TH GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOOMB, EDITORS
VOL. II
NASHVILLE, OCTOBER, 1856
NO. 10

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST – NO. 12

THE SUPPORT OF THE MINISTRY

Little did we think when we closed our remarks, in the September number, in reference to “the work of the Evangelist,” and especially touching his reward, that circumstances would so soon suggest the necessity of a much fuller statement of our teaching regarding the sustenance of the public servants of Jesus Christ. We own that we have been tempted to sin, in administering severity on some who seem to be slow of hearing, but quick to speak. We were grieved not long since, for instance, to hear of a kind sister saying she was not pleased with our teaching, “because,” said she, “he is opposed to paying the preachers.”

Today we received a letter charging us with the sin of “unrighteousness” against the support of the ministry. When we first heard and saw these things, we were inclined to unpleasant feelings, but being reminded of our great labor in the Master’s cause, we repressed every unkindly impulse, and determined to make an effort to set the whole subject of ministerial support before our readers in a form which may at least be understood. Moreover, we entertain such unwavering confidence in the truth, that we sincerely believe, when correctly set forth, such as are disposed to hear what the Spirit says, will rejoice in its reception.

Before, however, engaging in the examination of this very important practical feature of our holy religion, we deem it altogether proper to call attention to two remarkable facts in the history of religion. In the first place, the philosophical co-operations we have attended had a single object so much more prominent than every other in view, that it seemed to engross most of the time—and legislation. It was “the best mode of raising funds for the preachers” of employing agents to make…

290

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

bargain with Evangelists, appointing auditory committees,” etc. These matters have been the chief subjects of consideration also, in most if not all the co-operations of which we have read and heard. These are subjects into which we should look without glasses, purple, blue, or green.

Secondly. It is a little remarkable, as we think will appear upon sufficient examination, that raising and distributing funds, in the apostolic age, constituted not a labor independent of all other service, but were really the outgrowth of the Christian life. We will endeavor to set forth the teaching of the Bible upon the whole subject in order, and we most affectionately ask our brethren to examine the matter in the light of the Spirit’s teaching, and inform us of any error which they may detect.

The Support of the Ministry in the Patriarchal Age

For 2500 years after the creation, or during the patriarchal age, as the language implies, each father was not only ruler of his family, but also conducted the service of God in his own house. The worship was a part of the daily labor of each family, and as the respective members gave their time to the work, equally with the father, we learn not that one received a greater reward than another. All were worshipers under the supervision of the fathers; but there are many reasons to believe that the individual members were by no means exempt from the responsibility of sacrificing under the supervision of their superiors.

Hence, we read that Cain and Abel both brought their offerings to the Lord. (Gen. iv: 3, 4.) But it is supposed by many learned men that Adam previously offered sacrifices, and as evidence, reference is made to the skins with which he and Eve clothed themselves; the animals from which they were taken having been slain, as is supposed, for sin offerings to Jehovah. Anterior to the flood we have no authority for concluding animal flesh was used as food by man. (See Gen. i, 29; ix, 3.) Hence it seems probable the animals were slain for sacrificial purposes.

After the assuaging of the waters of the deluge, Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (Gen. viii, 20.) The next in order of time who offered sacrifices to God was Job. (i. 5.) Next we learn that Abraham “builded an altar, and called upon the name of the Lord.” (Gen. xii, 7, 8.) But we are assured from the sacred record that Abimelech, Laban, Isaac, Jacob, and Jethro offered sacrifices to the true God. As intimated, it is most plain that other members of the family besides the father, really…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

291

Performed much of the service—all that was suitable, taking age, sex, and general qualifications into consideration. In the very close of the Patriarchal dispensation, after Moses had received the law, as if to show plainly the difference between the first and second order of worship, “He sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings; and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord.” (Ex. xxiv, 5.)

Whilst the people performed their respective parts in the service of the Almighty, no man necessarily gave more of his time, talent and energy than another; there was no particular class called ministers of religion, and, therefore, no provision was made for the support of any one called priest, pastor, or preacher.

Hence, our conclusion is, that for 2500 years the people who honored God, supported themselves by “the sweat of the face”—mainly as herdsmen, farmers, and mechanics—and no one thought of paying a fellow being to perform worship for him, or even for teaching the truths of religion.

Thus we close our remarks on the first dispensation.

2. The Support of Ministers under the Law

Moses, the mediator of the old covenant, introduced a new order of things, which lasted fifteen hundred years, or till Christ.

In the administration of affairs, one of the tribes of Israel was consecrated exclusively to the priest’s office, and others were not permitted to offer sacrifices to God. The rebellion of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, in assuming to themselves, with two hundred and fifty of the princes of Israel, the right to sacrifice, and the awful judgment of Heaven, in cleaving the ground asunder for their reception, will ever remain a living monument of the truth and justice of the Almighty.

This was the service of men specially appointed. The priests were not permitted to own land, and hence, in the distribution of Canaan, the tribe of Levi had no inheritance assigned. (Num. xviii, 20; Deut. xviii, 1, 2.) “The Lord” was to be their inheritance. As a suitable reward, the Lord appointed for the priests one tenth of all produced by the other tribes, certain portions of beasts slain for sacrifices, etc.

In the peace offerings they had the shoulder and breast. (Lev. vii, 33, 34.) In the sin offering they were entitled to all, except the fat that covered the bowels, liver, and kidneys. (Lev. vii, 6, 10.) The skins were the priests’, also the shoulder, stomach, and jaws of animals slain by the Israelites. (Deut. xviii, 3.) A part of the wool, at shearing, was the priests’, and the first fruit of the trees. (Lev. xix, 23, 24.)

But further details are unnecessary. Suffice it to say, that everything…

292

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

was ordained by law, and no priest could be mistaken as to the part he was to receive for the support of himself and family.

3. The Support of Ministers under the Gospel Dispensation

By a scriptural minister in religion, we mean any one consecrated by the proper authority, who devotes his time, talents, and energies to the cause of Christ. The ministers of the New Testament are evangelists, bishops, and deacons; all of whom are men set apart for special labor and are with their families entitled to a support from those for whom they labor. It is a little remarkable that we hear of no controversy regarding the living of bishops or deacons, but all the strife is in reference to the payment of preachers. Why is this? We either have no bishops and deacons in the scriptural sense or we are taking their labor for naught. Like some of our worldly institutions, the bishop’s service is yet mainly speculative amongst us. Although, as previously intimated, the subject was not treated abstractly by the apostles, we are sure there is quite as much authority for supporting one class of ministers as another. But we will see what the scriptures teach regarding:

The Support of Evangelists Paul, upon the support of men who give themselves to the gospel, reasons as follows:

“Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Or is it written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care of oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt this is written, that he that ploweth should plow in hope, and he that thresheth in hope, should be a partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless, we have not used this power, but suffer all things lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.”

Do you not know that they who minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple? and they who wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. These matters are so plain that they need no interpreter. The points are, that men go not to war at their own expense, plant not crops without partaking of the advantage of them, and when ministers preach the gospel, or sow spiritual things, they are at least to receive.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

293

Things Temporal

Finally, if the preacher receive not the living, he is comparable to the hard working ox, muzzled, and consequently starved. Many good men no doubt have been starved out of the gospel field, not so much from a want of disposition in the brethren to do their duty, as from the adoption of a wrong system. The evangelist sent forth to preach the glad tidings by the congregation of which he is a member, is not only the servant of his church, but the church also is to see that he has a living. Hence the practice in the primitive times of the churches sending help to the preachers at a distance. There was a certain “fellowship” in the church at Philippi, called a “good work,” which the apostle was persuaded would be “performed till the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil. i. 4-8.) This he again explains in the following words:

“Notwithstanding, ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction. Now, ye Philippians, know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Not because I desire a gift; but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all and abound. I am full, having received of Epaphroditus an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.”

