The Gospel Advocate – January 1859

by

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOMB, Editors.

VOL. V.
NASHVILLE, JANUARY, 1859.
NO. 1.

CHURCH OFFICERS, NO. 4.

BISHOPS.

In the present number we really begin our examination of the subject of church officers. The work of an Evangelist scarcely entitles him to the designation of an officer in the church. His labor, as we have endeavored to show, is mainly to the world. He is the preacher of the gospel to the poor and erring. It is his peculiar province to plant churches—put in order what may be wanting in them; consecrate elders to the oversight of the respective flocks, and have a general “care” of the whole field of his labor.

Officers of churches are, on the contrary, men who labor in the respective congregations—who feed the lambs, keep the sheep in the fold, guard the gates, drive away the wolves, instruct in the way of life, and, in a word, build up believers in their most holy faith. Of this labor we hope to speak more perspicuously in another part of our article.

Owing to the general confusion in the religious world regarding the Bishop’s office, we feel it necessarily incumbent, if possible, to contribute somewhat to the disentanglement of the subject from the net that has been thrown around it. While we feel that we are not entitled to much credit, we suggest that we have endeavored to read the New Testament with care, and we regard the subject of Bishops a plain matter, and think it not too much to say we know and believe the teaching of the Spirit touching at least this matter. We are also…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

It is important, in the circumstances, to briefly notice some of the side issues in order to get at the true question. We feel but little concern regarding the diocesan bishops of Rome or England, or even the State or district bishops of the Methodist church North or South. There is no authority for them in the scriptures of truth. Even the bodies over which they preside are all foreign, and of course the officers are not recognized by the spirit. So far from finding authority in the Bible for State or district bishops or a bishop over several congregations, we discover no example in sacred history for the bishop of a single church. Bishops, pastors, or overseers were always in the plural number in the same congregation. We should, indeed, regard it as a dangerous precedent for any one to assume the oversight or pastorate of a single flock. It is a departure from the scriptural example, and our deliberate judgment is that men who will assume the terrible responsibility of disregarding the authority of the scriptures in small matters will do so in large ones.

First of all, we should, if possible, settle the question as to Elders. Who are they? Is there an elder’s office? If elders are necessarily officers, how are they made? What is their work? How are they supported? etc., etc.

In approaching this subject we feel “in a strait betwixt” not only two, but divers parties. Our desire is to offend no one—to be at peace—particularly with all who profess to be brethren; yet we feel it necessary to oppose some of their teachings, and in doing so, judging of the future from the past, we can but incur the displeasure of men we highly esteem. It is a very general opinion in the denominations as well as amongst the disciples that elders are necessarily officers, and hence the style “Elder’s office.”

We notice that Professor Milligan, in his essay upon the “Permanent officers of the church,” says: (689 page of the M. H., for 1855) that “Every elder is officially a teacher and a pastor as well as a ruler.” Again he speaks, on the 591 page, of the “Appointment of elders to the sacred duty of their office.” On page 692, “The elders are officially equal.”

This is the general view amongst brethren, and whether our motives should be regarded as good or bad, we expect to speak plainly, and without the slightest apprehension of successful opposition from any source whatever. If we possess any knowledge of words, things, connections, or especially the scriptures of truth, many sincere men, and…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Perhaps some who are writing without any very elevated object, are inflicting serious injury upon the cause by retailing sectarian speculations which give not the least evidence that their advocates have examined the word of God. How shall the question of the Eldership, for instance, be determined? The usual lexicon of the word, as the learned would say, must determine the matter. We are disposed to take high ground at once.

We give it as our judgment, that the word Elder, in neither Old or New Testament, was ever used to denote office, officer, official work, or anything necessarily connected with an office. It denotes a specific quality, and it is impossible that it should designate an officer.

Must we not say to the brethren that the Greek word Presbuteros from which elder is translated, simply means older or elder as employed in the days of King James. Hence Paul says, “Entreat an elder as the father, and the younger men as brethren.” If elder denotes an office so does younger. But may we not profit by looking through the Old Testament a few moments.

If we mistake not, the first occurrence of the word Elder is found in Gen. 10:21. The passage reads: “The children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder.” The only idea is that Japheth was older than his brother. In like manner we read Gen. 25:23, “The elder shall serve the younger.”

