THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
T. Fanning, Editor
D. Lipscomb
Vol. VIII
Nashville, December 18, 1866
Number 51
CHURCH OF CHRIST AND WORLD-POWERS – No. 18
The Christian’s duty to civil government is to submit to it, as a duty he owes to God. This is the limit and bound of his connection with it, so far as set forth in the teachings of Holy Writ, Rom. xiii: 1 Pet. ii: 13-15:
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. … Honor the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear. … Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands,” I Pet. iii: 1. Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder,” I Pet. v: 5.
“Children, obey your parents in all things,” Col. iii: 20.
These several commands are given to those in these different relationships, by the same authority. The duty of obedience is equally binding in all these relationships.
Is the duty of submission, in any or all of these relationships, unconditional, absolute, and obligatory, under all circumstances, or are they conditional, modified by other duties, and limited by higher and more sacred obligations?
Is it the duty of the child to submit to the parent, under all circumstances? If the parent commands the child to lie, steal, do murder, and the child does the bidding of the parent—who sins, the child, or the parent who gave the command?
It is the same with reference to the wife and husband, the servant and master. The wife is commanded to be subject to her husband, the servant to his master. Suppose the husband or the master to command the wife or servant to kill his enemy. The Bible commands them to be subject in these relations just as positively as it commands the Christian to submit to the “powers that be.” If the wife or the servant obey the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 802
Is she or he guilty in the sight of God, or does the whole responsibility rest upon the ruler or superior in this case? Who has a doubt but that the child, the wife, the servant, in such a case, is guilty of sin in the sight of God? The same submission is required upon the part of the younger in the elders of the congregation; yet we find, God’s appointed overseers of the congregation, arrogate a command of God, and grant to the younger members the right to violate God’s law?
Home has assumed that the Church comes, and so grants indulgence to sin, itself assumes the responsibility of the sin committed. At such an assumption Protestants and Christians have held up hands or body honor. But what have they done? Claimed that the Church of God, the approved and authorized institution for administering His laws, is to act for His children; but that the wicked, temporal powers of earth, that fear not God, may require and authorize Christians to violate God’s law, and yet Christians, violating God’s law under such authority or requirement, are blameless.
In other words, they claim that the church can abrogate or change the law of Christ, but that the wicked, earthly powers may. And the power of granting indulgence to sin, and of requiring obedience to act contrary to God’s law, is transferred simply from the Church of God to the wicked world-powers.
We confess that we have more respect for the Unchurch than for the Protestant idea. We regret exceedingly that some, who teach all association with either Romanism or Protestantism, but profess to be simply Christians, yet tolerate and hold the influence of their names to such modes of responsibility to God.
We quote a sentence or two from an editorial comment in the Christian Review of Nov. 13: “We judge strongly to the opinion that when the authorities call out men to arrest a robber or murderer, that the men called out are not responsible even though an innocent man should be arrested, or though lives should be lost in making the arrest. It may be, in like manner, that when the civil authorities call out men in war, they are responsible for all that is done in war.”
Upon a certain occasion, “a lawyer,” tempting Christ, asked him a question, saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,” Matt. xxii: 35-40.
In this we find that Jesus distinctly asserts that the commandment to love God, and, as a consequence, obey Him, was greater than the commandment to honor father or mother, and of greater and more sacredly binding force. Indeed, under all circumstances, from the expression, “on these hang all the law and the prophets,” we learn that all the other commands receive their virtue and efficiency from their connection with this commandment. It clearly indicates that our re-
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Relationship to God is the first, highest, most sacred relationship into which we can enter—its duties and obligations to be observed first—all other relations and duties are secondary, and are modified and controlled by this duty we owe to God. In other words, all the commands regulating these minor and secondary relationships are modified, limited, and even annulled and abrogated by the great commandment of the Lord.
It limits and modifies all—it is limited and modified by none. God says, emphatically, “thou shalt not steal.” God says, however, “obey your parents.” What is the duty of the child? The great, first, unchangeable, unmodified, and unlimited command is love, and, of course, obey God. The second command which hangs or depends upon this great law, says, “obey your parents.” The language of the Savior will certainly allow no other meaning than this—obey your parent, subject to the multiplying and limiting influence of the command, “obey God;” that is, obey your parent when the parent’s command does not conflict with the law of God.