As to the certainty of the requirement on the churches to support the evangelists, we need look no further. We call attention but to one point in this scripture, viz.: The church and members in their individual capacity, “sent once and again to Paul’s necessity,” and consequently there was a settled plan for raising the funds, disbursing, etc.

2. The Support of the Bishops, and Pastors or Overseers

Each church in the apostolic day required the services of overseers, pastors or bishops, in the plural number, who could no more labor at their own expenses than the evangelists. We read the following scriptures on the subject:

“Let every soul be subject to the higher powers (not the powers of this world). For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. For rulers, (of course in the church—bishops or pastors,) are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain.”

294

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

ty in the church to execute the laws,) for he is a minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute, (contribution) for they are God’s ministers attending continually upon this very thing. (Romans xiii. 1-7.)

If we have rightly applied the scriptures, God’s ministers, and powers in the church, attend “continually” to the service of the church, and Christians are not only to respect, fear, and love them, but are required to bestow their contributions for their sustenance.

Again, the apostle exhorts: “We beseech you, brethren, to know them who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you. And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.” (1 Thes. v. 12.) Here the disciples are commanded to “know,” consider them who are over them in the Lord, or overseers in the church, and they are to be esteemed, not by the year, month, or day but for their work’s sake. If men were all measured by their deeds, we would have little difficulty in determining to what amount each pastor or feeder of the lambs is entitled.

Last of all, on this subject, the apostle says: “Remember them who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever.” (Heb. xii. 7.) The end of the bishops’ conversation is Jesus Christ all the time.

In the same connection he exhorts, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief.” We see not how we can add any thing to these passages which will give them more point or efficacy.

3. The Support of the Servants or Deacons of the Church

The seven consecrated in the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1-6) to “serve tables” or attend to the wants of the widows in “their daily ministrations,” are admitted deacons; and we and, the very nature of their labor—to attend the wants of the needy—demanded all their time; and upon the principle established by Moses, that men were to live of the things in which they ministered, we hesitate not to say, they lived from the “common” treasury of the congregation.

We presume, however, that the requirement in reference to the necessity of evangelists, pastors, or shepherds and deacons, can be denied.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

295

by no one who regards the authority of the sacred scriptures, but the matter in discussion, generally amongst the brethren, is with reference to the manner of collecting and appropriating the funds.

The examples of the New Testament we think plain. The first thing for us to understand is, that “the earth, and the fulness thereof, are the Lord’s.”

First Example: Jerusalem

The first example is that of Jerusalem. The persecutions and necessities of the brethren suggested to them the wisdom of selling their property, and holding the proceeds subject to the wants of the poor. The apostles first directed the distributions to the needy, and secondly, the seven were appointed for this purpose.

Second Example: Acts xi. 29

Example second is found in Acts xi. 29. A messenger from Jerusalem to Antioch, “signified by the Spirit that there should be a great dearth throughout the world.” “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren who dwelt in Judea. Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.”

Third Example: Galatia and Corinth

Third. The order in the churches of Galatia and Corinth for raising funds, particularly for the saints, was “upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store,” or put into the treasury, “as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings” (collections) “when I come.”

We may be told there is nothing in these scriptures regarding the mode of raising funds for preachers, bishops, or deacons. We suggested very respectfully at the outset, that neither the labor nor the manner was independent of or separate from the uniform course of the church in her primitive days.

Rules for Raising Funds

In raising funds for necessary uses—under which head the support of all ministers may be placed—the rules are plain:

If necessary, we must give all to the cause of our Master.
If all is not necessary, each is cheerfully to give according to his ability.
The first day of the week is an appropriate time to lay by in the Lord’s treasury.
The apostles first supervised the disbursement at Jerusalem.
Seven men-servants were appointed to this labor.
From Antioch the funds were sent to the elders of the church in Jerusalem. Of course, these elders were to be the judges as to the distributions.

Much more we might say in regard to the manner of doing this work,

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

and also by way of objection to the various modern systems under which good men are disposed to act, but we deem the foregoing a sufficiency to direct the mind of the candid inquirer into the right channel. Difficulties, however, we expect to meet as circumstances may require. The brethren will please observe that we have no theory, but we are sincere in the conviction, that believing God on all subjects, consists in receiving the scriptures as they are written in a fair translation.
T. F.

From the Millennial Harbinger for September, 1856.

REPLY TO T. FANNING

Brother Fanning, — My Dear Sir: — It is probably due to you, to myself, and to the public, that I should notice some of the preceding strictures on my article respecting the “Primitive Christian Ministry.” I would have done so sooner, but I understood that it was your intention to say something more on what you seem to regard as “very serious objections” in the same article; and, therefore, I preferred waiting till I should have all that you had to say on this subject fully before me.

On this point I may have misunderstood you; and therefore, without further delay, I will now proceed to notice some of your remarks.

Permit me, however, first to thank you for the very courteous manner in which you have reviewed said article. On a subject which has, for centuries, divided the whole Christian world; which for several years has been a subject of debate among the Disciples, and on which the Scriptures say less than on any other department of the present remedial economy, I had not the vanity to think that my sentiments would be at once either fully understood or universally received by our brethren. I know too much of the force of habit, of the power of system, and of the influence of early impressions, to suppose that any exposition of church polity would be likely to unite, without much patient investigation and mutual forbearance, those whose minds have been moulded in most of the various Protestant schools of the nineteenth century.

I have, however, the satisfaction of knowing that my published views have been fully understood; and, on all important points, as fully approved by many of our best educated elders and evangelists. And I am not without hope, that we may yet see, eye to eye, on ecclesiastical polity, as we now do on the faith and the piety of the gospel.

We have only to observe the generic law, “Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule.”

HILL GOSPEL ADVOCATE

297

Let us mind the same thing, and in all our investigations maintain the same Christian spirit, which in your critique you have so happily illustrated, and with God’s blessing, we will yet, as a people, “grow up into Him in all things, who is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

With this confident expectation, I will now pass by those things on which we agree, and proceed at once to notice some of your strictures.

You object to my use of the phrases, “generic precepts,” and “generic laws,” and you attempt to prove, by a reference to the physical universe, and to the Old and New Testaments, that all the laws and principles of the divine government are specific. But in what sense you design to apply this term I am unable to conceive; unless, indeed, you are combatting the old latitudinarian theory of the divine government. If this is your object, permit me, from my heart, to wish you all success. The idea that the government of the universe is like that of many families, in which there is no proper standard of right and wrong, of virtue and vice, of obedience and disobedience; in which all laws and principles are made to yield to the force of circumstances, and in which it is supposed that motive may sanctify every action, is at once dishonorable to God and destructive to man. No one, properly instructed in the philosophy of redemption, can for a moment cherish such a notion of the government that God exercises over the universe; and no one, who has understandably read the history of Saul of Tarsus, can believe that the end justifies the means; or that intention can ever make that right which is intrinsically wrong. But how anything that I have written could suggest such an idea is altogether beyond my powers of discrimination. The word generic, in its technical sense, denotes that which relates to some genus, proximate or remote; and in its more popular sense, it is very nearly synonymous with the adjective general. Specific has the same varieties of meaning. Technically, it signifies that which belongs to a species; but in its more popular acceptation, it simply denotes that which specifies or particularizes. In my article on “The Permanent Christian Ministry,” I have used these epithets in their more indefinite or popular sense. But in this sense, you do not surely design to use the word specific, as a predicate of all the laws and precepts of the Old and New.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Testaments

That there are many such in the Old Testament, and some in the New, I freely admit. Such, for example, was the command given to our first parents in Paradise, not to eat of the tree of knowledge; and such are the precepts respecting faith, repentance and baptism. But of what precept in the decalogue can the same be affirmed?

