THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Editors: T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOMB
Vol. V
Nashville, April, 1859
No. 4
PRAYER. NO. 2
We endeavored in our first number, to show that our kind Father in Heaven, has guaranteed to all responsible beings the right of petition for admission into the kingdom, but this right we consider not as equivalent to the obligation resting upon His servants to pray for the blessings of the kingdom or happiness in the eternal mansions. To speak in the plainest manner possible touching what we regard as the teaching of Christians, and especially the doctrine of the Bible, on the subject, Prayer, we consider the peculiar privilege of the members of God’s family.
Aliens, are of course, without, are strangers, foreigners, members of the kingdom of the world, and as such, have no right to pray for the blessings and honors of Messiah’s realm, until they are “delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son.”
We think it prudent before even offering an argument on this point, to suggest a few of the evils of the doctrine of indiscriminate prayers.
- It places the blessings of religion upon a false basis. It says, members of Satan’s empire have rights equal to the servants of the Lord.
- It deceives all under its influence. Instead of directing attention to the scriptures of truth, as the condition of faith, it points to an argument fatuous, called answer to prayer, which is no more than blind imagination. It is the profession of a new revelation, where none is promised.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
- The right of aliens to pray for the bread of the children of God, is imposed before the Almighty. It practically asserts that the people of the Lord, really enjoy no advantages.
- The supposition makes null and void the authority of Christ. It says, he is no Mediator and none is necessary.
- The ordinances, by which aliens approach the Father, are all broken down, abrogated, and trampled under foot, by granting the world, the flesh and the members of satan’s dominions, the right to ask, without a change of heart, for the rich inheritance of the saints.
- The hypothesis, which guarantees the right of sinners to pray for unconditional pardon, the salvation of the soul, and the heavenly immunities of the saints, blots from existence the kingdom of heaven. It says there is no church, no religion, nothing on earth to prevent the worst of men from entering into glory.
- It, in fact, removes all measures and boundaries of religious truth. But wishing to present the whole matter in the light of the Scriptures, we ask the question, What is the teaching of the Bible as to the right of persons to pray?
- Our first position is that there may be members of the church, in circumstances, which deprive them of the right to pray to God. While in the flesh it is possible for the best of men to sin, and while it is the privilege of Christians who repent of their sins to pray to the Father for his forgiving mercy, without repentance it is improper to lift so much as the eyes to Heaven for his mercy. We have in our mind’s eye, several drunken church members, and some preachers amongst them, who pray to the Lord to pardon them, and take them to heaven, but who, nevertheless, will not abandon the bottle, and who have permitted the flesh to prevail over and subdue the spirit.
Will the Lord answer the prayers of such? Have they a right to pray? On this subject, Solomon spoke plainly. He said, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.” Prov. 15:8. Again, he says, “The Lord is far from the wicked but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.” Prov. 15:29. To the same extent he expressed himself when he said, “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.”
To the apostate Jews, Isaiah spoke, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah thus: “Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom, (this is highly metaphorical,) give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.”
To what purpose is the multitude of…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
your sacrifices to me? saith the Lord. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts, my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed; judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land. But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.
These statements give the spirit and full meaning of unacceptable service under the law. No prayers or sacrifices were acceptable while the people walked in wickedness.
In the days of the Saviour, it spoke to the same effect. Said they, “Now we know that God heareth not sinners, but if any man be a worshipper of God and doeth his will, him he heareth.” John ix. 31. It is thus clear that no prayers were regarded amongst the ancient people of God as acceptable, which were not offered by such as kept the Commandments.
The full doctrinal idea of the subject is fully presented by John, the beloved disciple. He says, “There is a sin unto death, I do not say that you shall pray for it.” John v. 16. Christians may contaminate themselves with sin—may become so polluted that they cannot be cleansed—cannot return; their conscience becomes seared as with a hot iron; and hence, their prayers are unavailing—they are abomination to the Lord.
- Our second position is, that men of the world, aliens, strangers, foreigners, and such as have not yielded their hearts and lives to God, have not the shadow of right to pray to God.
Our friend, Dr. Walsh, of North Carolina, in answer to our remarks in the January number, on prayer, takes the ground that God has made prayer one of the conditions of the alien, for the remission of sins. This is the view of Protestantism, and it is also the notion of many.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Content
ciples, taught and influenced by sectarianism. Hence, in Missouri and elsewhere, some few have joined with the denominations in praying to the Lord to convert, save and pardon the alien and disloyal, without the obedience of the gospel. That the soul of the penitent believer should be solemn, and directed to God, from the first emotion, to honor the Father, no one can doubt, as without the “obedience of faith,” any prayer for pardon or mercies beyond which are freely enjoyed by sinners, is wholly inappropriate, and is most presumptuous.
But in coming to Christ, it is the right of the obedient to say, “Heavenly Father, accept the sacrifice of a broken heart, and blot out the sins of a soul conquered by grace, and consecrated to thee.” Such are the only persons on earth entitled to the honor of saying “Abba, Father.” They are the adopted and saved.
Rave takes the Lord as their refuge—as their stronghold in the storms of trouble, and in her it is the right to say “Heavenly Father.” Moreover, the prayers of others are sheer disobedience, blasphemous, and altogether unbecoming.
What would the citizens of this government think of foreigners asking for the offices, honors and blessings of this Commonwealth who would sternly refuse to renounce the yoke of Queen Victoria? Such have no right to pray to the President, even for the protection of the Government. Let such aliens file their petition as honest men, and then comply with the laws of this country for honorable admission, before they ignorantly or otherwise enter their prayers for the right of suffrage.
Such as have forced themselves into the seats of citizens, have climbed over the wall, are thieves and robbers, and should be cast out. They contemplate evil—the subversion of the government, and therefore, it becomes every loyal citizen to use his influence to prevent such usurpations.
But what shall we think of professed Christian teachers encouraging the subjects of Satan’s empire with unsanctified spirits and unwashed bodies, to call upon our Father for the privileges of his spiritual dominions? The whole system of encouraging aliens to pray for pardon, or for the blessings of the kingdom upon the uninitiated, is most certainly in direct opposition to the whole order of Heaven.
Further, as it is practiced by modern denominations, it completely blots out all the ordinances through which sinners come to Christ, and sweeps from the mind the church of God, and all spiritual authority.
Our Third Position
Our third position is, that the obedient have not only the right to pray, but that all appropriate prayers, the Father answers. Our Savior leaves these points without a doubt. To the disciples he said, “What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive…”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
101
them, and ye shall have them. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses. — Mark 11:25-26.
In the words of Tupper, if we recollect aright, “the prayer of faith is the prayer of authority.” The disciples were to pray for what had been promised, and the prayer of faith was granted. There is, however, a wide difference between the prayer of faith and the prayer of blind desire.
He that prays in faith, prays for what the Lord has promised. If, for instance, we forgive those who trespass against us, when they ask us, our Heavenly Father will forgive us. But others may desire bread, and think to receive it in answer to prayer alone, without performing the service necessary to secure it. The prayer of faith which the Lord always delights to answer, consists in seeking the blessings of the Lord in the manner he has prescribed.
We may receive more than we anticipated, but it is all right; it is what the Lord gives, and we should be satisfied.
The subject of acceptable prayer is also treated quite lucidly by John. Hear him, he says: “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” — 1 John 3:22.