We have heard it said that elder means older when reference is made to individuals, but when the word is applied to the members of the Jewish Senate, the matter is quite different. We will notice the organization of the Sanhedrim, (Num. 11:11, 12, 13), “And the Lord said unto Moses, gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be elders of the people and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may stand there with thee; and I will come down and talk with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and I will put it upon them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.” These men were not only to be elders but officers—showing most clearly that the word elder denoted not an officer and that men may be elders and not officers.

Again, we have the same style; Deut. 29:10, “Ye stand before the Lord, your elders, and officers.” Again, Deut. 31:28, “Gather to me all the elders of your tribes and officers.”

We have taken at least two important points by examining these scriptures. First, the words elder and officer are not identical in meaning.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

and secondly, one of the indispensable qualifications to a seat in the Jewish Senate was, that each was to be an elder, and also an active working man—an officer over the people before his consecration. We respectfully suggest that there is no contradiction of these things in the Old Testament.

We are particular on this point because we notice many writers, who, at the onset, declare that the word denotes an elder person, but soon contradict themselves by speaking of the office of Elder. It may be regarded as a safe rule, in interpreting languages, to say that when a clear point is made, there is nothing to contradict it. Hence when Peter commanded the Jews to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, there is no contradiction of this in the Scriptures. If there is, the Bible is not a book upon which we can rely.

We will next notice the use of the word as applied to the Jews in the New Testament. Jesus said unto the captains and elders, Luke xxii. 52. “Their rulers and elders were gathered together,” Acts iv. 5. Here we have captains and elders, with rulers and elders, showing that these were all different. But the great matter is to ascertain the use of the word when applied to Christians. The first passage offering any difficulty is Acts xiv. 23. “And when they had ordained them elders in every church.” The idea is not that the Apostles made elders, but consecrated elders—aged, experienced, and consequently wise men to the oversight of the flocks. In like manner, elders, or men of experience and discretion, participated in the adjustment of the difficulty at Antioch. Such the Father has determined shall be the teachers and rulers over his people. Hence Paul from Miletus sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church, Acts xx. 17-28, “And when they were come, he said, take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” Hence the Good Spirit says to seniors, “You are the chosen of the Lord to overlook the flock.” God points out the men of experience and wisdom, and says in effect to Evangelists, “consecrate them.” The word is found in the original, Tim. iv. 14. “The laying on of the hands of the Presbytery” (Presbuteron). Again he says, “Rebuke not an elder but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren; the elder women as mothers, the younger as sisters.” That the words elder and younger do not necessarily mean officers, cannot be made plainer. It being understood that elders were the proper persons to make rulers, the Apostle said to Timothy, “The

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Elders and Their Role

Elders that rule well count worthy of double honor, but this shows that all seniors or elders were not competent to rule. He adds, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine.

In Titus i. 5, Paul says to his son, “I left thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the things wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I find appointed thee.” The same idea of ordaining seniors, elders—men of prudence from age—is before the mind in every passage we have found.

Last of all, Peter says, “The elders who are among you, I exhort who am also an elder (senior). Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight, not by constraint but willingly. Likewise ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder.” Heaven’s order is that the aged, experienced, and consequently wise men shall rule over the flock—shall be the overseers.

Hence Paul, 1 Cor. xvi. 15, “I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the Saints,) that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboreth.” This concludes the whole teaching of the spirit concerning elders. The household of Stephanas constituted the first fruits of Achaia—the members were the seniors or elders—had ministered to the saints—were still “addicting themselves” to it and in consequence of their age and experience, with their wisdom resulting therefrom, God selected—pointed them out as rulers—and the Apostle said, “submit to such.”

Question of Bishops

It may be proper to answer a single question. Were not the elders ordained by Titus, in the same connection, called bishops? Yes! We add, all the bishops were elders, but all elders were not competent as bishops. All judges are lawyers, but all lawyers are neither judges nor competent for the office. The people, however, have ordained that the judges of our courts shall be lawyers, and God has also decreed that from the experienced alone, shall men be called forth to overlook the flock.

Hence all that has been said about the elder’s office, ordaining to the office of elder, etc., is not only idle, but it also evinces exceeding deficiency in teachers, and is well calculated to do harm in the church. If we have been successful in settling the foregoing difficulties, our task regarding the bishop is but light.