Suppose, for illustration, you were endeavoring to make a child comprehend the full import of the fifth commandment, you would doubtless begin with certain specifications. Your experience as an instructor of youth would convince you that the word “honor” is too generic to be at once clearly and fully understood by the infant mind. You would, therefore, specify and particularize, till you would have brought separately and distinctly before its mind all the items comprehended in this generic law. These specifications would probably fill a small volume; and the same may be said of many other precepts in both Testaments.

What a volume of matter, for instance, is contained in the generic precept, “Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” In this we have, not, indeed, an expressed, but an implied, “Thus saith the Lord,” against gambling, promiscuous dancing, and a thousand other popular vices, some of which are forbidden by no specific law.

I need scarcely say, that the laws of nature are, in this respect, similar to those of Divine Revelation. All eminent writers on physics concede that the primary laws and principles of the material universe are very few; and therefore, that they are, of necessity, very generic.

With these explanations and illustrations before you, may I now ask you and my other readers, to turn to the November number of the Harbinger, and read again what I have there written on this subject? Do you now find, in what I have there said, anything objectionable?

If Heaven has decreed that a number of men, “of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom,” should be solemnly chosen and set over the secular interests of every congregation of disciples; if the same authority has ordained that all things pertaining to the church should be done decently and in order; and if the common experience of all men has demonstrated that organization and cooperation are necessary to secure order and efficiency in every department of business, do not those deacons, who, in the same congregation, act independently of each other, each one doing what is right in his own eyes, violate an implied “Thus saith the Lord,” as plainly as the man who goes to the theatre or the ball room? And is not this just as true of elders and evangelists as it is of deacons?

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 299

I know some well-meaning brethren make a distinction. They are opposed to all evangelical organization or co-operation. They have so long witnessed the abuse of these elements of power, that they can no longer perceive their use. And yet, if called upon to act as deacons in any congregation, they would not hesitate to elect a president, a secretary, a treasurer, and an almoner; nor to remove them, whenever found incompetent to discharge the duties of their office.

Why, then, may not the evangelists of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, or any other State, or, if need be, of all the States collectively, unite together, elect a president, and whatever other officers may be found necessary to the efficient discharge of the work of their ministry, censure or remove these officers if necessary, and transact all other business connected with the general welfare of the church and the conversion of the world?

It is not proposed to render any one, as an individual, independent of the congregation in which he holds his membership; nor to create a separate tribunal for trying ordinary offenses; nor in any other way to interfere with the delegated rights of each congregation: but if it is lawful for a board of deacons or elders to form an organization in harmony with the duties of their office, and to transact all their own official business, why may not the same number, or ten times the same number, of evangelists, form an association in harmony with their calling, and cooperate in all things pertaining to the prosperity and advancement of our Redeemer’s kingdom?

It will surely be conceded, that evangelists are as trustworthy as deacons or elders; and that in their sphere of labor, there is even a greater necessity for frequent consultation than there can be within the narrow limits of a single congregation. In our present independent, weak, and distracted condition, we can, as a church, do but little for the salvation of the world. If we want to supply our own country with Bibles, or to send out a missionary to Jerusalem or Liberia, we cannot do it as a church; in this capacity we have no means of cooperating; but we must form a Bible society, and a missionary society, to deprive the church of the glory of converting the world.

I ask no better proof of the necessity of such an evangelical organization as that for which we plead, than the creation of so many religious and semi-religious associations for the accomplishment of certain specific ends. They are the creatures of necessity; I mean of a present necessity. They are the offspring of pious hearts, whose benevolence must and will flow; and for which the church, as it is now organized, furnishes no corresponding medium.

You next object to the doctrine, that one evangelist has any right…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

to participate in the ordination of another; or, that a part of Timothy’s duty while at Ephesus, was to ordain evangelists. You say, “The order of the New Testament is, for evangelists to set in order the things wanting in the churches, and ordain elders; and the elders, or old men constituting the presbytery, originally ordained evangelists.”

May I ask, brother Fanning, from what portion of the New Testament you draw this inference? Will you please to designate the chapter or the verse, which teaches that elders alone, without the concurrence of an apostle or an evangelist, ever did ordain an evangelist, or any other officer in the Christian Church? You earnestly contend for a specific “Thus saith the Lord,” as the only admissible authority in all such cases. Will you please to so illustrate this article of your faith? When such authority is produced, we will all humbly bow to it; but till then, we must be allowed to regard the rule as unscriptural and unwise. We have had too many such cases of ordination. The reader is again referred to 2 Tim. ii. 2, and to my article on “The Permanent Christian Ministry.”

From your third remark, I presume you would speak of Congress as perfectly organized whenever the members assemble in the Hall of Representatives. But if we may credit reports and the public press, they sometimes spend several days before they effect an organization.
You next object to two classes of ordainers; though if I may judge from the general scope of your remarks, you do not object to them as such, but only to their cooperating in the ordination of elders. You admit that evangelists should ordain elders; and that elders should ordain evangelists; but you deny that elders should unite with evangelists in the ordination of elders. I did not, brother Fanning, expect to hear this objection from you. I do not wonder that persons of undisciplined minds should often commit such fallacies; that some, for example, should infer that the deacon’s office is limited to the care of widows, (they should say, on their principles of reasoning, to the care of Grecian widows;) and that others should suppose, because the collections made (1 Cor. xvi. 2,) were for the poor saints, that it is unscriptural to take up collections on the Lord’s day for any other purposes.

But to you it must be evident, that such facts are but the opponents of great principles, just as the fall of an apple is a proof of the universal law of gravitation. If, then, the elders of the church at Lystra united with Paul in the ordination of Timothy, can you assign any good reason why they should not unite with either Paul or Timothy in the ordination of either elders or deacons?

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

301

You seem to regret very much that I should call Timothy a bishop of the church of Ephesus. I could sympathize with you, had this been done in the Roman or Episcopal sense of the word bishop. But as the apostles were evangelists, elders, and deacons, I supposed that I might, without censure from my aged and esteemed brethren, apply this word, in its etymological sense, to one who was left at Ephesus to watch over the interests of the church.
You say, “Bishop implies office, but elder, never.” Were it not, my dear brother, that I know you to be a diligent student of the Bible, I might, from this remark, be tempted to infer that you have read the Diversions of Purley with more care than the writings of the apostles and the evangelists. You are doubtless aware, that many words have a secondary, as well as a primary meaning; and that among careless and unphilosophical writers, one of the most common sources of fallacy, is the use of the latter for the former. In its first intention, the word elder has no reference to the alluvial formations at the mouth of the Mississippi or the Ganges; but geographical writers, nevertheless, speak of the deltas of these and many other rivers.