The only ground on which we can hope for the answer of prayer according to the scripture is that when we “keep his commandments,” we receive whatsoever we ask, and of course, if we keep not the word of God, however honest we may imagine ourselves to be, our prayers are unauthorized — not mixed with faith, but blind desire; and the Lord hears them not.
But to complete the testimony, John says, “And this is the confidence we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he heareth us. And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask we know that we have the petitions we desired of him.” — 1 John 5:14-15.
Touching the point of praying for forgiveness of sins, John wrote all that could be desired. He says: “If we (Christians) confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all our unrighteousness.” — 1 John 1:9. Again, “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” — 1 John 5:16.
The doctrine fully set forth by the Apostle is that Christians who…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
have not gone so deep into sin as to be incapable of coming back to God upon their confession to the Lord, or to the injured party; having forsaken their sin, they have the right to ask the Lord to forgive them, with the assurance that they know He hears them.
We will attempt to make but one other point. We have noticed among writers and speakers, great want of discrimination in placing conditions of salvation upon various conditions. They tell us, for instance, that faith, repentance, baptism, and prayer are all conditions of remission to a sinner; and John Wesley, in his wild experimenting, came to the conclusion that in certain conditions, the “sacrament of the Lord’s supper,” as he called it, might be a condition of pardon. This contradictory teaching must necessarily produce great confusion.
Our Father has established special laws for the accomplishment of all His grand designs in the physical and moral world. He has said, for illustration, that eight parts by weight of Oxygen, and one of Hydrogen, shall constitute water the world over; and in all time, in the moral world He has specifically ordained the gospel as His power to salvation, and the heavens may tell before He will vary His order to convert men without the gospel. Hence He has appointed as the condition for the change of heart, repentance and baptism.
Baptism nor prayer will answer as a substitute; and to the believing Jew, the Apostle said that, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” If we are capable of reading English with any correctness of understanding at all, Peter reiterated but one appointment to forgiveness, in order to the remission of sins.
This it becomes all statements of the Bible to find. However important requirements and confessions may be to the differing servant of the Lord to gain restoration to favor, neither of these is ordained as the condition upon which the Lord has promised forgiveness. They contribute to bring us back to our Father’s embrace, but there is a single requirement made known to all His children for the remission of sins! It is not baptism, mourning, repentance, the Lord’s supper, walking with hot peas in our shoes, or other bodily or mental antilogies.
John, we repeat, said, “If there is a sin unto death, I do not say that he shall pray for it.” But finally the Lord says, “When ye stand praying, forgive, that your Father in Heaven may forgive your trespasses.” What greater consolation can there be to the Christian heart than the knowledge that when we have forsaken our sin and made full confession, it is our highest privilege to say, Lord, forgive us.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
INTEMPERANCE
We have frequently had occasion to intimate that the church of Christ is, in our estimation, the only temperance association on earth worthy of the attention of Christians. All may be founded by human organizations, but all such detract from the authority of Heavenly wisdom, when employed by the saints. Our purpose, however, in this paper, is not to debate the comparative merits of divine and worldly organizations, but to give some practical thoughts to Christians upon intemperance in general.
In accordance with our purpose, we ask what is intemperance? A few years ago, we were acquainted with an editor of a paper devoted to “highly temperance,” who was a man. To a little old col-pipe. Yet, he had the impudence to abuse those who would “indulge in a social glass.” A few weeks ago, a Rev. D.D. and L.L.D., and a few temperance leaders, died in Tennessee, and to the surprise of many, his physician said his death was produced by the use of opium. He left his family destitute—his mother, much of it, paid for the killing time, yet he was regarded as a good man.
We recollect that this same opium-eater entered one of our meeting houses some years ago, with rum and fire, and banners flying, to organize a temperance lodge to save the brothers and sisters from intemperance. Some of our brethren were in the farce. One who lectured, learnedly, on the occasion, contending the necessity of saving the church from drunkenness by temperance lodges, was not long after, seen lying in the gutter—drunk.
While we do not wish to discredit those who attempt to save themselves and others from drunkenness by worldly expedients, we regard all such efforts as feeble and with professed Christians as downright rebellion against Jesus Christ.
Worse still! A man we have long loved, and regarded as an excellent brother, recently traveled through this country on a preaching tour, highly intoxicated from the use of opium; the money given by the brethren to support him, was spent for opium. Three dollars he…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Paid at L. for the poison; how much at other points we are not advised, and we cannot say he might not just as well give the brethren’s money for whiskey, and kill himself at once. We feel no unkindness, but love our friend still—we know him to be a friend—but in the words of Solomon, we ask him—he understands us—”Why shouldst thou die before thy time?”
We would a thousand times rather hear of these drunken opium-eating Presidents of colleges, D.D.’s and preachers, hanging themselves, than to hear of them using the Lord’s money to buy drinks and drugs to poison soul and body. Yet, worse and worse we have witnessed several instances within a few years past of Christian women destroying their influence for usefulness by morphine, opium, and tobacco, too bad to write. The practice of eating opium is a mania in certain sections, and in certain families. So is the use of tobacco. Not a few of these drunken women are a great tax upon their husbands, and sometimes upon themselves, for the purchase of soul—that filthy thing—suited not for the use of any decent creature on earth.
One more reference, and we close our charges. The inveterate use of tobacco with men, or perhaps we ought to say, that chewing and smoking tobacco evince habits of intemperance. Possibly, in rare cases, no serious evil can be affirmed of what is called “the moderate use of the weed,” but beyond all doubt, ninety-nine hundredths of these tobacco consumers become so saturated with the juice—their nervous systems become so much under its influence, and their whole soul, body and spirit are so intoxicated from it, that they find it difficult if not impossible, to reform. Wise medical men are now telling the world that the stupidity, if not the philosophy, of the Dutch is caused, to a considerable degree, by the use of Lager beer. We believe there is truth in the charge.
But we have made reference to these matters with a benevolent purpose. We desire, in the first place, to point out some of the most general indications of ruinous intemperance; and secondly, we write with the view of exhorting and praying the beloved brothers and sisters to desist from intemperance; and, in future, to abstain from every appearance of the evil.
The use of brandy, whiskey, wine, cider, beer, or other intoxicating drinks or drugs—opium, tobacco, etc., is highly injurious to most—ruinous to many, and is of advantage, neither physically, intellectually, nor morally, to any, and therefore, brethren, it becomes us as Christians, as the members of Christ’s spiritual body, to reform, to cease from
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
105
evil, and from the very appearance of evil, and to endeavor by a patient continuance in well doing; to make our peace, our calling and election sure. Brethren this is no small matter. Think of the vast amount spent for spirituous liquors and intoxicating drugs. We doubt not that all churches spend much more money for these than for preaching the gospel to the poor. We are not mad; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
T. P.
NEW FEATURE IN MISSIONARY MEETINGS
We have felt, for a considerable time, disposed to call attention to the singular fact, that the best talent in most the religious parties, and amongst the disciples particularly, is employed in money collecting, or in enterprises of a pecuniary character. We have, for instance, been forcibly struck with the cause of most missionaries from the North to the South. Many seem to be hunting situations—pastoral, or are engaged on collecting tours for Northern consumption. We do not recollect or having heard of any people sending missionaries at their own expense among us to convert our people to God, and teach us, who profess to be converts, good manners. Yet the country is almost filled with missionaries for money. This, to us, does not seem apostolical.