When it conflicts with the law of God, it is a sin to obey the parent, husband, master, civil ruler, or overseer of the congregation. Thus, this great first command modifies, limits, or cancels and abrogates all the laws regulating the secondary relationships, when they conflict with the law of God. Thus the Savior lays down the principle with reference to our responsibility to God. Their authority can never reverse or suspend God’s laws.
The Savior lays down this principle, not with reference to the Jewish law alone, but with reference to its bearing upon his own laws and kingdom. Hence, he says to the child, “obey your parents, in the Lord,” (Ephesians vi: 1). That is, obey your parents so far as they command according to the law of God.
So the law to obey the parent is made to depend upon the first great law, “obey God.” Christ has also settled this question most emphatically when he says, “He that loves father or mother, son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me;” or, as Luke records it, “If any one come to me, and hate not his father or mother, he cannot be my disciple.” That is, if an individual does not respect and reverence the law of God above all other things, he cannot be the disciple of Jesus Christ.
To respect the law of a parent, or any earthly superior, in preference to the law of God, amounts to a rejection of God as lawgiver, and Jesus Christ as teacher. Christ is equally specific in reference to the civil ruler as he is in reference to the other relationships of earthly and secondary nature.
Speaking to his twelve apostles of the certainty of their coming in conflict with the governors and rulers of the world, he tells them, “Fear not them (the civil rulers) who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him (God) who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell,” (Matthew x: 28). Here he admonishes us by the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 804
Consideration of the more weighty importance of both soul and body, than of the body alone, to fear (and obey) God rather than the civil ruler. The great importance of obeying God rather than the civil ruler, and in violation of His rules, commands, and the extent to which we are to carry this principle, is set forth in the x: 39 and xvi: 25 of Matthew.
“Whoever will save his life shall lose it, and whoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”
That is, the civil rulers will require you to do things contrary to the will of God, and if you refuse to do those things, they will kill you. But whoever will save his life by doing the requirements of the civil ruler, and violating the law of God, shall lose his life (or soul forever); but whoever will die rather than violate God’s commandment at the behest of the civil ruler, shall save his soul unto life eternal. Instruction could not be clearer or more positive. The salvation of the soul in heaven is made to depend upon our setting at defiance the human law in order to obey the Divine. No power, then, neither of parent, husband, master, civil ruler, or church elder, can relieve the obligation to the Christian, at all times, to obey the command of God, even unto death, if need be.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” is the first great command; it is as universal, unchangeable, and inexorable as the existence of God Himself. It modifies, limits, abrogates all other laws, obligations, and duties; it can be limited and modified by none. Christ exhibited this when He died on the cross, refusing to save His life by a violation of the law of God, at the behest of the civil power. The apostles were arrested, imprisoned, beaten, and some of them slain, for refusing to save their lives by disobeying God, at the behest of the civil ruler. When commanded to disobey God, Peter’s answer was,
“Whether it be right in the sight of men to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye,” Acts iv: 19. And again, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” Acts v: 29.
We know that it is sometimes said, “There were not the proper political rulers, but the religious leaders of the Jews to whom Peter and John thus spake.” The rulers, chief priests, and scribes were the persons who condemned them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, embracing the civil or military rulers appointed by the great central power at Rome, whose undisputed sway extended to the limits of the known world, together with the Jewish elders and scribes. Peter and John themselves never settled the question, when they stated that this persecution and opposition was part of the fulfillment of the prophecy of David, when he said,
“Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ,” Acts iv: 26.
They go on to show that this prohibition is a culmination of the conspiracy of the rulers and people that crucified the Son of God. Hence, there cannot be a doubt but that this language was used with reference.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 805
To the legitimate civil and political rulers of the land. The apostles, too, one and all, sealed their fidelity to their teachings by dying for refusing to obey the civil power when its requirements came in conflict with the Divine law. A more baseless assumption, one more in direct conflict with God’s teaching, was never made by man, than the idea, “that when the civil authority commands the Christian to do something contrary to the law of God, and he does it, the responsibility rests upon the civil authority, and not on the individual who violates the law of God at the behest of the civil ruler.” There is not a point of obligation more strongly enforced in the Sacred Scriptures than this—no power of heaven, earth, or hell can come between man and his Master, to relieve him of his responsibility, under all circumstances, to obey his Master.