So in its etymological sense, the word elder, as you say, has no reference to office. It simply denotes an old man. But as bishops were generally chosen from this class of disciples, it became an official appellative; and in this sense, was used interchangeably with bishop or overseer. A single illustration will suffice for the present. From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church; that is, according to a well-known principle of logic, all the elders of the church. His object was not to converse with some, but with all of them. They came; and he said unto them, “Take heed, therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” Now, admit that elder, in this connection, is not an officer, but simply an old man, and it follows that all the old men of the church of Ephesus were made bishops, and that, too, by the Holy Spirit! Can you believe it? They must certainly have been a most extraordinary set of old men, or the qualifications of some of them would have fallen short of the standard delivered to Timothy and Titus.

On the subject of the old wife, I am perfectly willing that the reader should form his judgment from what has been already said.
You finally object to the doctrine of popular elections. Will you please to inform us, brother Fanning, what you have to propose as a substitute? When the interests of the church required that deacons…

302

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE.

should be appointed to superintend her secular affairs, “The twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them and said, It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables. Wherefore, look ye out from among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas, a proselyte of Antioch.”

This is certainly a very specific case; and a very authoritative one. Will you please to inform us when, where, and by what authority, this specific precept of the twelve apostles was abrogated?

In conclusion, let me say, I have no desire to provoke a controversy with anyone. My desire is simply to ascertain the truth; and therefore, it must not be expected that I will notice everything that may be said concerning my views of ecclesiastical organization, or any other subject. But it will always afford me pleasure to receive and to consider suggestions made in the spirit of the preceding article.

With sincere Christian esteem, I remain yours, &c.,
R. M.

NOTES ON PROFESSOR R. MILLIGAN’S “REPLY TO T. FANNING.”

Brother Milligan, – It is a source of thankfulness to our Heavenly Father, to think, there is a prospect of examining a few grave questions in reference to which the brethren seem not to have come to the same conclusions, in a spirit becoming believers in Jesus Christ. The only serious objection to publishing the Gospel Advocate, as expressed to intimate friends, was a fear of coming in contact with dictatorial and otherwise disagreeable spirits among the brethren, but I am happy to say, that our writers generally have been courteous, and I am pleased to labor with good men to disentangle the truth from the very gross darkness which has long rested upon the religious world. Yet we have no ground for boasting; we have done nothing more than our duty; we may yet fall from our steadfastness, and should therefore keep under the bodies, and all ambitious feelings, in deliberations of so momentous a character.

In reading brother Milligan’s essay, we understood him very nearly to approach the popular view of the times, in which it is a…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 803

It is assumed that:

“If the motives are good, or the people are sincere, all will be well.”

Our authority for such a conclusion was drawn from the following statements, viz:

“Did they (the deacons) regularly organize, by appointing a president, secretary,” etc.?

Can any man produce a “thus saith the Lord”? With many, this is the only rule of action in ecclesiastical affairs. From their conversation and writings, the mere novice in Christianity would be apt to infer that the New Testament is a code of the most specific precepts. But the diligent student of the new institution finds very few such precepts. God has made the New Testament a book of motives—He has enacted some very generic laws, and illustrated rules by authoritative examples.

These statements induced us to ask brother M. for his definitions of generic and specific Christian laws. The answer seems to be that there are some general and some special laws. We can scarcely appreciate the idea of a general or generic law, although we have considered the matter in the light of the best authors. Brother M. gives two examples.

“Honor thy father and mother” is the first. The command, in the Hebrew word, plainly implies, simply signifies to reverence our father and mother. We know nothing more specific, and yet our reverence may be manifested in divers ways.
“Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink,” (these are specific) or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. We see nothing general or generic in doing any and everything to the glory of God. The mode is thus specified. It is to be done to the glory of God.

But from the burden of brother M.’s remarks, we think we see still a worse feature. He says, in another place,

“Words have a secondary as well as a primary meaning.”

If the idea is that words first have a literal, specific meaning, and then a general or generic meaning, we disagree. We presume brother M. does not mean to say, with our pedobaptist brethren, that words—active verbs—baptize, for instance, often express the effect, or the thing done, but the action is undefined. We can only say, we are acquainted with no such words. It is true, we can have a verb with a literal or primary meaning, and a secondary or metaphorical significance; but it must be remembered that, according to all the canons of criticism, the metaphorical or secondary meaning must conform to the primary.

But finally, brother Milligan disposes of the matter, so far as Christian practice is concerned, entirely to our satisfaction. He says,

“The idea that the government of the universe is like that of many families, in which there is no proper standard of right and wrong, of virtue and…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Vice, of obedience and disobedience, in which all laws and principles are made to yield to the force of circumstances, and in which it is supposed motive may sanctify every action, is at once dishonorable to God and destructive to man. Practically, we repeat, the conclusion is correct, notwithstanding our difficulty in reconciling it with the premises submitted.

Introduction of New Organizations

Brother Milligan introduces new organizations to our ears. He asks,

“Why may not the evangelists unite together, elect a president, and whatever other officers may be found necessary to the efficient discharge of the work of the ministry, coerce or remove those officers if necessary, and transact all business connected with the general welfare of the church and the conversion of the world?”

“If it is lawful for a board of deacons or elders to form an organization in harmony with the duties of their office, and transact their own official business, why may not evangelists form an association in harmony with their calling and co-operate in all things pertaining to the Redeemer’s kingdom?”

In our present independent, weak, and distracted condition, we can, as a church, do but little for the salvation of the world. If we want to supply our country with Bibles, or to send out a missionary to Jerusalem or Liberia, we cannot do it as a church; in this capacity we have no means of co-operating; but we must form a Bible society, and a missionary society, to deprive the church of the glory of converting the world.

I ask: no better proof of the necessity of such an evangelical organization, as that for which we plead, than the creation of so many religious and semi-religious associations, for the accomplishment of certain specific ends. They are the creatures of necessity; I mean of a present necessity. They are the offspring of pious hearts, whose benevolence must and will flow, and for which the church, as it is now organized, furnishes no corresponding medium.

Thus writes Brother Milligan, and as in these extracts, I presume we have Brother Milligan’s whole ecclesiastical philosophy, I must say, that we differ across the whole heavens. In them we find the following organizations for which there is no authority in the Bible:

An organization of deacons.
One of elders.
One of evangelists.
A Bible society.
A missionary society.

All to perform labor “for which the church has no corresponding medium.” A few other organizations, such as a Free Mason society, to take care of orphans and widows; a Temperance society, to inculcate sobriety; an organization with a good president, secretary, etc., to educate men for the ministry; and anti-organizations to meet all the evils of society, might and would enable…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

their advocates to repudiate “a weak and distracted church,” which “can do but little for the salvation of the world.” The advocation of these organizations “of necessity,” is, to our mind, a plain abandonment of the church as the body of Christ for the amelioration of man morally and the salvation of the world. Indeed, with such views, we see not how any one can respect the church or even become a nominal member of it. If organizations of necessity are to accomplish all the work, which seems to be the tendency, the sooner we renounce the church the better.