Our attention was called more particularly to this matter recently, from a notice of a missionary meeting amongst our Methodist brethren. “Dr. Durbin, the able Missionary Secretary of the M. E. Church, North,” reporting a meeting in Philadelphia, Jan. 23rd 1859, says: “We have been at many meetings, and some in Trinity Church (meeting house) before, but with the exception of one in St. Paul’s, New York, we have not seen such a meeting. They took an hour to make the subscriptions. The whole amount raised was forty-four hundred dollars.”
This must have been a peculiarly interesting meeting; but we beg leave to suggest, that like many reports amongst us, it does not strike our ear as precisely similar to those of the New Testament. The Apostles were to go without “scrip or purse,” and they were not to wait even to get new “coats.” Not that missionaries can do without money in their purse, or coats to protect them from the chilling blasts; but these their Master was to furnish as they needed. The missionary meeting at Jerusalem, we consider a much better one than Dr. Durbin’s Philadelphia, or even his St. Paul’s, New York.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
York Meeting. At Jerusalem there was no hour’s wheedling about a subscription paper, “life directors,” etc., but, “The multitude of them that believed, were of one heart and one soul, neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed, was his own; but they had all things common.”
To us it is clear, that all we possess on earth should, at all times, be held in readiness for any authorized work, but at the same time, we consider it not right to squander the funds entrusted to us, to forward human enterprises.
We think we see the mistake of the brethren as well as the error amongst our Methodist friends. The apostles and early missionaries depended solely upon the Lord and his cause to clothe them, feed them and furnish them money to pay their travelling expenses; but many are now attempting to support the cause of Christ, by missionary societies, temperance societies, colleges—eloquent young pastors to take the oversight of the fold, etc., etc., etc., and all these demand subscription papers, large funds, and much human folly, to win the hearts of the godly; or to make the cause of truth, in the eyes of the world, respectable.
We are at least candid in the judgment, that no auxiliary association or scheme of man will contribute in the least to the glory of God. We are, moreover, satisfied, that in pleading the authority of the church of Christ alone, can we possess spiritual strength.
Hence, all these schemes to get money to build up and promote institutions to give success to the church, we regard as useless, and the best evidence in the world that men have forsaken the cause of Christ, or were never under its influence, is to find them aiding and abetting them.
T. F.
PRACTICAL CHRISTIAN WORK, No. 1
We know of no matter to which we can call the attention of our brothers and sisters again and again, with more hope of benefit than to the practical work of the gospel. While it is too true that there is continual need to urge upon the attention of our fellow beings the very elementary principles of belief in the word of God, and of repeatedly calling attention to the very foundation of all religious authority; yet for Christians, there remains still an earnest work of practical exemplification of the teachings of the Savior and his apostles.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
107
Amid the continued bitterness of partisan controversies—the unrelenting strife for lifeless dogmas of some human creed, and the persistent efforts at adding numbers to this or the other party, the great idea of the Christian work—the idea of doing good, acting fully and worthily up to the standard of the gospel has been almost lost. The preaching, writing, public and private conversation of religious people tends to anything rather than the cultivation of more earnest godliness and devotion.
How many of the discourses that we hear are utterly destitute of a single thought tending to exalt the feelings, cultivate and ennoble the affections, and impress earnestly and solemnly the great obligations of Christian life? How rare, indeed, is it that we see in the so-called religious papers of the day, a single article or even a short sentence that speaks as if it sprung from a heart overflowing with the love of the gospel? Page after page, and column after column, we have devoted to all sorts of discussions, controversies and reports, but after toilsome sifting of the whole, probably a few defective grains of wheat from such a mass of chaff is all the reward of our toil and pains.
We trust our brethren will pardon the freedom with which we speak, we do so with no unkind feeling, but the glaring facts stand before us every day that we live—that the style, tone and spirit of the press among us fails to exalt the Christian character and impress upon those who read lessons that are worthy of the people of God. Upon such food as is served up no people can become spiritual, godly or elevated in heart or in life.
And, my brethren and sisters, when we can listen to the conversation that prevails among us in private life, what is its character? When you talk on religious matters is it not generally of the manner in which some brother has defeated some champion of Methodism, Presbyterianism, or Baptistism? Is it not rather a rejoicing over the discomfiture of some impudent knight of modern theology, than that wholesome, serious, and godly interchange of thought that is so full of encouragement to the true Christian?
While we by no means object to the most strenuous defense of the teachings of the word on all occasions when there is possibility of doing good, let us be assured that controversy can never supply the place of an upright, active life of good deeds. We may be ready to engage in religious discussion at every street corner, upon the highway, and in any collection of our friends and neighbors, and we may be able to maintain successful our position against all opposition, but unless there is in our lives some practical proof of the power of the faith we so flippantly present, the cause of God will not be aided, and our words will be…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
worse than useless and unmeaning. They will positively bring reproach upon the cause of our Master. The perfect man or woman in Christ is one whose traits as well as words speak for the truth.
While in intelligence, piety, and devotion, we would fear no comparison with any religious party in our land, and even might have somewhat to boast, yet when we turn our eyes to the contemplation of our deficiencies and shortcomings tried by the standard of the gospel, we confess the picture is far from pleasing. To look calmly at ourselves, my brethren and sisters, we see no deficiency greater or more deadly in its influence than a want of earnest devotion to the profession which we make.
We are active, alert, and energetic in the business of this world—strenuous and persevering where its interests are at stake—ready to endure all hardships, perils, and sufferings in order to gain the good of this earth, but when the cause of our Master claims service of us, how different is our conduct? How sparingly do we give of the bounty with which God has blessed us? How slothfully and reluctantly do we come up to the discharge of the duties of the gospel? How ready to excuse ourselves on any sort of pretext?
And still we expect of God a just share in the promised rewards of the gospel—full participation in all the joys of immortality. What a poor return indeed do we give for the rich and unselfish manifestation of love presented in the death of the Son of man! What feeble expression of gratitude for such unbounded mercy!
Who can contemplate the character of our blessed Lord? His kindness, his sympathy, the deep feeling of his heart for the sorrows and afflictions of humanity, can one look at his endurance of mockery, and insult, and chastisement, and his last final act of suffering on the cross for the sins of the world, and contrast with all this manifestation of love and mercy, the carelessness, the indifference and neglect of his professed followers of today, and not see and feel deeply that there are sad and fearful enough, woeful failures in the performances of our duties?
Who can compare the self-denial, the readiness to sacrifice all for Christ, that characterized the primitive Christians? Who can read the record, their strife and imprisonment, their buffetings, their flight from house to house and city to city, and then look at the poor meager service that is so grudgingly rendered at the present day, and not see that all our boasts of intelligence, devotion, and godliness are the veriest bombast?
Who can contrast a Paul or Peter in his humble attire proclaiming in simplicity the glorious announcements of redemption to the rich and the beggar, to the proud ruler and the slave, with the pompous harangues of the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
rich the gay and the fashionable, and feel that there is a particle of the ancient spirit left?
We may venture to console ourselves by saying that there is no need for such sacrifices at the present day. True, it may be that we are no longer called upon to bear the lash, to burn at the stake, or to be torn by hands for the cause of Christ; but are there no sacrifices required? Have all the downtrodden and the ignorant, the wretched and the erring, all washed from this sinful earth? Has the world become so pure that it has given no room for suffering? Is humanity so rich in virtue that it has no need of sacrifice and service?
I think it is a matter of indifference and pride. If the gospel has prevailed in every quarter and corner of the land? Have those who have been living in the light, who can find nothing to do in Christianity, become so accustomed to the world of labor? Christ has given us the example of service, and we find that there is still just as much to do as there ever was.