The command, then, “Submit to the powers that be,” is clearly limited by the highest duty to submit to God. He who violates the law of God in order to submit to the “powers that be,” surely sins against God. Those limits and bounds of the Christian’s connection with the world-powers is a quiet and faithful submission to it in all the requirements it makes at his hands, until it demands something contrary to the letter or spirit of God’s law; then it is his duty to meekly but firmly refuse to obey, on peril of eternal death. This duty of obedience is imperative, under all circumstances, to any government, power, or principality, under which we may be placed. Our conceptions of the right or wrong of the government, its justice or injustice, its constitutionality or unconstitutional, its good or evil tendency, neither weaken nor strengthen the obligations we owe it. As a duty we owe to God, “submit to the powers that be”—not the ones that we like or approve, or that have the least right to rule; but to the “powers that be”—that are in existence. We must give an unreserved and faithful submission in all things save when submission to them involves violation to God’s laws. There are no circumstances that will justify the child in refusing obedience to the parent, the wife to the husband, the servant to the master, or the Christian subject to his civil or military ruler, where the obedience to these superiors involves disobedience to the letter or spirit of God’s law. When it does, the duty in one and all of these relationships is to refuse that obedience unto death itself. And in thus losing our life for the sake of Christ, we save it unto the eternal.
Doing Good
Dr. Johnson used to say, “He who waits to do a great deal at once will never do any.” “Little by little,” is the way in which Providence opens to us opportunities of usefulness. We may not rule a city, but we can rule our own spirit. To found a university may not be in our power, but we can give a cup of cold water in the name of Christ.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
“LAYING UP TREASURE IN HEAVEN”
To the Christian there is no subject of so much moment as his heavenly treasure. Most persons, it is true, either believe or fancy that rich inheritance awaits them beyond the shores of time, but we are deeply impressed with the idea that there is a remarkable liability to be deceived in calculation. The beloved John said that, “If we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before God.” (1 John iii: 19). Owing to vague and imperfect views, especially as set forth in the Christian Scriptures, few can assure their hearts that their treasure is in heaven. It is not sufficient to merely desire riches beyond the grave, or to pray for happiness in the future.
The evidence of a future inheritance consists not in keeping a sort of mental sheet, without good deeds on the right, and being able to say, with the presumption that if the account balances, all will be well. Years since, we visited a dying man who had never gone so far as to enter into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son, but who was a gentleman, and had been honest, as friendly with all men, and wished to harm no one. On his deathbed, he confessed that he had never seen the Christian life, but still he had done nothing more than the laws of the land and the common courtesies of society demanded, and in all his life, there was not a single Christian act performed. A man may be honest because the laws of his country require it to be benevolent, because it is wiser policy; or to pray for earthly enjoyment, to avoid the punishment of penalization, scarcely possesses anything of a Christian character.
Laying up treasure in heaven is doing good without hope of earthly reward. The Pharisees, who prayed to be seen of men, had their reward; for they looked for nothing beyond the praise of men. The illustration given by the Savior in the tenth chapter of Luke should not be overlooked: “A man going from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among thieves,” who stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, leaving him half dead. A certain priest saw him, and passed by on the other side; likewise a Levite, but a Samaritan, (of much humbler profession and at least,) came where he was, and had compassion on him, went to him, bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. When he departed, he took out two pence and gave to the host, and said, “Take care of him, and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.”
The Samaritan, moved by compassion, did good to the man among thieves, because it was in his power to do so, and a fellow-sufferer, without any hope of an earthly reward. In fact, a young man was found in one of the counties in Tennessee, dangerously wounded. He was
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
807
Amongst strangers, and bunches of miles from the loved ones of earth. We had never seen him, but from the fact that he had heard his father speak of us, he sent for us to request us to inform his family in reference to his condition. Although he was exceedingly reduced and feeble, his whole manner seemed to say that he had some good intelligence, and that he professed faith in the Savior. He complained not of his suffering, and murmured not in the slightest degree at his destitution of clothing and many of the comforts of life. Still kind hearts ministered to his wants. We stated the case to such persons as we believed could feel compassion. Suffice it to say, the young man’s wants were supplied. He was housed, fed, and clothed for months by strangers, and after spending almost a year longer in prison, he was restored to his family. But a short time elapsed till he sought the names of those who ministered to his wants, with the view of returning adequate rewards to all who contributed to his relief. But no one’s name was given, that no one could be induced to receive a reward. All acted without letting the left hand know what the right hand did, and thus treasure was laid up in Heaven, which no one was willing to forfeit.