I regret the necessity of speaking so plainly, but this is very much the tendency of things in the present crisis. I am, however, most happy to know that some of our more thoughtful and successful brethren seem to entertain a good degree of confidence in the ability of the church to accomplish much good. It is a little singular that in the same H:uhing’lr which brings to our ears such things as we have noticed, we find an antidote in a letter from the brethren at Louisville, Ky., in the words following, viz:

“BELOVED BRETHREN IN CHRIST,
By the authority of the members of the Christian Church, meeting on the corner of Fourth and Walnut Streets, in the city of Louisville, Ky., the undersigned have engaged our beloved brother, Elder William Thompson, evangelist and agent for the congregations to travel and labor among our sister congregations in the United States, and assist in raising a necessary fund, to sustain two or more evangelists, whom we shall send on a mission to England, Scotland and Ireland.

Taking the primitive churches as our model, we feel satisfied that each congregation is a missionary society in itself; and if unable by itself to raise means enough for any projected mission, to make an appeal to the brotherhood for aid. This we now do, by sending brother Thompson to you. The funds will be placed in the treasury of the church, and sacredly set apart and used for this mission by the congregation we represent.

D. P. HENDERSON,
A. S. SHOTWELL,
JAMES TRABUE.

Thank the Lord, that at least the members of one congregation regard the church as “a missionary society,” and they appeal to the churches of the United States for cooperation in this good work. If I could bring myself to the sad conclusion, that the church of Christ, even in her “weak and distracted” state, is not the best Missionary, Masonic, Temperance, Educational-ministerial especially-Bible and Revision society on earth, it seems to me I could have no…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Respect for her claims.
Were I, in such circumstances, disposed to labor for the moral improvement of my fellow-men, of course I could have no alternative but to use such organizations of “necessity” as might present themselves. But I must forbear, and I most sincerely regret to hear such things from brother Milligan. Surely upon the “second sobedlwugltt” he will abandon his whole scheme. I have noticed but a single point out of nine that I had marked for examination, but with brother Milligan’s teaching in regard to the inefficiency of the church, and her utter incapacity to do but “little for the salvation of the world,” I see no use in attempting an investigation of the internal regulations, as the meaning of elder, bishop, evangelist, their appointment or support. They all amount to nothing upon brother M.’s plan, and we feel not disposed to proceed further till the church can occupy her true position. She must do everything for us morally and spiritually, or I wish nothing to do with her.

I suggest, however, with a good deal of respect for Professor Milligan, that I find not a single scriptural position maintained by him. He writes fluently and well, but like many others, he writes, to my mind, as if he felt himself destitute of all religious authority, and hence he can see no impropriety in calling Timothy “a bishop.” Whilst, however, brother M. manifests the Christian courtesy he has done so far, I can but hope our interchange of sentiments will result beneficially to the cause of Christ. Should brother M. change his teaching regarding the church I will rejoice, but more for the present seems to me unnecessary.

With the most kindly feelings,
I am,
T. PANNING.

INSTITUTIONS ORIGINATING IN THE WISDOM OF GOOD MEN—HOW FAR SHOULD THEY BE ENCOURAGED?

Lexington, Ky., Sept. 2, 1856.
Dear Brother Panning:
I thank you for the Gospel Advocate. I am so much from home that I can get only an occasional glance at your writings. They are always interesting and profitable, and I hope you will continue to favor me with them. When at home they furnish me a rich repast. The spirit manifested by you, even when differing from your brethren, is such as to commend you as an example worthy of imitation. In the same spirit, and with a desire to understand you fully in relation to some of the enterprises of the day, I have concluded to sub…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

307

mit a few suggestions, to elicit more definitely your judgment and mind upon these subjects.

If I understand you, the effort to erect and endow colleges to educate those who are able to pay their way, meets your approbation. And I might add, perhaps, that to receive and educate a poor boy, paying his expenses from first to last, would be in keeping with Christianity.

In addition to all this, it is undoubtedly just, allowable, and Christian-like to fix definitely the salaries of the officers, and the fees for tuition, etc., etc.

I will presume to add further, that it would be esteemed a correct Christian enterprise in Brother Farming, and by him, if he were able, to adopt a dozen orphan boys, in actual need and dependence, and impart to them an education equal to any department of life, and especially to qualify them for the important work of converting sinners.

Suppose I should, as a member of the congregation of Christ, influenced by pure Christian principle and affection, adopt a half dozen or more of unfortunate boys or girls, and fit them for the church, or for society and the church, would it be unchristian? Would I be approved by the Savior? Or would I be reprobated? In such a case it strikes me that the church and Christianity would be as much commended as if the means had passed through the hands of the deacon. If it is done as a Christian, I become the deacon and almoner of the Church. The one is the reality acted out to the life. The other would be the mere show of passing through a form. If the church is such as she should be, and not able to impart such grace, she will rejoice and be glad that one of her members is able and willing to do so.

A congregation is a school of Christ to a certain extent. But it never has been considered a school for the purposes of general education. Men and scholars have to be selected to impart education, whether Bible education or scientific.

Would it be Christian for a congregation to originate and endow a school, as part of their Christian obligations, in which to educate all the orphan boys and girls to the extent of its ability? I presume not.

In what particular does such a case differ, in principle or Christian obligation, from an orphan boy or an orphan girl school, originated and sustained by the entire brotherhood?

Take, for example, the orphan girl school at Midway. It entered the mind and heart of brother L. L. Pinkerton, to relieve the unfortunate orphan girl. He communicated with such men as brother S. W. Parish, Patterson, etc. Convinced that it would require more means…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

than the church at Midway could advance, it was resolved to appeal to the government for a charter to protect the fund to be raised, and to make it the child of the congregations of Kentucky. It is intimately connected with the church at Midway, its worship, its Sunday school, etc. Besides this, the teachers and trustees are all of the Christian Church. What earthly or heavenly objections can be made to all this?

All this is written in the most affectionate spirit, and I trust you will consider matters well before you answer. If you differ, give us a brief plan as an answer. I know I desire to understand my duty. I am a conservative every way.

Yours truly,
J. T. JOHNSON

ANSWERS TO BROTHER J. T. JOHNSON’S ENQUIRIES

Brother Johnson—It affords me much Christian consolation to commune with you in regard to questions of so grave a character as those you have submitted. I feel no disposition to flatter you when I say that I see nothing like double dealing or a want of candor in your remarks. Therefore, with my present convictions, my feelings to you cannot be changed by agreement or disagreement upon the points you have submitted. Permit me, also, to assure you, that I always dread the influence of men who desire to differ from their brethren, and I am really ashamed at the introduction of new and strange doctrines among us.

I will notice the topics of your communication in order.

Regarding the endowment of colleges and schools, to educate the rich or poor: My mind has never been as clear as I could desire. As a matter of worldly wisdom, it would seem that all men at the first blush should favor such a view; but the subject may be viewed in various aspects. Good buildings, magnificent preparations, and learned faculties cannot educate the youth of our country. All these may answer a valuable purpose; but long experience in teaching, and observations made upon institutions of the times, incline me to the belief that God intended physical culture as the foundation of moral and mental improvement.
Why is it that the sons of ninety-nine hundredths of our people, with all the advantages you suggest, neither become respectably educated nor successful men in business? They were brought up in idleness, and thus, in an irresponsible age, were cursed by their parents to imbecility of body and mind, and doomed, many of them, to destruction through the indulgence of their lower passions.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Our judgment always has been, and now is, that daily industry at some honest calling is the most important condition of high attainments, physical, intellectual, and moral. Yet, if I cannot have things as I could desire, I determined, many years ago, to do the best I can in the circumstances.