The world is full of labor. Christ’s notion that there is nothing to do is a delusion. The world is full of just such labor, and will strengthen us, make us feel that there are responsibilities upon all our shoulders. Just the work which that alone can call into activity every power of mind and body, will make us realize that indeed we are the Lord’s people.
The real Christian profession is a matter merely, one of service. The most demanding and disheartening that ever possessed any people. If the people in this goodly land of ours, would realize their true work and labor as his servants, and would be ready, willing and fearlessly to meet their full responsibilities as soldiers of the cross, can you imagine what the result would be?
What a different state would we see in the religious world? Let us not talk, my brethren and sisters, of the indifference and carelessness of our friends and neighbors in regard to the great problem of life; until we are fully awake to our duty—until we manifest a deeper and more earnest interest in the work of man. Let us not talk of difficulties until we more fully arm ourselves for the battles of the truth, and are ready with more courageous hearts to do service in the army of our Heavenly Captain.
Let us not talk of colors and apathy in religion until we are more determined, young.
110
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
and old, men and women, all who profess to have the truth, to do our duty as the servants of our King. Brethren, think of these things. Our work is not for a day, it is for eternity. Shall we not be more earnest and gladly devoted to Heaven’s glorious work?
W. L.
NOTICES OF BOOKS
Our friends at the house of W. T. Berry & Co., in Nashville, have kindly submitted to us for examination a few of the most learned works that we have seen, and we feel that it would not be treating them with proper respect if we were to neglect calling attention to them.
- The Emancipation of Faith
By H. E. Schenkel, M.D.
Under the above caption, the late Dr. Schenkel has written two octavo volumes, containing nearly one thousand pages of what the world has pronounced learned speculations, and in many respects, his views are quite original. Without attempting a critical examination of his system, our purpose will be fully answered by a bare statement of his conclusions.
We will, in part, employ our own words. But the reader, no doubt, is curious to know what the author intended by “Emancipation of Faith?” Did he mean to say that there is no faith? Not at all. He professes not to be a skeptic or atheist, but a firm believer in God, and in a future state. The peculiarity of his view of spiritual truth consists in the mode by which he professes to arrive at his conclusions.
- He claims that our knowledge of God and belief with regard to the invisible depends upon Philosophy—the prior, the apostolic, or the infernal, or reason. He insisted that “the principles of reason should not be followed as the foundation of divine faith.”
- We have found no limitation to conclude he believed faith is dependent upon the sacred scriptures, or anything external to man.
- His conclusion is that “Faith in the power of wisdom and goodness,” as he calls them, of some being he was disposed to call the “Almighty” is, in his own style, a kind of “Elementary belief, or a Elementary Primary belief.”
The author has a long and learned chapter on the “Inate idea of the existence of God,” in which he takes not plainly, either the affirm…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 111
Active or negative side of the question. He intimates that the Almighty appears as a suggestion or a revelation, not to be found in man, but placed therein at the beginning.
“This knowledge of God ‘placed in man at the beginning,'” he styles “the original revelation,” and the coming of Christ, he styles “the revelation renewed.” In conclusion, we repeat, that he repudiates science as the source of heaven’s light; and he also denies that the Scriptures are “the measure of faith.” This repudiation of science and scriptures as the ground of faith, he calls “The emancipation of Faith,” and resolves the whole matter into something he calls “Elementary belief,” which he does not believe is natural, or was in man originally, but was placed in him—how, depends on himself, and calls it neither quite innate or quite a revelation, but speaks of both, and the best expression of his idea, if he really had a clear one, is that religious belief depends upon an innate revelation.
This is certainly sufficiently mystical for any philosopher. We have but one remark to make. Great men, learned men, and fools, are all of the same spiritual state, without spiritual eyes, or without correct spiritual light. In the plainest language possible, all speculation terminates in mysticism, skepticism, or atheism. Man, borrow or steal a little light—we had liked to have said “a little learning”—from Heaven, deny the truth, hold up their little tapers, of course see not the true God, and are almost compelled to abandon their investigations without any satisfactory conclusion. Not so with the believer in the God of the Bible. With the ability which God has given him, he satisfies himself first, that the Bible is true, and secondly, that it is “the measure of spiritual truth,” and no skeptical or mystical speculation can disturb him while he walks in the light of this heavenly light.
2d. Vestiges of the Spirit—History of Man
By S. F. Dunlap, of New Haven.
Mr. Dunlap has written a volume of 400 pages, exhibiting remarkable research, regarding spirits, ghosts, hydrophobia, witches, whirligigs, supernatural and natural manifestations, spirit knockings, elves, fiends, visions, etc., etc., but all without any satisfactory conclusion, or even suggestive thought. We looked through it in haste, hoping, at each new chapter, to find something new, practical or otherwise, but we searched in vain. A single good reflection would have afforded relief. But in the midst of much learning there is little or no thought, and except as a work of history, exhibiting many of the superstitions.
112
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
and follies of our poor, unfortunate race, it possesses, in our judgment, but little merit.
“History of Civilization in England”
By H. T. Buckle
Mr. Buckle is an English scholar of high order of intellect, and has written a work of nearly 700 pages, that has made a decided impression in the literary world. He is fearless in his conclusions, and states his doctrine with great perspicuity. In looking over several reviews of Prof. Buckle’s production, we have failed to find satisfactory exposures. True, each review seems to triumph, still the great questions remain without exposure.
Prof. Buckle denies the existence of a “Faculty of consciousness,” and maintains that consciousness is merely a state of mind. He denies what is generally termed “free will,” also “predestinarianism,” “fatalism,” and “pantheism.” His doctrine is that our actions are the result of antecedent causes. Indeed, that society—high or low—is but the result of “fixed laws.” Physical nature he has governed by general laws, and he cannot see how the intellectual and moral world can be governed differently.
It is scarcely probable that the author considers man indebted to Revelation for moral light, but seems to think that “if each man were to content himself with that idea of God, which is suggested by his own mind, he would attain to the true knowledge of the Divine nature.” Whilst we admit that Mr. Buckle exhibits profound learning, with some quite original views, we are far from believing that his book is at all calculated to increase our reverence for God, or contribute in the slightest degree, to increase our respect for the religion revealed in the Bible.
T. F.
A GOOD THOUGHT
A Baptist sister writing from Columbus, Ga., says: “God’s holy word is the only source of truth, and in this we agree.”
If the above proposition were believed, religious controversy would cease. But while parties look for witches, wizards, and ghosts of dead people to give light, there can be no union; neither can we hope for it while human beings look for revelations at the altar, the mourner’s bench, in the grove, in dreams, and impulses, or even expect them from some divinity within, called conscience, intuition, inward monitor, etc. God has given us His mind in the Bible, and a simple belief of its truths will enable us to see eye to eye and speak the same things.
T. F.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
THE VINEYARD
“Take thine, and go thy way: I will give unto thee, … it is not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own. Is thine eye evil because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many be called, but few chosen.”
Matt. xx. 14-16.
In the parable of the vineyard, we have brought prominently to view the kingdom of Heaven, in the relations to Jew and Gentile.
The common view which represents the Saviour as teaching that the individual who submits to his government at the eleventh hour of his existence will be rewarded equally with him who has spent his life in his service, is repugnant alike to reason and revelation. It is based upon the idea that the only purpose for which the kingdom of Heaven was established was to save man from hell, and give him a passport to heaven; that an individual has attained to the grand ultimatum proposed by this institution, so far as earth and time are concerned, so soon as he has become a subject of it.