Such as count themselves that they will inherit eternal life, because they are honest, pay all their dues, harm no one, and occupy a respectable position in the church, will be mistaken. All this is necessary, but Christianity is still deeper. A nominal profession of religion, without the slightest apprehension or its meaning, will give but little advantage in the future. We are the Lord’s; we have been purchased at a great price, and we should glorify him in our bodies and our spirits, which are his, if we would enjoy the rest which remains for the people of God. Our physical, intellectual, and moral strength must be given to the Lord’s cause. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, and Christians, as the stewards of the Father, should glorify him by a proper use of all they possess earthly. The professed Christian who flatters himself that it is his right to do what he pleases with his property, to give it to whom he pleases, or to spend it in gratifying the lusts of the flesh, will go to judgment in blindness and without remedy.
We have not the right, if we would lay up treasures in Heaven, to exhaust our talents or our wealth in hunting for the world’s thrones or wealth. We are called to glorify God by our words, the proper employment of our talents, and by the use of our worldly goods, to relieve and elevate humanity. In this course alone can we lay up treasures above, where moth does not corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.
May this purpose of life, and Christian duty, shine. We trust these matters will be wisely discussed in future, that hitherto. There are lessons of wealth to be brought to light in the proper employment of our talents and the treasures of earth which God has entrusted to us.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
ORDINATON AND INSTALLING INTO OFFICE
Montreat Springs, Tenn., Nov. 22, 1866.
BROS. FANNING & LASCOD:
I want light on the subject of ordination. I doubt whether I understand what is implied by ordination. It has been the custom of our brethren in this section of the country, when choosing elders, deacons, and evangelists, to first make the selection, then to ordain them by fasting, solemn prayer, and the imposition of the hands of the chosen (contained) presbytery. I confess I have for many years had my doubts as to the correctness of this course. In reading an article in the Gospel Advocate on “Official Service in the Church,” my mind was invited afresh to this subject. Will you tell me—Do you practice any form of ordination? Or, is there any such thing? If there is such a thing, what is it, and how is it performed? Is all this form of fasting, praying, and laying on of the hands, a mere manumitting ceremony? Before I was considered a regularly installed preacher, a meeting was appointed in the church of which I was a member; and Bro. Samuel and my uncle, Robert Randolph, were called to lay hands on me. Was this all mere form? Or was it really necessary? I shall be glad to hear you plainly on all these points.
Yours in the gospel of Christ,
GILBERT RANDOLPH.
REPLY TO BRO. GILBERT RANDOLPH
Almost forty years since, we traveled the road of Bro. Randolph; but some twenty-five years ago, we learned better; and hence, our thoughts and practices are not, in all respects, what they were in youth. We are happy to tell our brethren that we have no theory to explain or defend; but for many years we have been endeavoring to learn the practices of the apostles, and others, who were under the direct guidance of the Spirit. We are now satisfied that no election, fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands, ever made an elder, bishop, or evangelist, or installed one such into what is called his office. By a birth from above, all are made “living stones” and “priests to God”—Rev. 1:6—”Are living stones; are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ,” 1 Pet. 2:5. In the language of Paul, we “grow up into him in all things,” Eph. 4:15. Again, the Apostle says, “God hath set (placed or ordained) the members, every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him,” 1 Cor. 12:18. This is the key to the whole subject of officers and official worship. Hence, it is said, “the Holy Spirit made” (set or ordained) the seniors at Ephesus “overlookers,” Acts xx: 28. Peter called the seniors to feed the flock, and declared them the shepherds, under the chief shepherd, 1 Pet. 5:2. Young men, without any official appointment, are likewise exhorted to submit to the elders. Paul makes it the duty of “aged women,” without any election or ordination, “to teach the young women,” Titus ii: 3-5.
As the members of our natural bodies, in a healthy condition, all have…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Their natural offices to serve, so in the body of Christ, the offices, or labors to be performed, are all natural, or as God has determined them. We mean the kind of labor best suited to the capacity of each member. Still, we have the idea of special ordinations in the New Testament; and we would do well to notice the examples given. Paul, for instance, says:
“If you have judgments of things pertaining to this life, act (place or ordain) them to judge who are least esteemed in the church,” 1 Cor. vi: 4.