Who is the Bishop?

The word implies an overseer—one who watches the flock and feeds the lambs. As we have shown, when churches were planted by the Apostles and the early preachers—all

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

The members labored according to their ability in the church; the first converts, other things being equal, were the proper persons to go forward into the service, and so soon as these elders gave practical evidence of ability to labor, and the churches required the daily pastorate, they were consecrated to the Bishopric—labor of overlooking the flock.

  1. These bishops, shepherds, pastors, or overseers, were, as previously intimated, always in the plural number. It may be said it is not necessary to have several, when one, even a youth, can do all the labor. We answer it is not in the power of young, inexperienced men to oversee the flock of God, and what the Lord has done—designated elders for the work—we should not attempt to undo.
  2. Who are to be the judges of the qualifications of these seniors? We answer, the evangelist or evangelists and members of the church. If any are competent all know it, and hence there is no room for election.
  3. Shall all that are qualified be put to the service? To be sure! This is the way in which the world is to be converted. Some of these overseers may soon give evidence of ability to carry the word to the world, and then their labor should be differently directed.
  4. Who are to ordain the elders to the work of bishops? Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church—Timothy was not to lay hands suddenly on any, and Titus was left in Crete, as he had been appointed, to ordain elders in the churches, and these afford the sum of scriptural authority. Much has been said about each church choosing and consecrating its own rulers, but there is not a word in the Bible on the subject. The evangelists alone consecrated the seniors to the overseership of all the churches in the days of the apostles.
  5. What are the items of the Bishop’s labor? We have incidentally answered, but we are disposed to repeat some parts of the work, and add a little more. The words overseer, shepherd, and pastor, sufficiently explain most of the labor. We make a single suggestion. In common affairs, an overseer does not do all the work instead of the hands, but it is his peculiar office to see that each one is performing properly the labor assigned. This is just what we need in all the churches. The practice of hiring the service out to lads or old men—to sing or have music made for the brethren, or pray, exhort, entreat, break bread for them, is ruinous wherever permitted. The toleration of this subversion of the Christian order is decidedly the most dangerous indication in the churches of Christ. We should not forget that bishops…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

7

are the divinely authorized teachers of the youth of the respective congregations in godliness, and when they find any competent, they are the proper persons to consecrate them to the work of evangelists.

7. The Support of Bishops

The practice of electing men to what is called the bishop’s office, with the understanding that said dignitaries are to attend to their farms, flocks, merchandise, profession of law, medicine, or even to teaching secular schools, and attend with their worldly and cold hearts on Lord’s day to break bread for the brethren, is an outrage against the church of Christ. The inadequacy of many elders to attend to the service is the main reason why many object to others besides preachers attending to the ordinances. Men who give not their hearts to the work cannot interest, edify, or profit the disciples. But when good men give themselves to the work of the pastorate, it is the bounden duty of the brethren of the church to render to them an ample support for themselves and their families. We doubt not Paul had reference to this when he said, “Pay ye tribute also, for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”
T. F.

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN

There are evidently persons in the world, “given over to hardness of heart and reprobacy of mind,” and members of the church also, whose sins are of so heinous a character, that Christians should not pray for their forgiveness. Our attention has been called to this subject from the fact that some persons who have committed, as we believe, the unpardonable sin, either directly, or in aiding and abetting blasphemers against the holy spirit, have recently applied to the brethren for membership in the church of Christ. Whilst we should rejoice at the return of prodigals, if we take to our bosom persons beyond the reach of God’s mercy, we inflict serious injury on the cause of God. If we were asked if we have evidence that human beings in this age, and in this country, commit sins of so deep a stain that they cannot be cleansed, we answer that we have no doubts on the subject. There are many who can neither believe, repent, or give themselves, in any sense, to the Lord. Neither do we regard this as a mysterious matter. A few scriptures will enable us to appreciate its truth and magnitude. The Saviour says, Matt. xii. 31-32, “Wherefore I say…”

GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world—neither in the world to come.

Luke records the matter thus: “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him.” (Luke 12:10) The beloved John spoke to his brethren thus: “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” (2 John 5:16).