As a matter of course, it would matter but little at what time of life one might enter this city of refuge, since nothing is lost by living outside its walls until the very last hour of life, provided only he enters it then! In living in rebellion against the government of Christ, he loses none of its benefits, but only incurs the risk of being sent to eternity at some unwary moment, without his passport. Such is a very degrading idea of the purposes of the Christian religion.
While it is true that it was intended to save man from sin and from death, it was also equally true that it proposes to educate him for immortality—to prepare him for a higher state of being, beyond the vale of death. Who then shall be best prepared to enter the happy circles of heaven’s exalted society? Surely it must be he, in whom the sinful, rebellious elements of our poor human nature have been most completely subdued and mastered by the influences of the religion of Jesus; whose heart has been made purest, whose life the most exemplary and Christ-like, under the tuition of the school of Christ on earth.
So then every man shall be rewarded according to his works, as the scriptures teach, and yet there be no invidious distinctions in heaven, for every one shall be “filled with the fullness of God,” even to the uttermost extent of the capacity for enjoyment he has, by the help of God, acquired. With this view of the subject, the Christian religion begets within the heart incentives to action infinitely higher than the mere desire of escaping the danger of threatened vengeance.
The teaching of the parable, we apprehend to be this: that the
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Gentiles, though not called to take their place among the people of God, until the third, sixth, ninth, or even the eleventh hour, should yet be admitted on terms of equality with the children of the covenant.
Yes, even preeminence is promised them in the declaration, “So the last shall be first, and the first last; for many be called, but few are chosen.” This is the history of the progress of Christianity fully sustained.
What is now the once favored inheritance of Israel?
Where first the proclamation of salvation in the name of Christ was made? Instead of the “Star of Bethlehem,” the celestial guide to the birthplace of Messiah, behold! the Mahometan crescent holds sway over the land. It also appeared in the east; but with the herald of no bright coming morn—no day of deliverance to the exiled sons of Jacob, but of the night of superstition and idolatry which now broods over the fair valleys and holy mountains of the land of promise.
The banks of “sweet-gliding Kithron,” the sacred precincts of Gethsemane and Olivet, once honored by the frequent presence of the Redeemer of men; yea, even Calvary itself, where his suffering and his mission closed, are now trodden by the unhallowed feet of the worshippers of Allah and his prophet; and in the midst of the hill of Zion, behold! the mosque of Omar now lifts its head, in proud triumph, over the ruins of the house of God. And yet Israel were the first called.
Who now are “first?”
Where do we find the religion of Jesus established, and its life-giving principles taught? Among the gentile nations. Who now look forward, with pleasing anticipations, to the second coming of Messiah, and to a better inheritance, in the heavenly land of promise?
Mainly, gentile disciples. Who now goes forth, panting in heaven’s mail armor, with the “sword of the spirit” unsheathed, to light the extension of the kingdom? Chiefly the gentile soldier. Who now is the Christian standard-bearer, who has carried the banner of the cross back, even to old Jerusalem, and planted it on the walls of Zion?
The gentile missionary. Whose voice shall constitute the body of that great academy which shall ascend from the hills and vales of earth, on the bright morn of the resurrection, giving glory to God and the Lamb? The hosts of the gentile saints, who shall come up from the graves of earth and sea, to find their eternal habitations in the city of God.
Truly the last are made first!
Yet, God has not “cast away his people.” Notwithstanding that persistent infidelity, which has made them accursed of God, and the byword of nations for ages, when “the fulness of the gentiles is come.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
115
in,” they shall be recalled from their long exile, to inhabit, in subjection to the government of Christ, the land of their fathers. Saith Paul: “And so all Israel shall be saved: for it is written, there shall come out of Zion the Deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Thus the first shall be last.
F. M. C.
Sumner Co., Tenn., Feb. 15, 1859.
QUERY
Brethren, please give your views of John x. 3, relative to the porter.
JAMES HALL.
Christ, in each of his parables and illustrations, intended to give a striking presentation of some leading feature of his kingdom, and when that is accomplished we do violence in attempting to strain a fitness in minor points. In this parable, the great point was to exhibit the character of the true shepherd and his relationship to the flock. This was the subject on which he was speaking, and when we learn this lesson and appreciate the intimate and exalted relationship which exists between our Saviour and his disciples, we have the whole matter.
W. L.
Aramastville, McNairy Co., Tenn., Dec. 20, 1858.
Bro. FANNING & LIPSCOMB:—While I am at a loss for language to express my admiration of the writings of Bro. T. Wesley Brents in the November and December numbers of the Gospel Advocate, I beg leave to respectfully call attention to a statement in the November number, pp. 338, which, to me, seems irreconcilable with the testimony of St. Luke, in the gospel by him, chap. vi. 13, 14. The statement referred to is this, that Philip was not an apostle.
I hope that Bro. Brents, who, I presume, never heard my name, will believe me, when I assure him I wish, above all things, to know the truth. I know that he will agree with me, that errors, seemingly small or unimportant, may do serious injury, particularly when we call upon controverted points.
I am as much at a loss to know why Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the believing Samaritans, as I am to know why the keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, or why Philip, instead of some one else, was sent to preach.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
to, and baptise the Eunuch, sufficient for me, is it that these things are so, without knowing the why?
I have written more lengthily than I intended. Please let me know at your earliest convenience, whether Philip was or was not an apostle, and you will confer a great favor upon yours in the love of the truth.
J. P. PRINCE.
Reply
We think the New Testament scriptures clearly speak of three persons named Philip.
- Philip the brother of Herod, whose wife was Herodias, at the request of whom, Herod had John the Baptist’s head taken off. This Philip was “tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis.” (Luke iii. 1).
- The Apostle Philip, of whom we have an account as one of the twelve (Matt. x. 3, Mark iii. 18, Luke vi. 14). And as one of the eleven, after the fall of Judas, and before the election of Matthias (Acts i. 13). This Philip was of Bethsaida, of Galilee (John xii. 21).
- Philip the evangelist, who lived in Caesarea, into whose house Paul and company entered; and who “had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy” (Acts xxi. 8, 9). Mark it well, he “was one of the seven” (Acts vi. 5).
What seven?
“Then 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, brethren, look ye out 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 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 Procorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the apostles” (Acts vi. 2-6).
Could anything be more plain? The apostle Philip was one of the twelve who declined to leave the ministry of the word, and commanded the selection of seven others from among the disciples, one of whom was Philip, hence the language, “We entered into the house of Philip, the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him” (Acts xxi. 8).
Follow up the history of these seven from their appointment in the 6th chapter of Acts, and we find in the 7th chapter an account of the death of Stephen. The second verse of the 8th chapter speaks of his burial. Then in close connection, the 5th verse declares that “Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ unto them.” “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and…”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 117
John, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he had fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts viii. 14-17.
Now if this Philip was an apostle, why the necessity of sending Peter and John from Jerusalem to Samaria that the believers might receive the gift of the Holy Ghost? Another point is significant too. The apostles Peter and John went down and hid their burdens on them, and Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, verse 18. But methinks enough has been said.
Simon was undoubtedly the express command of the twelve, to engage in business which the latter were unwilling to do. There was a lip among the twelve and another among the seven. Nothing could be more plain.
Very Respectfully,
T. W. BENTS.
Lewistown, January 23th, 1859.
