to interfere or to object.

 When Burnam, Pence & Company introduced their new departures among the Baptists they made the same plea. They made the same claim--that each church had the right for herself to have a Sunday school, and the other new measures they introduced, and no other church had any right to object or to interfere. Their claim evidently was that each church is a sovereign.

When the Progressives introduced the organ and their other measures, they made the claim that each church is a sovereign, and had a right to do as she pleased, and no other church had a right to call the matter in question. Their claim was that each church had the right to decide the matter for herself as to whether she would have an organ in her worship or not, and that no other church had a right to object, or to say a word against it.

 If there is any such thing as the church being a sovereign, then the claim of all these people was right, and the old-fashioned Baptists who protested against these new measures were in the wrong.  If that doctrine is the truth, then we better go, "boot and baggage," the whole "pile of us," over to the Missionaries, and confess to them that our people were wrong; that they had no right to object; that the missionaries were right in contending that they had a right to introduce their new measures; that each church had a right to decide for herself; and that we departed from the Scriptures in denying that right. What do you say? Are you ready to give up what our fathers contended for? We are not --we can only speak for ourselves.

 No church has a right to disregard the rights of her sister churches. Each church has rights of her own--but she does not have the right to disregard the rights of her sister churches. No church has a right to do that, which is injurious to the cause in general.  No church has right to retain in her body that which is detrimental to her sister churches or detrimental to the cause of Christ.

The church has no right under heaven to do anything else only what the Lord has taught and commanded in His blessed Word. The Lord is supreme, and the only Lawgiver in Zion. The church has no right to make or to enact laws, and she has no right to do anything else but to administer the laws the Lord has given. The apostles themselves did not enact laws. They explained and told how to administer and to execute the laws the Lord had given. They were judges--not legislators.

 There is a sisterly relationship between churches. This is a fact, which has been recognized by the Old Baptists all along the line.  Sisters in a family are not sovereign.  They have rights, which are theirs by reason of the relationship, which exists. But one has no right to do a thing that is grievous to another. One does not have a right to do a thing that is disreputable, for that inures the other sister, because of the relationship which exist. Hence, a church does not have a sovereign right to do as she pleases, regardless of her sister churches. The Lord has given no such right, that we have been able to find.

 It is true that each church is responsible to the Lord for her conduct. But so is a minister responsible to the Lord. While the minister is responsible to the Master, so is he responsible to his church for his conduct and for what he teaches.  Hence, the fact that a church is responsible to her Lord does not release her from the responsibility she is under to the sister churches.

 If a church does not act according to the commands of the Master, the sister churches have rights, too, as well as she does. They have a right to cease affiliation and association with her until she sets herself in order--and they should do that.  One good way to bring a church to consider her course and her conduct is to leave her alone--cease recognizing or affiliating with her, and leave her to herself until she reforms and sets herself in order.  If all would observe this, and simply "keep hands off" when a church oversteps her bounds and fails to do as the Lord commands and requires in His Word, troubles would be kept at home, where they belong. If you have a dirty thing among you, remember that others have some rights too--keep your dirty business at your own home, if you want it.   Others have a right to reject your dirt, and to not receive it. If one church has the right to have something, and no other church has a right to object, then the other church has the same right to reject, and you have no more right to complain about it than you say the others have to complain about you having the dirt.

Each church has the God-given right to say who is not entitled to membership in her body.  But God has not given her the right to retain that in her body that is a disgrace to the cause. She is commanded to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly,. If a church has a disorderly member in her body and she will not, or refuses to, withdraw from him, then it is the duty of orderly churches to withdraw from her.  To persist in retaining that which is a disgrace to the cause, is to walk disorderly; and the command is to withdraw from such.

If all churches would strive as hard at all times to do what the Lord requires and to obey His requirements, as they sometimes strive to justify themselves, and to hide behind "church sovereignty" in order to retain something that they should not retain, or to retain some man whose walk has not been orderly, and to justify themselves in so doing, there would be less trouble among the Old Baptists. We are too apt to "have men's persons in admiration."

 God's servants should be esteemed, and appreciated as such; but they should not be upheld or shielded in ungodly conduct. May the Lord help us to observe His laws and to administer them, as we are taught to do in His blessed Word. There is no appeal from that.  C.H.C