In the first place, it is clear that John pointed to a sin amongst Christians for the pardon of which, no one should pray, which was, however, well defined, and concerning which there was no ground of dispute. This sin is fully set forth, Matt. 12:22-30. The Saviour had cast out a devil by the spirit of God, and the Pharisees said, “This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” This attributing the works which the Lord did by the Spirit to the agency of demons, “the spirit of Beelzebub,” was, and is the unpardonable sin.

Were we asked, who in this age, commit this sin, we answer promptly, that modern Spiritualists all do so. They deny miraculous revelations by the Spirit, and maintain what they call “developments” according to the laws of nature, by spirits of dead people, or demons. They maintain that what we call Christ’s revelations were fitted only for a dark age, and that they are far inferior to the developments of this enlightened age, through other spirits than the Spirit of God.

This we call blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The effect in all countries is to make void and of no effect, the precious oracles of God. Hence all modern Spiritualists regard the Bible as fabulous, inferior and unworthy of the attention of the people of our times. Persons in or out of the church, who thus think or speak of the work of the Spirit in the Bible and in the church, we consider beyond the reach of redemption by the blood of Christ. The Lord gives them over to believe a lie, and be damned because they receive not the truth in the love of it.

In this country, quite a number of persons have either openly and…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

recklessly blasphemed against the teaching of the spirit, as being a dead letter—merely the “husk of truth,” or sustained such as have done so; and we feel it due to the cause we plead, to give it as our settled judgment, that Christians should never acknowledge such as brethren in the Lord. Their motives cannot be good in making application to become church members, and we take it for granted that all such church members as have regarded the work of the spirit as a trifling affair, will prove an injury to the cause of vital religion. A part of “pure religion” consists in keeping ourselves unspotted from the world, and the church is a spiritual body, and if in our power, we should have no fellowship with the “unfruitful works of darkness” or those who are under their influence.

T. F.

OBJECTIONS TO OUR TEACHING, REGARDING CHURCH OFFICERS AND SECRET SOCIETIES

Bro. Dr. Chinn, of Lexington, Ky., to whose letter we referred in the November number, has intimated dissatisfaction at our remarks, and requests the publication of his views. While we most cheerfully comply, we beg permission to make two remarks.

  1. In the first place, such unqualified and sweeping declarations regarding our teaching, touching the church officers without the least shadow of authority to show our error, we consider as wholly inadmissible;
  2. Secondly, we see no good reason in what Bro. C. says, why the merits of secret and all other societies should not be examined.

We must be pardoned also, for respectfully intimating that our venerable Brothers hint at our “ignorance, regarding the operations of secret societies,” is to say the least gratuitous. We have, however, long known and loved Bro. Chinn, and we will hear him patiently, and continue to love him tenderly as a brother in deed and in truth.

T. F.

SILLIMAN’S JOURNAL

Of Science and Arts, published at New Haven, Ct., every other month, in numbers of 152 pages each, making two volumes a year. Edited by Professors Silliman, Dana, Gray, Agassiz, and Gibbs.

Address:

SILLIMAN & DANA,
New Haven, Ct.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

PRAYER – BY PROF. R. MILLIGAN, DR. J. T. WALSH, AND OTHERS OF LIKE SENTIMENTS

We have desired to give our readers a series of essays upon the subject of Prayer, but have not seen how we could do so without, either directly or indirectly, coming in contact with views which it may appear unwise in us to oppose.

Notwithstanding our earnest desire to maintain the most friendly relations with the Editors of the Harbinger, we have unfortunately not been able to do so, and whether our motives now be regarded as good or otherwise, or whether it be considered politic, in the circumstances or not, to object to any portion of their teaching, we consider it our privilege and duty to examine freely, though courteously, all theories which may seem to us of evil tendency, and to commend whatever may seem to be in the least calculated to promote righteousness and peace amongst brethren. Our purpose is to speak as if nothing of an unpleasant character had occurred between our friends and ourselves, and our earnest prayer is that God may be honored in all our efforts to do good. We promise to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and if we cannot have the friendship of our contemporaries upon the principles of the gospel, we ask it not on other conditions.

We deem it proper in these suggestive thoughts also to repeat, that while we regard Prof. Milligan as a “pleasant writer,” we consider it not the least disrespectful to intimate that we consider his efforts too arduous. No man who has not devoted much time to a critical study of the Scriptures, and indeed, to teaching the things of the Spirit, is in our view competent to direct the mind of a great people in very difficult questions, or of unfolding prophecies into which angels have scarcely ventured to look.