When the labor of serving tables was too great for the apostles, in obedience to the natural order of things, seven men, not competent to teach, as were the apostles, but eminently qualified to distribute meat and bread to the hungry, were brought before the apostles, and by prayer, fasting, and the imposition of hands, they were set apart for a time, to this exclusive work. After Paul and Barnabas had preached some fourteen years to the Jews, the Spirit called them to another field; and the seniors at Antioch “fasted, prayed, and laid their hands upon them.”
In obedience to the order of the Spirit, they were thus “separated.” To what? To the ministry—as the preacher’s profession is usually called. They had been preachers, in the strictest sense, for years. Then it became expedient for them to occupy a different field; they were “separated” by fasting, prayer, and the imposition of hands. And in Acts xiv: 26, it is called a “recommendation to the grace of God.”
When Paul started the second trip into Asia Minor, it is almost certain that the seniors at Antioch fasted, prayed, and laid hands on him and Silas; for it is said they were “recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God,” Acts xv: 40. The first “separation” was called a “recommendation;” and we see no good reason why the “recommendation” for the second trip was not also a “separation,” and performed in the same manner as the first.
During this second tour, under the recommendation of the church at Antioch, Paul and Silas “ordained” or separated the seniors in every church, by extending or imposing their hands; “and when they had prayed and fasted, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed,” Acts xiv: 21. Timothy was advised that, “If any man desired the office of bishop, (or the labor of an overlooker—a very honorable, important, and praiseworthy service,) he desired a good work.” 1 Tim. iii: 1. But the wise and prudent Paul instructed his son to “lay hands suddenly on no man,” 1 Tim. v: 22. Titus was “left in Crete to set in order the things, wanting, and ordain elders in every city,” Titus i: 5.
We are satisfied that, while preachers, elders, and bishops were never made by election, fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands, it was the practice in the apostles’ days to look out servants in the church, also the elders (God’s overseers) and preachers, and consecrate all their time to specific fields and congregations. Should a congregation be disposed to send an evangelist on any mission whatever, we have the example of
810
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Recommendation, by prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands; and when performed, not to install into the preacher’s office, or make a preacher, but merely as the congregation’s duly authorized mode of sounding out the truth, we would most cordially approve of it. We also consider it the duty of the evangelists, or planters and watchers of congregations, to separate the believing seniors, such as Stephanas at Corinth, (1 Cor. xvi: 15,) as the divinely authorized shepherds of the flock. This separation means that these shepherds are to give their time and energies to feeding the sheep and protecting the fold.
In conclusion, we would respectfully suggest to Bro. Randolph, and such of our readers as are interested in this matter, that we hope none will come to hasty conclusions. These views are not in accordance with what can be honestly inferred from the Mother of official service; but upon a timely and full examination, we cannot but admit their admitted accuracy. We are also aware that many of our strong men are opposed, and are battling earnestly for official service; but if the beloved in the Lord will exercise due patience and sincerity, all will be right. If we are mistaken in any conclusions, we would be thankful to know it.
T. F.
ROME AND THE FREEDMEN
We have several times called attention to the necessity of aiding in educating and Christianizing the freedmen. It is a work in reference to which no Christian who comes in contact with him can be indifferent. We will go further; it is a question in reference to which no true friend or well-wisher of the Southern country can be indifferent. The freedman is with us; shall he be an intelligent, industrious, reliable laborer and producer in society? Or shall he be an ignorant, unreliable, idle, thieving vagabond in the land—a tax and pollution to society? is the question for the citizen to answer.
We do not say that, with the most earnest care, he can be elevated to a very high standard of manhood; but we do say, neglect him, will be to let him sink into the lowest depth of barbarism. Shall he be Christianized, or shall he be left, around our own presidencies, to sink into degradation and heathenism, corruption down to eternal death? is the question for the Christian to answer. To this question the Christian heart can give but one answer. The Savior has made no difference in races when shedding his blood, but covers all in his mercies. The man who feels indifferent to the salvation of a single human being on account of race, color, or any other consideration, has not the spirit of Christ, and is none of his; in a word, is no Christian.
