In previous articles it has been seen that the men who introduced and defended the first human institution (the UCMS) admitted there was no scriptural basis for the existence of such an adjunct to the church. They justified it purely on the basis of human reasoning, contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. Every human institution today exists exactly on the same basis as the UCMS, WITHOUT divine authority, and thus unacceptable to God. See Col.2:8; 3:17; 1.Cor.2:9-13; 2 John 9.

The same arguments used by the early preachers in opposing human institutions of their day can be used today against any human institution with the same telling effect. It will be profitable to review the arguments used against the missionary society in the last century for they remain true and are still valid today against any human institution that men may seek to attach to the Lord's church.

One of the first charges made against the society was that it was a SUBSTITUTE FOR THE CHURCH. Since the society had no divine authority for its existence, it owed its inception to human wisdom and human opinions. This was an impeachment against God's wisdom. It was an implication that God's plan was imperfect, and human widom could improve upon it. Tolbert Fanning saw this very clearly and wrote, "Our view is that, such societies are employed as substitutes for the churches, that they stand on ground the churches are entitled to occupy, and that they do, to all intents and purposes, usurp the authority of the churches, and thwart the designs of Jehovah. They make void the churches of Jesus Christ and the law of God." (Tolbert Fanning, "The Advocate and G.W.Elley," Oct.2, 1866, pp. 27-628).

David Lipscomb wrote, "To operate through an institution of man's devising in preference to the church of God is, in our esteem, to exalt man as of superior wisdom and power to God. To call in question the efficiency of God's appointments, as the best (we had like to say the only), that can be ordained for the accomplisment of God's designs, is to call in question the wisdom or power of God. As highly as we respect Brother McGarvey (and there is no man living, of his years, that we had formed a higher appreciation of for his work) and his associates, there are questions here involving too high, holy and sacred interests, both to God and man, for us to yield an iota." (David Lipscomb, "Destroying Church Cooperation," Gospel Advocate, Vol.IX. No.6, Feb.7, 1867, p.115). In the same article Lipscomb observed that since such institutions were founded on the assumption that churches cannot or will not do the work of God as well as a human society, that such institutions actually hinder and stifle local church activity. As the society prospers, the congregations become inactive, which allows these human organizations to take over the work of the church. So, instead of promoting church activity, an institution actually stops it.

John T. Walsh observed, "I think it is an undeniable truth, that men never departed from primitive Christianity until they lost faith in it. And no Christian ever yet adopted human systems and appliances until his faith became weak in the divine. . . . I repeat, therefore, that what we need is not a new plan of missionary work, but more faith in the old Jerusalem plan. . . . We want more faith and less machinery, more work and less talk, more faith and less planning. The Lord has given us the plan, and bids us go work in his vineyard; but instead of going to work with the tools He has furnished, we spend all the day in making new ones which in our wisdom, we think will work better. Let us quit it, and go to work with a hearty good will." (John T. Walsh, "Reply to G.W. Elley." American Christian Review, Vol.X, No.25, June 18, 1867, p.194).