We think, however, that he has, without intending wrong, published sentiments of a most deleterious character. In our first notice of his writing we respectfully mentioned the high authority amongst us as a people, of anything emanating from a Professor of Bethany College and an Editor of the Harbinger. It is a kind of tacit understanding with brethren that whatever comes from an editor of that journal has the sanction of Brother Campbell, and most of us are unwilling to call in question anything uttered by men occupying so high positions. As the legitimate effect of the influence of position, we are sorry to be able to mention several good men who, a short time since, preached Natural Theology, because it was affirmed to be the doctrine of our brethren.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

We can point to several churches and scores of individuals at this moment that maintain there is an “Elder’s office,” because Prof. R. Milligan said so in his essays upon the “Permanent officers of the Church.”

Very recently, we have noticed that some of our Editors—we presume upon the same high authority—are contending that men out of the church of God are authorized to pray, as did the Publican. From most reliable information, the brethren in several sections of the country with which we are familiar are upon the point of serious difficulty, in consequence of men preaching the new doctrine upon the subject of prayer as discovered and set forth by Prof. Milligan.

Believing that nothing new has come to light, and that the recent teaching is unscriptural and of most dangerous tendency, we cannot frame an excuse for our silence. Let this suffice as our apology.

We hope to give offence neither to Christian, Jew, or Greek, and we suggest with much respect for all concerned, that we would heartily rejoice if our writers and preachers would much more earnestly and persistently encourage the Lord’s people, in patient and humble prayer to the Father of Mercies for all the blessings promised to his servants or others.

Our chief object at present, however, is to examine what we consider unsound teaching in regard to prayer, but should we be spared, we may attempt something on the positive side of the question at another time. In order that we may be prepared to examine the matters which we regard of doubtful tendency, we consider it due to our friends who have written, as well as to the brethren, to give their sentiments in their own words.

Prof. Milligan says: (M. H. for July 1858, pp. 368-372)

“Want of faith, then, is a divine restriction upon the right of petition. And may we not add that if conviction with that penitential change of heart, which a living faith always produces, is the only restriction, can any one believe with all his heart and not pray? Is not prayer a natural and necessary consequence of faith? Is it not as natural for the believer to adore and bless his Creator, Preserver and Redeemer, as it is to love him or serve him in any other way? Is not prayer next to repentance, one of the first fruits of that all-pervading, soul-transforming, and regenerating principle, by which God purifies the heart—makes it a fit temple for his spirit, and gives new life and energy to the soul? And was it not in consequence of this faith that the poor Publican, feeling his own utter worthlessness, and trusting in God as his…”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

only hope, would not so much as lift up his eyes to Heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner?” Was it not also owing to the power of faith in the soul, that the dying thief was heard to exclaim in his last agony, as he hung by the side of our blessed Redeemer, “Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom?” And was it not because his prayer was sanctified by faith and repentance, that Jesus so promptly replied, “To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise!” What else than the all-subduing, converting and sanctifying power of faith, could, in so short a time, have transformed a thief—a blasphemer and scoffer into an humble, confiding and acceptable worshipper of the suffering Saviour?

This prayer the dying Jesus hears, And instantly replies: “To the contrite, trembling soul shall be With me in Paradise!”

The case of Cornelius is also in point.

The facts before us are, we think, sufficient to warrant the conclusion, that want of faith with the change of heart, which it immediately produces, is the only barrier between any sinner and the mercy seat.

If the only obstacle be between any man and the mercy seat, is in the man himself, in the lusts and passions of his own evil heart, if faith is the principle by which all these are to be removed; and if it inclines a man to pray just as naturally, and as necessarily as it inclines him to love or to repent, then why may he not at once, under the very impulse of that faith, which lays hold of the promises of God, pour out his prayers and his supplications to the Father of mercies—the God of all comfort? If this was the privilege of the Ninevites, of the Publican, of the thief on the cross, and of Cornelius, the Centurion, why is it not still the right and privilege of every one who believes with all his heart, whatever God has revealed to him concerning life, death, and immortality?

But for those who desire it, we have other evidence than that of faith. We have the case of Saul of Tarsus; and we have the testimony of the Holy Spirit, not only that he prayed before he was baptized, but also that this fact was mentioned by the Lord himself as proof of his sincere repentance.