QUERIES ON CHURCH DISCIPLINE
Revs. FANNING & LITTON
Suppose A. and B. to be the bishops of a congregation—that they differ as to discipline in a certain case—that one of them attempts to act alone—that a committee disapproves of his doing—and that he resign; should the other remain to please him and a few others, unless they can show that he has disqualified him to act any longer as bishop? Should the remaining bishops proceed to cut off any members who request to be cut off?
What should be done with him who resigned, if, after the members have been scripturally cut off, he should continue to affirm that they are members of the church, and to offer them the bread and wine?
Does the 5th chapter of I. Peter teach that in the absence of a bishop, the older brethren should exercise the oversight of the congregation?
Does the same chapter command the younger, to submit themselves to the elder brethren? Is the “Tertullian” rule for the settling of difficulties between brethren found in the 18th chapter of Matthew?
If, in a congregation, there are brethren who have been disciplined from nineteen to twenty-five years, and others who have been in the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
bo;l.\· nnt longer th:m from tw•1 t•> fi!’tr>~ the 5!lt of l. 1’etm· tlt:<,ignatc <lS the ;~~nior,; or e!tl,~rs of tlte tmlgfe!f:ttion?
J~ t.)JI•re :lll) SCl·ipturaJ :llltl.nrit)• [(,r CIPC iug a urolhel’ of :1. c]jJl~•l’ellt cnngwgation to tile o!Yke of l,i,J,op in Llai.~, while we have l>relhr”n of a~e !Ill< I c:> pcl’icuct~ nnH111g><t m; ‘l
]-. it so.:riptural to sulcct tltreo pn~adt<‘r~, nH;mhi.’T:< of olltt•r cungrt•gations, t..1 rkal with our unruly Ul•’mhel’!, whil(• we ha\’t! seui<>r.s nnH.mng;;t ns who ~land ttuimjwa.-lwJ?
ShoH1lJtiurs, un:<•Jlieilc•l, talw t.ht< ovcrsiglot ul’ t.he congtcgaticm, or he constr:dnetl b\· the svli•·itat.ion of t.lH·ir hnnhnm?
Truly allll ::dl~·ctio>ll<‘llt!ly,
SliELDY CR.:\ -u·Fm:D,
JA~fES L. ).l•·~Jl<;A~ S .
J:’l’7!/.-l’rtll,ably naore congregationa h:tYC been wrecked, and the illflncucc of gnotl lUI!Il d.~~Lroy•~ mi.~takca llution::~ uu tho ~n11jccL ‘Jf cl!nrd1 ilist:i;oline tktn !’ruin any ol.laer causc·.
‘\V c :•rc well sati,.fit· lrollm n litilme to a•lhen.: :;;tricdy to the plan nnJ ortlt~r of the bw of Cbrist.
\'{ ~ say, lhcr•:fum, at th•J lir~t ur all, tla:t~ while we lwnor ns highly fill an:: one, the wi~cllllll, th•l ~·xpcricnc:e :1nol the wtJight of antiF)r-ity \< h id1 JJ..ong;; t.o 1 ho::;tl Wilu !Ja YC ht•Cil filithfuJ ~CIT;lll[:; of the L·ml, WP. havQ nH!;”er yet . .;l’cn in lhe N G\V ‘l’eslaHII:llt tlH:J h•ast groutnl lor t.Lo o uLhc•tity of Ct’rl a in imli violuals, t~rmed ollic:er;;, to act inJ<l)ll<llmh~ut.Jy of the congn·g:~tioll.
‘J’he illeR of Olle Ulan, or two or tlm!e men saying to a lHl!nlbr,r, ‘we, by tlH,J authority in us vc;;tcd, ex· commnuit•ak yon i’ro1n the church of Chri~t, is al! nnanth,H·izt~d :1:; t.he as.~umptions of Puj'(‘ l’ill::l l1im~eli.
\Vhile t.hete can he no dollilt but llmt the JHOrc cxperie!Jc~tl nwu aml women in the chnn.:h, are the pro per perstruet, a.hnonish, a)l(l l’l;’pro\·e, still suo:h a notion as ollidaln•tllaurily ve~teJ iu a fc1\· intli\·itluals to ad for the congregativu i:; nut to he f.mnd in :my ex:tmple or precepl. in the wortl uf truth.
The churdll:!$ are r~prc~en t(:ol a~ uuits, arul a;; a<>ring with po:rfect. nna· nimity uf sentiment in e\’ery ca~e.
There i;; no room fo1′ tlispute:; and tlill~l’NlCCS wlum we abi,lc h)· lhc law of ~IH:l Spirit.
‘l’lta oni.~llC!~i) which TTII~n COII!Illit are clearly f’Ul fol’Lh. r.ml sa;~. Gal. v. HJ-11., “The work~ of t.hc Heslt are manift:!>t., which an; tbest:, a<lultery, for· u’enti•lll, uuclca1mcss, la::;civiommess, idolatry, witchcraft, hatt’ed, vari· ance1 emulatious, wrath, striJ~, sctliliou~, lu:n•sies! envyings, murJera, drnuko:nues!:’, re\·clliugt<, :J.Htl sndt likt:, and that they \ iaiech do such thing!; shall not inhr:rit the king•lom of Gotl.”
S•J, also, tht< Apostle mo;;t clearly ~ets forth tl1e Ji·uit of the Spirit.
‘l’he waller is mauc
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 119
Clear and simple. A member who is guilty of any of the offenses set forth as works of the flesh, and refuses to make proper confession and reformation of life, is unworthy of place in the church of Christ. So says the law, so all who regard it must believe and act. When we permit personal feeling, questions of what would be best, or any such reasoning, to come in the way of the faithful performance of the will of heaven, we at once set at nought all authority and one opinion of what might be best is about as good as another. He is father, mother, brother, sister, husband or wife, or any earthly relationship, it is our duty to yield to the allegiance which we owe to Christ. On the whole subject, therefore, we see no place for disagreements among the disciples of Christ, and to the assumptions of one man or two, or their juniors, they are all unauthorized by any precept or example given in the New Testament. We trust the brethren will find our answer satisfactory on this point.
In regard to the duty of the elder brethren to take the oversight of the congregation, there is much obligation resting upon them in the work of teaching, admonishing, training the inexperienced of the congregation, as there is to supply the wants of the destitute; and to wait for official consecration in one case, would be about as scriptural as in the other. The New Testament rule for settling personal difficulties is clearly set forth in the 18th of Matthew.
Here are the qualifications men or women for the work of teaching and counseling the younger. The necessary qualifications are clearly set forth, and the strong probabilities are, that where a proper line has been laid of opportunities, those who have been long in the service of our Captain will come nearer to the mark. Of one thing we are well assured, that the qualifications are not found in the youths who swarm our land, usually termed “pastors in chief.” To choose a man of one congregation as a lamp of another, is but a little more of the heritage of Rome translated to her Protestant daughters, and for a share of which there seems along us a strong hankering.
In case of serious difficulty in congregations in which the overseers themselves may be more or less personally involved, it may, no doubt, be proper for evangelists to give counsel and direction to set things in order, but so long as there are in the congregation men of experienced good hearts, and free from all personal bias, there can be no good reason whatever for asking the assistance of others. The
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Instruction, reproof, and admonition of the erring, is a part of the work of the seniors of the congregation, and so long as they are guided in their work by the law of Christ there can be no need for the assistance of evangelists and others. Evangelists or others can but clearly point to the law, and go forth with faithful obedience to its requirements, and if the congregation refuses to act in accordance therewith, it openly rebels against the government of Christ. We hope we have covered the whole ground presented by the brethren.