Then we should make some special effort for the race in our midst, that is now susceptible of being taught and influenced. Besides, the good to be accomplished will be for the freedmen themselves, as constituting a large body of the laboring class of the South—they will constitute a power in the hands of…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 811
Those who control them. The laboring classes, as a means of influence, have never been appreciated, save by the noisy hierarchy, among religiousists. A given number of the humblest laborers in any land has always constituted a much more efficient religious power than an equal number of the wealthy and educated classes. Out of the multitude of laborers and soldiers shall have perfect praise. Rome, true to her long tried policy, is now already making herself welcome to the South—by her present policy in the late war; secondly, by being the only power that can supply the needed labor to the desolated lands of the South. She, guided by the same wisdom, is now making vigorous efforts to gain control of the freedmen, by converting them to her fold. As yet she has not the shadow of a hold upon their affections. Will she succeed in converting them? She will if professed Christians North do not cease to destroy the influence of Christians South with the freedmen, for the sake of political effect; and if Christians North do not rise superior to the discouraging effects of such influences, and to all prejudices that stand in their way, and make an earnest effort for the improvement of the freedmen.
Rome, by the late strife, has gained immensely in power that she has not had before. She is now as Nationalist, Republican, and as much a power in the political field as any other political organization; but she is inspiring her sons and daughters to work for her interests, while others were destroying each other. She gained influence with both sections. When she shall have her emissaries to convert the freedmen of the South, she will not do as the Methodists, Baptists, and the so-called Christian denominations have done. Some men who are now political emissaries than religious teachers—who will not do as they have been doing—stir up strife, bitterness, and alienation between the races; her wisdom will not be of that kind. In the field of their labors, as engaged in political meetings and agitating, than in preaching the gospel, as they ought to have been. Rome has learned too much of wisdom to pursue such a stultifying course; and her sons are dangerous in their high appreciation of her influence.
Now we do not ask Christians to be controlled by the prejudices and political schemes of Rome; but a high and exalted appreciation of our duties to God, and of the supreme excellence of the religion of the Savior, will make Christians lose sight of all other considerations and interests in their efforts to advance the Church of the living God among the nations of the earth, and thus save the perishing of every race, tribe, and family of the earth. So long as the Roman Church makes its interests their highest consideration, and professed Christians make the interests of God’s Church secondary to some political scheme or sectional and partisan end, so long will Rome prosper, and the Church of Christ.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 812
Linger and want. Especially, so long as this state continues, so long will the revolutions and conflicts of the world give strength to Rome, and weaken and destroy in those strifes the Church of Christ. The children of God must be a people united in themselves, separated from the world—from its partizanship and strife—with their strength husbanded, prepared—even waiting and watching—for the providential opening, to spread the kingdom of Christ among the tribes of earth. When the affection and respect of any people for an earthly institution is destroyed by the providential dealings with the nations; when the laws and relationships of an earthly nature, that controlled and governed them, are broken, then Christians should, as a distinct body, free from all sectional and political animosities, be prepared to direct that respect and affection to the divine government of God, and to replace the bonds and obligations of human laws with the stronger and more enduring ones of Divine authority.
—D. L.
“MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE.”
Our destitute brethren have modestly asked for nothing but bread; but when we are aiding them, will we confine our offerings simply to bread? We call attention to this matter, because, of all the offerings made, or proposed to be made, not a pound of meat has been given or promised. In this connection, we will say, too, that perishable articles such as are affected by cold are exceedingly uncertain at this season of the year. A lot of potatoes, for instance, shipped and permitted to remain in a large depot one cold night, ruins them. Such has already happened once. Again, the benefit of food to a community depends greatly on their being accustomed to use it. Fresh potatoes, for instance, to the Irish, would be a most acceptable and economical food; but to a people not accustomed to their constant use, they would not in large quantities be so. Now, it is a fact, not widely known, that Irish potatoes have been cultivated and used but to a very limited extent in the Southern country. Their use would be very acceptable and economical to us here; but we apprehend that a bushel of corn, or wheat, or peas, or beans, would be more acceptable, and go farther towards supplying the wants of the Southern people, than twice the amount of potatoes.
Bro. Metcalf also requests us to say to our friends, that in shipping provisions or clothing, a receipt from the railroad or steamboat should be forwarded. Several letters have been received, stating that goods were shipped, but the goods have never been heard of. Again, it would be well to ship all goods sent from or through Louisville, by the house of Bro. John Tait & Son. Goods shipped by a known and responsible house for the destitute, will come over the railroad to Nashville free of charge. These matters are worthy of attention.