1. Salaries to Teachers

As to salaries to teachers, we have always opposed them in Franklin College. At the close of each year, for twelve, the teachers have endeavored to determine the comparative value of each one’s service, and the settlements have been made accordingly. We have had no difficulty. I believe the tuition of pupils should be regulated by various contingencies. I am not sure but it would be best for all schools to be conducted without fees for teaching; but I am not inclined, at present, to give any speculations in reference to the best system for the State, or any neighborhood to adopt for the education of the young.

2. Adoption of Orphans

Possibly we might render valuable service to our fellow citizens for each who is able, to adopt as many orphans as he can support and qualify for usefulness, but this admission proves not that this is the best plan for each Christian. I am inclined to have confidence in both individual and co-operative labor, but one should not be adopted to the rejection of the other.

3. Schools Under Church Direction

In reference to schools under the direction of the churches, for purposes of general education, I have a few thoughts to offer. Why it is that religious people regard education as a worldly affair, and that Mohammedans, Jews, Romanists, and Infidels are as competent teachers as Christians, I cannot comprehend. Greater care should be observed in the first lessons to the young than in after life. Poison the mind of the child, and seldom can a remedy be found. In plain terms, if Christians from the alphabet to the highest branches do not make Christianity the basis, the education must be of doubtful import. Solomon’s declaration, “Train up a child in the way he should walk, and when he is old, he will not depart from it,” should not be forgotten. As to the plan to make education Christian, I will offer at present no suggestions.

4. Education of Orphans

Our views regarding the education of orphans and endowed orphan schools, I give most cheerfully. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to take care of the fatherless and widow in their destitution, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” The obligation of relieving the afflicted, and educating the needy rests, first upon the individual members, and secondly upon the…

310

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Churches. Let each member do what he can for others, and let every church consider attentively her obligations, and if any work should be suggested too great for the performance of one congregation, the scriptures authorize the co-operation of any number of churches for accomplishing it.

If brother Johnson desires to know, if I am in favor of building up and endowing orphan schools or any other kind of schools to support the young in idleness and for teaching letters merely, or such theoretical Christianity as can be taught without the pursuits of industry, I answer that I doubt the wisdom or morality of the encouragement. If an individual church, or any number of churches combined, will have a school for the needy, let the poor, by all means be trained up to some employment by which to gain a support and become useful. Yet there is a much better plan.

Let the respective congregations, either as individual bodies, or in co-operation, as circumstances may suggest, make ample provision to educate theoretically and practically all the youths who may come under their influence, and schools exclusively for the rich, or orphans, will not be known. Hence I state in conclusion, that I doubt the policy of establishing orphan schools to bring up unfortunate children without trades and professions, and still more on the ground, that these orphan schools, to my mind, are attempting to perform, in part, the labor which it is the imperious duty of each congregation to do.

Finally, we state, that we wish to throw no embarrassments in the way of any brethren who are doing good, and if the question is, whether we should adopt the present orphan school system, or do nothing, I say, by all means let us labor for the benefit of humanity upon the best plan that can be employed. Still, I can but conclude, that everything which Christians perform for the improvement of our race, should be done through the agency of the church.

T. F.

THE SALARY SYSTEM

RUDDLE’S MILLS, Sept. 1856.

BRO. FANNING: – Inasmuch as there seems to be a difference of opinion amongst some of the most enlightened of the brotherhood, in reference to entering into definite engagements between Congregations and Evangelists or Preachers, I beg leave to submit a few reflections of my own mind, in the hope that more light may be elicited from

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

others, and that the practice may become uniform and Scriptural, if it is not so at present.

1st.

In the first place, it will be conceded that the laborer is worthy of his wages.

2d.

It is as just and safe; it is as scriptural and prudent, to ascertain the amount of compensation that is necessary to sustain the Preacher and family, before the labor is performed as after it—and in my mind, fewer difficulties will arise in this case than the other. Indeed, as a member of a Congregation, no Preacher should labor for me, unless I knew beforehand the least amount that would satisfy him. We cannot well be too definite in our own engagements. Indefinite engagements always engender strife, &c.

I do not know of a case where our preaching brethren have exacted too much. I have known many cases where the compensation has fallen far short of an equivalent for the labor performed, and the sacrifice made. The compensation should always be over and above the mere expenses of the preacher and his charge, in order to meet the contingencies of sickness, &c. If the congregation should, after the labor of their preacher is over, present him with more than their engagement demands, it is a matter of their own, and would be commended or condemned according to prudence and liberality, or recklessness of the gift. I am not, and never have been personally interested in such cases, and I can therefore speak with more freedom.

The amount of compensation for labor is always a matter of judgment. We can never ascertain the exact amount. We have to settle down upon something that is satisfactory to both parties. There are two parties, and both must be satisfied. The parties ought to understand each other as perfectly as possible, before they enter upon their work. As to the expenses of a family, no man can well tell what they are, or what they may be. No family will submit to the inspection, or supervision of another. It is best for both parties to conjecture, and agree upon the conjectured amount, than to leave it open for altercation, for it will inevitably end in strife, or chafed feelings. It is an easy matter to settle these things beforehand. Beware how you leave them unsettled till the expiration of the labors of the preacher.

3d.

If my opinion is of any value on another point, I am free to give it. Suppose a Preacher should be engaged in any of the vocations of this life during the week, and should preach for a congregation on Lord’s day, is he entitled to compensation for such labor? My

312

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Decided conviction is that he is not. If he is at any expense, the congregation should bear it. But the labor is such as every Christian is under obligation to perform and it ought to be rendered most cheerfully.

We are all bound according to our ability.

4th. If a man spends all his time in the cause, he ought to be well sustained; if half or a fourth of his time, the laborer is worthy of his hire.

5th. I cannot see why all other engagements should be definitely settled, and Christian engagements should be left indefinite. I never made an indefinite engagement that I now recollect, but what I suffered for it.

But I must close at present.
Yours affectionately,
J. T. JOHNSON

REPLY TO BRO. JOHN T. JOHNSON

Whilst no man of our acquaintance commands more of our love than Bro. J. T. Johnson, and whilst we regard most of his remarks as, at least, approaching the truth, we must assure him, that we believe he misses the mark, and the slightest error in regard to any teaching of the New Testament, must always be considered as at least dangerous.

So far as logic and philosophy are concerned, we have seen nothing superior to our brother’s teaching. Everything seems plausible, and were he and I to make a religious system, by one standard of worldly wisdom, no doubt we would act precisely as we do in regard to the things of this life. Every one’s salary would be settled and fixed, whether by the year, month, day, or by the amount of applause which the speaker might upon a fair trial at the beginning, be enabled to gain from well-qualified critics on the fair proportions of preachers.

We could offer many objections, but a few must answer our present purpose.

The New Testament is as silent as the grave in reference to settling at the beginning of the year, what a preacher may need. It is impossible in the very nature of things, for anyone to tell, or even approach the amount which may be required for the support of the Evangelist or his family.

The contingencies of living are too great for determining such questions in advance. Men in all legitimate pursuits receive according to the labor performed. The farmer knows not what he is to reap; but he labors in faith and God gives him such a reward as pleases Him. It is always right, though it may be more or less than anticipated. In religion, no one knows what he shall receive in the world to come, but the confidence that we shall be as our Lord.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

is altogether satisfactory; and in reading the Scriptures we find that even on this earth, ministers like the faithful ox that treads out the corn, plow in hope, sow seed in hope, and in the performance of their labor can say with Paul, “If we have sown (not what it is to sow a year?) unto your Spiritual things, is it a great thing that we shall reap your carnal things?” But few of the partisan world are disposed to walk by faith—everything must be a matter of sight or feeling. Hence they fancy that they make bargains with Jehovah to the effect, that, on the condition the Lord will first give them religion, remission of sins, and fill their hearts with the Holy Spirit, they will condescend to be baptized, and will even join the church, because they have wrestled with God till he has saved them. Do these people believe, or trust the Lord? It is well known that the authorities make the converts tell that God has met them in the grove, at the altar or elsewhere, and given them a Christian’s reward, although they have not taken the first step to enter into Christ. The same principle, to our mind, seems to govern the brethren generally, upon the subject we are considering.