W. L.
THE LORD’S SUPPER
“This do in remembrance of me.”
We love remembrancers. From the time the Almighty Father consecrated the Sabbath day to the present, the world has been familiar with institutions commemorative of great events. The Jews had their Passover, commemorating their deliverance when the angel of death passed over their blood-stained hands, as he pursued his destroying course among the oppressors of Israel. The Romans have their festal days, commemorative of the deeds of heroes, the successes of statesmen, the progress of art, science, civilization. The vast altars on the great American heart, are wont to burn more brightly on the immortalized Fourth of July, as the stirring events of ’76 come crowding fresh upon the memories of the happy children of our revolutionary country fathers.
We love mementos of the past—souvenirs of the loved and lost. How carefully we preserve the pictures of the dead! And how often do we look, with eyes moistened with tears of affection and sorrow, upon the shadow long after the substance has moldered into dust! With what fondness do we treasure up a simple lock of hair clipped from some loved one’s temples, long after its kindred locks are hidden beneath the sod!
And hast thou not, Christian, some mementos to stir the soul with memories of the past? Look yonder to old Jerusalem, into that upper room, where Jesus keeps the Passover with his disciples. For the last time they commemorated together Israel’s deliverance. But see, Jesus commits to their keeping another Passover, to commemorate, through all time to come, a deliverance greater than Israel’s; a deliverance, not of a single nation, but a world; a deliverance, not from bondage to an earthly tyrant, but from the slavery of sin, whose…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 121
Fruit is eternal death.
In full view of the sufferings which awaited him on the morrow, “the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ After the same manner also, he took the cup, after he had supped, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.'”
O Christian pilgrim, canst thou raise thy head and heart to an appreciation, a full appreciation of the wondrous fact, that the King of glory is thy Saviour, and has bid thee remember him? Has he acknowledged thee, poor earth-worm as thou art, to look back upon the records of his sufferings and death, and remember that he suffered and died to save thee? O, keep his feast—the sacred keepsake he has left for you, and remember! Remember that he passed through trials, afflictions, persecutions, death, ere he ascended up far above all heavens, to reach the crown.
So must thou. Take up thy cross and follow him. Remember he has passed before thee through the “dark valley of the shadow of death,” and has lighted up for thee, through its gloomy territory, a pathway to life and immortality. Let not the muttering thunders of life, gathering storms deter thee. Let not the allurements of vice, the toils spread for thy feet by the Devil, and his emissaries, the wicked, lead thee from the path of truth and righteousness.
Look back to Old Jerusalem, where thy Saviour died; look forward to New Jerusalem where thy Saviour reigns, and where he has prepared for them that love him; let these glorious visions of the past and future nerve thy arm to fight on bravely and faithfully in the service of Emmanuel.
So when the Lord shall come again, thou shalt be resurrected from the dust of earth and the darkness of death, and exalted to “glory, honor, immortality—eternal life.”
F. M. C.
From the Herald of Truth
THE COVENANTS
LEWISBURG, MARSHALL CO., TEX., Feb. 8th, 1859.
Bro. Editor:—As the advocates of infant baptism and infant church membership have been compelled, for want of evidence in the New Testament, to resort to what is called the Abrahamic Covenant, in order that they may seem to have proof somewhere in the Bible for their practices; and as in my judgment, that covenant affords as little support for their practices as the New Testament, I will, by your pen…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
mission, offer through your columns some of my reflections upon that, and two other covenants. Wishing to be brief, and to avoid all unnecessary controversy, and regarding it as unimportant as far as the controversy before us is concerned, whether God made one, two or three covenants with Abraham; we think it sufficient to say that the sum of all God’s promises to him evidently embraced blessings of a twofold character—temporal and spiritual—for himself and his fleshly seed; and spiritual for all the families of the earth. This we presume will be admitted by most.
The next thing is to know whether God fulfilled his promises to Abraham or not. That the temporal of those promises was literally in blessing Abraham, multiplying the various branches of his family, and putting those of Isaac’s line into the actual possession of the land promised, and sustaining them there, we presume will be denied by none. But the great point in our investigation is yet to be settled. Did God fulfill his promise concerning the spiritual blessings? “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Gen. xii: 3.
We will now turn to the proof, Acts iii. 22-26. “And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God has fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he raised up Jesus again.” Here Paul affirms that God has fulfilled the promise. But probably some quibbler will contend that this does not identify the covenant made with Abraham, as it says the promise which was made unto the fathers.
Well, mark the language and we will try again. The promise. Not some promises, a promise, or any promise, but the promise. The promise that had the predominance of all others in the mind of every intelligent Jew, Paul affirms God has fulfilled.
Now turn to Acts iii: 25, 26. “Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant, which God made with our fathers saying unto Abraham, ‘And in thy seed shall all kindreds of the earth be blessed.’ Unto you first, God having raised up his Son sent him to bless you, in turning away every one from his iniquities.” This unequivocally identifies the covenant. Peter says the covenant, Paul says the promise. Peter says made with the fathers, Paul says made unto the fathers. Peter affirms that what God covenanted with the fathers to do to all the kindreds of the earth, he sent his Son first to the Jews to do, and Paul affirms that God hath fulfilled the promise. Thus we see that so far as the Jews were concerned the promise or covenant was fulfilled. But what about all the nations of the earth? We will hear Paul again. Gal. iii. 13, 14.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
This we think conclusive as the terms Jews and Gentiles include all nations. Having shown that God did fulfill what he promised, or covenanted with Abraham to do, whether a temporal or spiritual character; we will now proceed to notice two other covenants of later date.
According to Paul, four hundred and thirty years after the covenant with Abraham was confirmed, the law was added because of transgression until the seed should come. See Gal. iii. 19. This law was called a covenant. See Exodus xxiv. 28. Heb. iv. 18. In the following we have additional evidence of the law being called a covenant, and also proof that Jesus was Mediator of a better covenant of still later date.
Heb. viii. 6, 7. “But now hath he (Jesus) obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”
Verse 13th, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.” Again, ix. 1, “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary.”
Now, mark it well, of the two under consideration; Paul calls one the first, the other the second. The one faulty or deficient and ready to vanish away, the other, better and established upon better promises.
The intervening context shows that the one was without mercy, the other a covenant of mercy. In the ninth chapter these two covenants are called testaments, see verses 10, 17, 18, with their contexts. Mark well the 11th verse, for we will have it again.
In the 10th chapter and 8th and 11th verses the term “will” is used in the making of these two covenants. “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
Mark this, we will want it again. In the 13th chapter of 2nd Corinthians, Paul beautifully and boldly contrasts the two. In the 8th verse he calls the one that killeth, the other the spirit that giveth life. In the 9th, he calls the one the ministration of condemnation, the other, the ministration of righteousness. In the 10th he represents the one as having no glory in respect to giving life, the other excelling in glory. And in the 11th verse he…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
represents the one as being done away, the other remaining. But we must turn our attention to Galatians again.
After showing that the law was added to the promise, and that it was not against the promises of God, that it could not give life, but that before faith (the gospel) came, they were kept under the law, shut up to the faith that should afterwards be revealed; that the law was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, &c.; the Apostle then goes on to show them, that while they were under the law, they, like minors, differed nothing from servants, but were in bondage under the elements of the world.
But, that when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that they might receive the adoption of sons, and that those who had received the adoption, were no longer servants but sons; and if sons, then heirs through Christ.