—D. L.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
A WORD TO OUR READERS
Will our readers, one and all, bear in mind that another number closes our present volume, and with its close the time of subscription of the greater number of our present list of subscribers expires. We can send to none without a renewal of their subscriptions. We take this failure to renew as evidence they no longer desire the paper. We hope that every reader will not only feel sufficient interest not only to renew his own subscription, but will induce others to subscribe. It would be an enjoyment to any one to induce one other brother, neighbor, or friend to subscribe for the paper. Many could get a club without difficulty. Will you not make an effort, kind reader, to help us? If each subscriber will send us one other subscriber, with his own renewal; or even if every other one would send us an additional name, it would greatly relieve us, and enable us to present a better paper. We this year have done the hardest year’s work of our life, and have paid several hundred dollars for the privilege of doing this. We mention this merely to let our friends see there is an acute necessity for exerting themselves earnestly in behalf of the Gospel Advocate. We hope our friends will act promptly and vigorously in this matter, and report to us at once.
D. I.
For the Gospel Advocate.
A REPLY TO THE THIRTEEN THESES IN THE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN REVIEW OF OCTOBER 15, AND ALL OTHERS OF RECENT DATE IN THE COURT’S EDITORIAL
In answer to the question, “Cannot our missionary societies be placed upon a true and scriptural basis?” etc., I answer, No; because what is unscriptural cannot be made scriptural. In my turn, I will ask some questions. Did any person ever read in the New Testament of a district, state, or general missionary society? Let him who says yes, show it. Did any man ever read in the New Testament of a missionary sermon being preached, a collection being taken up for missionary purposes, or a subscription being taken up, etc.? Let him who says he did, prove it.
Does it follow as a logical sequence that because God, the Creator, possessor of heaven and earth, sent his Son to save sinners, that therefore a body of men, unknown to the New Testament, merely called churches and missionary societies, has the same rights to send men as God has given that he sent his Son? Can these societies give as many proofs of their right to send men as God has given? If they cannot, why offer this as an argument for men-sent missionaries? Does the obligation to spread the gospel lie upon individual persons and churches, or upon clubs of men? Did the Christians of the New Testament spread the gospel, and the discussion of Christ, by persons and churches separately and not jointly; or did they do it by proxy, as the moderns do everything? Did not the congregations of Jerusalem, Thessalonica, and Antioch, spread…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
The gospel through the Roman Empire, separately, and not jointly, nor by missionary societies? Is not the example of these churches as good to us as if God had said, “You shall spread the gospel in the same manner, and not by missionary societies”? Did not the Jerusalem congregation exist eight or ten years before any other church existed to cooperate with it, and did she not spread the gospel through Judea, Samaria, and the Gentile countries, without a missionary society? Is it not as clearly revealed that the three churches named above spread the gospel through the Roman Empire separately, and not by missionary societies, as that those churches existed? When the sacred volume closed, near the year 100, did not the head of all Christian churches acknowledge the separate, distinct, and independent existence of the seven Asiatic churches in the first three chapters of Revelation? Are not all the apostolic epistles written to individual persons and churches? And not one addressed to a missionary society, an association, council, convention, or presbytery? Are not these scriptural facts of significant importance? Are we at liberty to disregard them and trample underfoot the Divine wisdom and goodness, and substitute in their place the law of men? Do not these established facts outweigh all the theories and all the speculations of the corps editorial since the origin of the missionary society? Are not infant sprinkling and the apostolic succession both sustained by Scripture more than these societies? These societies to spread the gospel are as much an insult to God, and as much an impediment to His wisdom and benevolence, as the attempts of sects to unite the people of God upon a human creed, instead of uniting them upon the Word of God, as prayed for in John 17th chapter. It is not more clearly revealed, in the 17th chapter of John’s gospel, that God’s people should be united on the Word of God, than it is that the apostolic churches spread the gospel in their individual and separate capacity, and not jointly by church representation, nor by clubs of men.
I ask for one instance of men spreading the gospel by church representation, or by the cooperation of councils of men, called churches or missionary societies. If the advocates of missionary societies cannot give it, let them abandon them, and accept of God’s plan to spread the gospel. To spread the gospel by individual persons and churches is the New Testament plan; it is the plan of the Christian Baptist, and of our people for the first and best 25 years of our existence as a people.