Brethren before they will preach, having really not proper confidence, as it seems to us, in the Lord, His cause, or His people, are disposed to make matters sure before they start, that whether they labor or not, they can claim the salary. The effect upon inexperienced men who can get no bidders for their service is, that they are not encouraged to go forth trusting God and his people for bread. We know this to be the reason for at least some well-disposed brethren refusing to preach. The brethren will not say how much they will give, and to walk by faith is attended with too great uncertainty.

But we must close. We have no doubt Bro. John T. Johnson, and every really successful preacher in this great nation, have labored mainly in direct opposition to the plan submitted. We believe Bro. Johnson possesses the goodness of soul to say, that when he started no church or people promised him a salary, but he went forth in faith that the God who feeds the ravens and clothes the lilies, would protect him and his wife and children. In no other spirit, in our judgment, can a man preach the Gospel of Christ.

Our objections to the bargain and settled salary system are too numerous to state a single one in this brief reply. We are in the right, and we doubt not for a moment, the beloved brethren, with a little patience, will see eye to eye. Lord incline us to thy ways.

T. F.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

METAPHYSICAL DISCUSSIONS—NO. 1.

While we are utterly opposed to all speculations on religious subjects, and metaphysical religions particularly, we are satisfied that we have never before witnessed so pressing a want of a thorough examination of the various popular philosophies of the age. Indeed, a chief object we had in view in establishing the Gospel Advocate, was to meet some of the infidel systems of theology which are insinuating themselves into the churches, under the imposing titles of “Freedom of opinion,” “Liberty of Conscience,” “Rational views,” “Progression,” “Advanced state of society,” “Religion of cultivated minds,” etc., etc. These high-sounding words possess an almost resistless charm for the young, and also for aged members of the churches, who are not familiar with the evidences of the truth of Christianity contained in the scriptures.

That our readers may have a clear idea of what we mean, we beg leave, 1st., to define modern philosophy, and, 2dly., to notice something of its presence in existing institutions.

In order to make “a long story short” we state that modern philosophy—comprehending both mental and moral—proposes to give the world all needful spiritual intelligence, or moral knowledge, from some power in human nature without external aid. The supposition is, that man possesses a kind of moral intuition, self-consciousness, or reason, which is capable of affording him all the light which he needs. Hence the information is called direct and absolute, and from within. In books, this is called knowledge a priori, or from cause to effect, presuming that the spirit, soul, mind or reason of man, is sufficient of itself to originate truth. The advocates of the doctrine speak eloquently of leaving the outward and visible for the inward and real. They maintain that thinking is without language, and the sooner we can lay aside all words, forms and symbols the better. Some call this knowing power within “our higher spiritual nature.” These direct conceptions, Kant styled “transcendental ideas,” and the faculty revealing them, “Reason.”

There is another philosophical system which it may be proper in this connection to define. It teaches that our knowledge of God originates in observations of nature. By the learned it is called Knowledge a posteriori, or knowledge from effect to cause. The system assumes, that all objects of nature, without any previous intelligence in man, would be regarded as effects of design, and therefore prove a Designer-God. From the perfection of these natural objects, it is said…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 315

Proposed we would, unaided, infer the wisdom, power and goodness of God, and, therefore, we have all that we can ask, in reference to our Maker and our obligations to him, from the external world. These theories are opposites, but they comprehend all the systems of spiritual and moral philosophy on earth; and a thought or two in reference to the extent they are received, and their effect upon the human mind, must suffice as a very imperfect introduction.

Modern German Theology, or German Neology, is built upon the prior doctrine, and most of the metaphysical systems of the world have been erected upon this view of human nature. Hence the colleges and schools generally, of both continents, are under the influence of this system of knowledge, springing from our higher spiritual nature. Some of the modern churches seem disposed to combine the systems. Their members maintain that what we cannot learn from looking within, we must collect from without.

As to the truth or falsehood of these systems we will state, that it occurs to us if we could collect all the knowledge we need regarding God or our duties to him by appeals to a divinity within, as Andrew Jackson Davis does, we would not need revelations such as we find in an ancient book called the Bible. Furthermore, if from observations of nature, or from all that is within, and all that is without, we could collect what the world must have in order to do well and be happy, we should seek nothing further.

The Christian position differs from these. It maintains that internal and external nature are utterly incapable of revealing an Invisible God, our obligations to Him, or any part of such information; and consequently we are indebted exclusively to miraculous revelations made by God to man, for all our moral and spiritual light.

Finally, we wish to say, that it was, perhaps, from the influence of this higher nature doctrine, that the cause of Christ has been prostrated in Nashville. A gross sensualism followed, and we must confess, that whether we find it in churches or in colleges, we regard it as the surest evidence its advocates reject the Bible, though they may be called “liberal Christians,” and, so far as we are concerned as a people, we have reason to fear more from this system of infidelity than all other causes. A few moons will verify the truth of this statement. We most respectfully ask the writers of “This Reformation” to think seriously before adopting theories from their merely specious appearance.

T. F.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

REPLY TO CERTAIN REMARKS IN REFERENCE TO REAL OR SUPPOSED ERRORS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF BRETHREN IN KENTUCKY, BY A KENTUCKIAN.

Lexington, August 28, 1856.

Bros. Fanning & Lipscomb:
Your August No. of the “Gospel Advocate” is just at hand, and under the head of “Good Hints,” I find the following enquiry from a Kentucky correspondent: “Will not Bro. Fanning feel it to be within the bounds of Christian prudence to review the report of the last Kentucky State Meeting, with the pastoral sermon attached, and endorsed by the ‘religion of the State.'”

To the above I have to say that the Kentucky brethren are not pledged to the support of Bro. Burnett’s address upon the pastoral office, nor did he, or any one else who attended our last State Meeting so understand the matter, as far as known to me. It was published upon its own merit or demerit.

Your nameless correspondent again charges without any just foundation, that, “We move in Kentucky with a steady step towards a hierarchy as unscriptural as that of Rome, or England, and the preachers who seek to make themselves the Church, appear to think all is well. It seems that some are endeavoring to degrade the Church into an auxiliary to the more than foolish societies of our age and country.” In reply to the above bold and reckless charges, it is simply necessary to say, that so far as my means of information extends, the whole of the above alarming picture is true only in the disordered imagination of our correspondent. No such facts are known to me. As a body, there is no religious community, or set of preachers freer from such a tendency, or who would go further in opposing such pretensions. Our scribes should be a little more cautious how they make charges so sweeping.

During the months of July and August, large additions have been made to some of our Churches. Over 250 have been reported to a few Congregations, and yet the people are ready to hear more upon the subject of Christianity. I rejoice to hear that such a disposition is also manifested by the good people of Tennessee. Let us keep Christ and him crucified before them.

Yours Truly,
G. W. Elley.