But a question arises. What did Paul mean by the fullness of time? We can answer, the full time that the law which was added to the promise was to be in force till the seed should come.
Another question. How did God’s Son redeem them that were under the law? Answer, by the death of Jesus the law became dead, was abolished, done away, or taken out of the way.
“But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held.” Rom. VII. 6. See also 1 Cor. iii. 7, 11, 13. Eph. ii. 15.
But we must return from our discussion. The Apostle after recognizing them as sons of God, and heirs through Christ, asks, “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?”
Then after declaring that he was afraid lest he had bestowed upon them labor in vain, and calling to mind the blessedness they had once enjoyed, and their former state, he finally gives vent to his strong and powerful language:
“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you. I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born of the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise; which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
125
mother of all, For it is written, Rejoice thou barren that bearest not, break forth and cry thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath a husband.
Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now.
Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Let us notice the points in the allegory.
- There were two women: one a bondwoman, the other free; but each was allegorically a covenant, “For these are the two covenants.”
- Secondly, Abraham had a son by the bondwoman, the one born after the flesh and in bondage; the other born by promise, and free.
- Thirdly, as Agar who was in bondage with her son, was a figure of the covenant under law of bondage, and answered to Jerusalem which was in bondage with her children; so Sarah who was free, consequently above, or superior to Agar, was a figure of the latter covenant, established upon better promises, and answered to Jerusalem which is above, (superior,) heavenly or spiritual, which is free, and is the mother of a free and spiritual people, who were to be more numerous than the children of the bondwoman who had many children, while the free woman was desolate, having given Hagar to Abraham to be his wife.
- Finally, the subjects of the latter covenant—those who had received the adoption of sons, were the children of promise; while those that served under the law, were of the flesh, or allegorically children of the bondwoman.
- As like, both the bondwoman and her son were cast out, that the son of the bondwoman should not be heir with the son of the free woman; so the subjects of the latter covenant, which was cast out, are not to be heirs with the children of the free woman, or of the better covenant.
We will now turn our attention to the promises which God made to Abraham. We think that we make it sufficiently clear that they were fulfilled. To deny that God fulfilled his promises concerning the temporal blessings, would be to deny that he blessed Abraham, or multiplied his seed, or gave to his descendants the land of promise. And to deny that he fulfilled the promise that all nations should be blessed in his seed, would be to contradict both Peter and Paul, and virtually to nullify the fact that Christ has come.
For if it is not fulfilled then God did not send his Son to bless them. There is no escape from this position, it must be conceded by all. But the question may be…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
askc•l: This being concealed, what have you gained?
We answer: Much. It shakes to the very center out of the stronghold of re-baptism. For if that covenant was fulfilled, then it is no longer binding on either God or man, and there can be no sense in talking about Christians being now under the covenant of grace made with Abraham, and about circumcision being the seal of the covenant, or the initiatory rite into the Church, and thus baptism coming in its stead. For there can be no use for circumcision as a seal or initiatory rite of the covenant after it is fulfilled. But we deny that circumcision ever was either the seal of the covenant, or the initiatory rite into Abraham’s family. Paul tells us that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. (Rom. iv. 11.) It was Abraham that was circumcised, and not the covenant. All persons were initiated into his family not by circumcision, but by birth or purchase, and were circumcised after becoming members. See Gen. xvii. 13, 13.
But Petlohapti;sts take the position that Christians are now under the same covenant of grace made with Abraham; the initiatory rite only, being changed from circumcision to baptism, thus what he called the new covenant, is not another, but the same under a different dispensation. If this be true, then Paul was much mistaken when he called that of which Jesus was mediator, the new covenant. He ought to have called it the old covenant, if it was the one made with Abraham and that given on Sinai the new, as it was given 430 years after.
But we will offer some additional proof; that the covenant with Abraham and the new covenant are not the same.
- The covenant with Abraham was confirmed four hundred and thirty years before the new law, and therefore older than it. “And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” (Gal. iii. 17.)
- The new covenant or testament was not in force till after the death of Jesus, and therefore was not one made and continued four hundred and thirty years before the law. “For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” (Heb. ix. 17.) Again, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” (Heb. x. 9.)
From these scriptures we learn that the new covenant was not in force from the days of Abraham till the death of Christ, and consequently as circumcision was not, neither could
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
be the real initiatory rite of it before it was in force, or established; therefore the argument that baptism took the place of circumcision as the initiatory rite of the new covenant, or as the initiatory rite under it, has no foundation in scripture, reason or common sense.
But now let us collect some of the items worthy to view in our investigation, and draw our conclusions. We have seen that the covenant made with Abraham was confirmed four hundred and thirty years before the law, and consequently could not be the new which was not established till the death of Christ, near fifteen hundred years after the law. Therefore the Pentecostal assumption that they are the same must be hastened, and their conclusions false.
- We have seen that the covenant of promise given to Abraham was fulfilled, or else, Jesus did not come to bless both Jew and Gentile.
- If the covenant was fulfilled it is no longer in force, and consequently there is no longer any necessity for circumcision as the initiatory rite, if it ever had been, nor for baptism in its place.
- Circumcision never was a seal of the covenant, nor the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic family or church, for it was the seal of righteousness, not of the covenant but of Abraham’s faith, and the members of his family (usual and female) came in by faith or promise, and not by circumcision.
- The new covenant was not established, or in force till the death of Christ, near four thousand years after that with Abraham was confirmed, therefore neither circumcision nor baptism could be a seal or the initiatory rite of the new before it was established or in force.
- If circumcision was the initiatory rite of the Abrahamic covenant, and baptism is in the place, then it follows that Abraham’s covenant is the same, and the same relation to the covenant, and the subjects stand precisely on the same ground.
- If circumcision was the seal, or initiatory rite of the Abrahamic covenant, and baptism took its place, then it follows that baptism brings the subject into the same relation to that covenant that circumcision did, and consequently, it confers the same blessings, and brings them under the obligations that circumcision did. The subjects stand precisely on the same ground.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
8th
Those who were still clinging to the law, allegorically children of the bond-woman, under the yoke of bondage, born after the flesh, and persecutors of those who were born after the spirit.
As the son of the bond-woman was cast out, and not to be heir with the son of the free woman, so those under the law—under the yoke of bondage—were allegorically children of the bond-woman and not of the free, and to be cast out, and not to be heirs with the children of the free woman—the subjects of the better covenant, established upon better promises.
If circumcision was, as Paul suggests, the seal of the covenant of grace with Abraham, or the initiatory rite by which the subjects were admitted to the privileges and blessings of the church, and the church is now under the same covenant, the initiatory rite only being changed from circumcision to baptism, then it follows that baptism not only confers the same blessings and privileges, but it also imposes the same obligations; consequently, those who were circumcised were brought under the whole law, and those who were under the law were allegorically children of the bond-woman, born after the flesh, and not after the spirit, to be cast out and discharged from influence.
It necessarily follows as an unavoidable consequence, that baptism places its subjects in precisely the same predicament.
There is no truth in logic or sense in Perpetuity’s argument on this subject. What a difficulty!
If their position is true, they are children of the bond-woman; if false, their doings are anti-Christ. They will be compelled to abandon this stronghold of Perpetuity, or be shown clearly and incidentally, according to their own positions, to be children of the free woman; and a…
For if baptism took the place of circumcision, then Paul’s arguments are as applicable to the baptized as to the circumcised; and he says, “Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”
In this unmanageable condition we must leave them for the present.
Yours Respectfully,
HEPS JONES