If any farther evidence should be required in the case of Saul, it may…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

be found in the testimony of Luke as it is recorded in Acts xxii. 16:
“Why tarriest thou; arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

The intelligent reader will observe that the participle calling is not in the future tense; it is in the first aorist, and evidently implies that it was both the privilege and duty of Saul to pray to the Lord while rising from his kneeling, or reclining posture—while preparing for baptism—while going to the water—and while buried in the water.

It is now, we think, our time to construct an argument on the uniformity and immutability of the laws of Christ’s kingdom. This being concluded, it follows that whatever under the reign of Heaven was right in the case of any one believer, before his baptism, is still equally so in every similar case. It was right for Saul of Tarsus to pray after he believed and before he was baptized. And consequently, it is right for every truly penitent believer to pray to the Lord at all times, whether before or after his baptism, unto the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This argument is, we think, absolutely conclusive; and we therefore ardently hope that we shall hereafter hear no more of that cold, lifeless, anti-Christian theory that would not at the moment when faith first overcomes the enormity of heart, so much as allow the believer to raise his voice to the heavens, and say with the poor Publican, “God be merciful to me a sinner,” that would require him to walk from the church to the water, like a culprit to his prison, without one pious emotion of prayer, praise or thanksgiving, to the Lord of life and glory, and that would even in the water, stifle the spirit of prayer, and not allow one petition escape from the lips of the believing penitent, until he rises from the liquid grave, proved by the efficacy and application of that blood which cleanses from all sin.

Our purpose in making so long extracts from Prof. Milligan, is first to find, if possible, his true position; and secondly, to remove all grounds for the charge of garbling. Our desire is to learn the cause of Prof. M.’s objection to something amongst us, which he is pleased to call “that cold, lifeless, anti-Christian theory.” If Prof. M. is in error at all, his whole theory is false, and his whole effort injurious. But many of the brethren, as intimated, seem to have admitted his discoveries and gladly repeat his teaching. We regard it as not disrespectful to notice what some of them say.

Bro. Dr. J. T. Walsh, of Kinston, N. C., in a recent publication of his called the “Christian Baptist,” pp. 21, in answer to the Herald at…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Richmond, admits all for which Prof. M. contends. He says:

“We see something appropriate and beautiful in prayer before going down into the water. We can see something appropriate and beautiful in the prayers of the Publican, the prayers of Cornelius, and the prayers of Saul of Tarsus. Neither do we believe, teach, or preach that no prayers are enjoined on the unbaptized. A prayerless, believing penitent would, in our esteem, be a strange being. We would not knowingly baptize such an one.”

In the same number, pp. 161, speaking of Prof. Milligan’s essays on Prayer, in the Harbinger, he says:

“They are good.” “I wish he would print them in pamphlet form.”

This is merely a reiteration of Prof. Milligan’s new discoveries. Still Bro. M. and Bro. W., no doubt, are candid, and we will treat them as perfectly honest teachers of their notions.

Even our aged and very highly respected Brother, John Rogers, of Kentucky, has declared the essays quite superior. Editors and brethren, indeed, have generally spoken in most favorable terms of Prof. Milligan’s views of prayer. We are truly sorry to differ from good men, but we conscientiously believe the doctrine subversive of the truth and we are disposed in all kindness, to give our reasons for our conclusions.

Leaving out of view all doubtful matters, we submit the question as to what the chief points are in this new doctrine offered in opposition to the teaching of the brethren? By some strange association, the enquiry forcibly reminds us of the very singular remark of Socrates touching the philosophy of Heraclitus. Said he,

“What I understand is excellent, and what I do not understand is no doubt equally good, but the book requires an expert swimmer.”

In our application, we reverse the order. The essays may require “an expert swimmer,” but we think it not difficult to see to the bottom of this new fountain of spiritual light, and very nearly if not quite all he has written, touching the prayers of men of the world, we consider unsound.

We suppose that Prof. M., and others who have repeated or endorsed his teaching, will not be displeased at the following statement of the doctrine, viz:

“Faith is the only restriction to prayer.”

“That want of faith, with that change of heart which it immediately produces is the only barrier between any sinner and the mercy seat.”