HINTS

The nameless Kentucky correspondent “is of age and can answer for

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

317

himself. The publication of Bro. Burnett’s Pastoral discourse, in the circumstances, favors an endorsement of it. A few more “Central Unions,” to regulate the faith and order of the churches; another society of two, “For the Education of men for the ministry,” with the creed somewhat elaborated, and a few other schools to “take care of the fatherless and widows in their affliction,” and especially one to teach the brethren how to “keep themselves unspotted from the world,” might confirm our nameless correspondent in his conjectures. But with Bro. Elley, we believe many of the Kentucky churches and preachers are truly lights in our world. There are, however, indications which we dislike.
T. F.

ANONYMOUS COMMUNICATIONS

We exceedingly dislike to receive communications without a responsible name. We cannot publish such, and the habit smacks so much of unfairness that we cannot encourage it. Brethren, particularly, are requested to cultivate a better taste than is evinced in such a course. We wish to receive all the truth that can be said on all subjects, and we trust that friends and enemies will communicate with us freely.
T. F.

THE NATURAL MAN

FRANKLIN, TENN., Sep. 2d, 1856.

BROTHER FANNING: — Who is the Natural man that Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 2. 14? It reads:
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
T. F. K.

REPLY

I understand the Natural man to be one who depends upon nature, internal and external, for spiritual light and guidance. The Greek word denotes animal, and in the language of Dr. Robinson, “It pertains to the animal or natural mind and affections, swayed by the affections and passions of human nature, not under the influence of the Holy Spirit.” The doctrine is still true, and all men who are governed by nature reject the revelation. No marvel indeed that the things of the Spirit are foolishness to speculativists of every grade, to philosophers, and all transcendental theologians. We have much in reserve on this subject.
T. F.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

GOOD NEWS FROM ARKANSAS

Ou.A.ctiXTA Co., Anx., August 21st, 1856

Dear Brethren:

Under the direction and patronage of a few earnest Christians, about three years ago I commenced evangelizing in this part of the country. Pursuant to their direction and my desire, it has been my aim, not so much to gain additions as to add strength to the Church of Christ. The result of my labors has been the formation of four Congregations, numbering in all, about one hundred and twenty disciples.

From past experience, as well as from information received from others, I am fully persuaded that many of our teaching brethren, preachers and editors, have been too superficial in presenting the apostle’s doctrine. I would not say they have said and written too much about first principles; but they have not said and written enough about a holy life. But the time has come when the necessity for a change in this respect is seen and felt. It is painfully apparent that many of the brethren have not the spirit of Christ—that they “walk” as the enemies of the Gospel of Christ—who mind earthly things. We need more religion among us; “heartfelt religion,” “pure and undefiled religion.” I am glad to see that you are giving some attention to this matter in the Gospel Advocate. Give it more. We need it.

I will write again ere long.

DAVID F. SALLEY.

MURRAY, KY., August 25th, 1856.

Brothers Fanning & Lipscomb:

The cause we plead is prospering very well in some parts of this country; and could do well everywhere had we a sufficiency of able, devoted laborers—men of the right kind, “of good report without,” and in whom the people have confidence. We have a few such, and would that we had more; for I have never seen a time when the people were better disposed to receive the primitive Gospel.

I was with Bro. James Lindsay, of Marshall Co., near Benton, and a young brother McCoy, a “self-made” man and promising proclaimer, at a three days meeting at Green Plains, about six miles south of this place, embracing the 2nd Lord’s day in this month. We had a fine meeting, which resulted in five additions. Bro. Lindsay is an excellent preacher and a most worthy, devoted man; and has had many additions lately. On the 3rd Lord’s day I was with Bro. W. W. Dugger, Hudspeth and Bloeker, about 15 miles west of this.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 319

in Graves Co. Bro. Dugger was formerly of Middle Tenn., and is one of the ablest preachers I have ever heard. He informed me that he had about forty additions, within the preceding six weeks. The Lord be praised!

As ever, your Bro. in Christ.
JOHN R. HOWARD.

CHRISTIAN BENEVOLENCE

The Christian religion, being a development of the Divine character, is essentially a religion of benevolence—that is its great and prominent feature, shining alike in its precepts and examples. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” was the great maxim inculcated first, midst, and last by its Divine Author. But this, in Christianity, is not a barren abstraction, a mere sentiment of the mind, unproductive of corresponding fruits. As such it is of no value. It is a living principle, to be exhibited by the Christian in works of practical goodness, in positive acts of benevolence to the unfortunate and afflicted.

The more sentimentalist may weep over the fictitious sorrows of romance, while he views unmoved the sufferings of those around him—that is a spurious sympathy, utterly foreign to the practical benevolence of the Gospel. In the Author of Christianity, benevolence was not a mere sentiment, enunciated with oracular pomp. It was a living, every-day principle of action—a practical sympathy with the woes of others, evinced in substantial and timely acts of kindness: it did not mock the afflicted with professions of sympathy, while it left them without relief.

He looked around him, and seized every opportunity to accomplish his God-like purpose of doing good. It is a great and fatal mistake, and one too prevalent in the minds of professed Christians, that the benevolent precepts of the gospel can be satisfied by a mere dreamy, sentimental feeling of sympathy for the woes of others, unaccompanied by practical and honest efforts to do them good.

Christianity, the Christianity of the New Testament, the Christianity taught and practiced by the Son of God, demands something more substantial and practical than this. It calls upon its disciples to be up and doing, to look around them, to search after the victims of misfortune and woe, and whatever their hands find to do, (for the great work of practical benevolence,) to do it with their might.

Stumbling blocks in religion will always be found by those who seek them.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

CHRISTIAN LIFE

Most persons who spend unhappy lives are themselves chargeable with their own misery. It is no difficult matter to render ourselves wretched when we set out with a determination to do so. We can always find cause for dissatisfaction and complaint when we search diligently for it. No state of society is perfect—no man or woman is entirely free from weakness and failings. No neighbor probably is exactly what we would desire. No hour that passes over us is wholly free from pain or care. Labor, anxiety, and suffering continually beset us, but the glory of the Christian religion is that it enables us to bear them all patiently and cheerfully. It teaches us that these are light afflictions, and are but for a moment and bear no comparison to that eternal weight of glory promised in the Gospel.

We gain but little from Christianity if it does not teach us to govern our passions, bridle our tongues, subdue our anger, lay aside our enmities, and cultivate in our hearts only sentiments of Love. My brethren and sisters, how many of you are wearing out your days—robbing yourselves of all peace and good feeling, and blasting forever your hope of heaven by petty jealousies, bickerings, evil-speaking, giving heed to tales of idle and mischievous tongues? How many families are rendered utterly unfit for anything like Christian culture, and how many neighborhoods are torn and distracted and imbittered by the merest trifles? These things ought not so to be. All our wisdom, and knowledge, and talent cannot secure us the bliss of Immortality, while there is no Love, no spirit of Christ in us. Let us take heed to these things.

W. L.

DIVORCES

Bro. J. C. Gaty of Mississippi propounds the following question, viz., “Is a member of the body of Christ authorized to put away his wife, save for the cause assigned, Matt. 18th?”

Answer: We find no authority in the New Testament for leaving wife or husband, save one. We are aware that many persons, owing to their education mainly, are exceedingly unhappy together; but many more are and will be miserable without regard to husband or wife. Hence we conclude, that unhappiness, from any except the one cause, is not a sufficient ground for separation.

T. F.