When an individual testifies on both sides of a question in courts of law, the rule is, he nullifies his own testimony, and is set aside. I will observe the testimony of the Millennial Harbinger for these societies, affecting their origination, by that of Dr. Carson, who is equally learned and talented, and is quoted by the Christian Baptist, on page 248, and who says of these societies: “They are a collection of men, frail and fallible. Some of those societies were not assemblies of pious and learned divines, but causes, a majority.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
of which were quarrelsome, fanatical, domineering, dishonest prelates, who united to compel men to approve all their opinions, of which they themselves did not just conception, and to mathematicians and oppress those who would not submit implicitly to their determinations. This was maintained by the Christian Baptist, when he said we might as well look for Mahomet’s coffin hanging in the air, or any other authority for any religious act than one congregation. Dr. C. further says of those societies: “If they are not strictly appointed, they cannot be useful, they cannot be innocent. I am bold to predict that whenever they are tried, they will degenerate into an engine of lust.” This is strong language. We are in good company.
Neol, in his history, says, many great and good men have said, “I would to God I had never seen one of them.” Would any sane man call these modern societies churches? What God has appointed is the apostolic churches—let no man join them together. A resort to explaining a confession that these societies are not in the bottom of the tub, and that there is poison in their cup. These societies are as unfounded in the New Testament as the worship of the Virgin Mary. If some churchmen will not do their duty to spread the gospel, their doom must lie upon those societies. Neither Christ, nor the early Christians, ever named or used missionary societies to spread the gospel. The following is part of the testimony of two or more tenured witnesses on the subject of these societies, which all the law requires.
- These societies, by whatever name called, originated in the last part of the eighteenth century, from 1800 to 1820.
- That these societies originated in Greece, and not in heaven, nor with God.
- That their method is political, and remembered over with religion.
- That these societies, politico-religious canons, rules, councils, or resolutions, are twin brothers.
- That these societies can no more exist without human laws than the gospel can exist without the New Testament.
- That these conclusions of men run against the whole life of the gospel, as they leave us among us.
Ree Mobdham, vol. 1, p. 116. See Hic~uker, Sowser, Culeman, Waddington, and Dowling’s History of Romanism, pp. 48 to 58, chapter 3-51.
- They changed the whole face of the church, and have all but destroyed it. If that is true, then the church is not the church of Christ but through these societies, as the corpses of the American Christian Review, of Oct. 16, 1866.
JACOB CHEATHAM
“Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
A PROPOSITION TO BRO. KENDRICK
Bro. K. thinks that we are treading upon forbidden ground, in maintaining the necessity of a separation between the institutions of the world and the Church of Jesus Christ. Now this is a practical question, involving important interests to the Church and to the world governments. We make it a rule never to differ from a Christian brother who respects the law of Christ, and is willing to submit unreservedly to its teachings, on any question of practical importance to the Church. If he will hear us and will not agree with us, we will with him. The Scriptures do not teach different things to different people. The Word of God does not give contradictory and opposing rules of action to persons who are obeying the Lord—they must walk together by the same rule.
Now, the Bible does not teach me to refuse to fight, to vote, and to participate in the affairs of human government, and, Bro. Kendrick, to engage in these things. I think I wish to know and do the will of God on these subjects. I feel confident, too, that Brother Kendrick does. We must agree, then, Bro. Kendrick. Probably one or the other of us has looked at this subject from an improper standpoint. If we would investigate the subject together, we might possibly find one another, and be brought to a unity of faith and action. It has been in my heart to spend a few months, the Lord willing, in Texas, during the coming year, with my friends and brethren.
The proposition I have to make is, that, at some convenient and accessible point to the brethren, of which Bro. K. and our Texas friends may be the judges, we have an investigation meeting, and that we shall investigate the question, What relationship does the Church of Christ sustain to the world governments by which it is surrounded; and to what extent may Christians engage in the affairs of worldly governments? We do not want a debate, nor do we wish to commit ourselves or Bro. Kendrick to commit himself, to any position on the subject; but we will investigate the Scriptures on the subject as though it were entirely new. After we have exhausted this subject, if Bro. K. and the brethren with him are willing to consider the question, “How are experiments allowable for carrying forward the Christian religion?” We shall not object. Such meetings have been held, with great profit, in Tennessee.
OAT LAND, near Lynchburg, Tenn., Nov. 12th, 1866.
Brother Fanning visited our Brother Lipscomb’s at Winchester recently. Much good could be done there if we could only have preaching at that place.
Your brother in hope of eternal life,
THOS. J. SHAW