Again he speaks of the “All-subduing, converting, sanctifying power.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

of faith, which transformed the thief on the cross into an humble confiding and acceptable worshipper.

His proofs are:

  1. The prayers of the Ninevites.
  2. The Publican prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”
  3. The thief on the cross prayed.
  4. Cornelius prayed.
  5. Saul of Tarsus prayed.

In our examination of the new doctrine, or rather, the old doctrine in a new quarter, the chief point has reference to a simple matter of fact. Has the Lord set forth in the sacred volume a principle—Prof. M. calls it “the principle of faith”—which singly and alone renovates the heart, brings the sinner directly to Christ—”the mercy seat”—puts him into a condition that gives him a right to petition the Father for the blessings of his kingdom? If this is the effect of faith, then the doctrine of justification and pardon of sins by faith alone, which we have so long combatted, is true. That it is believed by Prof. M., Prof. Richardson, and others, is most evident. Prof. M. clearly sets it forth in his essays.

Prof. Richardson charged upon us the sin of refusing to “pray for the conversion of sinners,” and perhaps our readers remember that at least one—Mr. Russell, and we know not how many more of like persuasion amongst the disciples—engaged long ago with our Methodist and Presbyterian friends at the anxious seat, in praying the Lord to convert and forgive worldly mourners all their sins. If Prof. M., friend Wahh, and others amongst us have not yet advanced so far, their present position will force them to do so, or they must abandon it. We wish to say to our friends, that we deny even the existence of such a faith as they are wont to inculcate.

While we rejoice that faith as the first and moving principle is all powerful when enlivened by obedience; faith alone is dead: faith without works is like the body without the spirit—it exists not. Faith in every instance prompts the willing obedience—to the confession unto salvation, or it dies.

Consequently, faith alone never authorized a single petition for the blessings of the kingdom. Hence there is much more involved in Prof. M’s teaching than prayer. With modern sectarians generally, he maintains there is some independent power which he calls faith, that to the exclusion of the confession unto salvation, “changes,” “transforms,” and “renews the heart,” and enables penitent thieves and others to rejoice in the salvation of God out of His kingdom, and to fly up to heaven in spite of the church.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“To-day thy parting soul shall be With me in Paradise.”

On the subject of aliens praying we have but few remarks to make. Christ says, “come, take my yoke,” but men say nay, “Lord, come to us.” Whom shall we believe? The great commission we consider a safe rule of action.

We ask, for what is the sinner to pray? Is the doctrine that God is a usurer, at a great distance, asleep, or gone on a journey, and must be aroused, or waked to compassion by prayers and cries, true? He is always near; says, “come, sinner, yield to me and have life.” Sinners should be taught that God has loved the world in the gift of his son, and is waiting to blot out transgressions, if they will but yield to his law. It is, however, useless to say to the world, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved,” if teachers are to be regarded who say, in effect, “this is false,” – believe and be saved, believe and pray to God, and approach the mercy seat upon your belief alone.

We say, in the fear of our Maker, that we believe the doctrine of Professor Milligan makes null and void the obedience of the gospel, annihilates the church of Christ, and does in fact, mock at all the brethren who have taught, suffered and accomplished in the last half century. We repeat that we deny, indeed, the existence of any “living faith” – in the words of Prof. M. – that is not made so by obedience. It is all folly and vexation of spirit; and such dreams regarding a merely mental act, called faith, that does not prompt to submission, never was the least service to a mortal on earth. We are sick of the empty speculation, and we pray our brethren to stop. Think, brethren, before you abandon the gospel of our salvation.

We see no grounds for mincing or evading the matter. It is an open attack upon the teaching of every brother on earth, whose opinions are worth a straw, and in the fear of Heaven, we lift our voice against it. We would rejoice to be at peace with men professing to be governed by the New Testament, but in our heart, we can feel no fellowship for the dogma in partisans, and we dislike it much more in our own ranks. If our brethren tamely submit to such views, the future has but little to hope from us.

But we must for the present be brief in our remarks. We will see, in the next place, if Professor Milligan’s examples sustain his doctrine. We feel ashamed and degraded in approaching the subject! It carries us back to our boyish days, when, some thirty…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

17

Years ago, we were engaged in answering these dreams as then preached by sixth-rate circuit riders. We wish to feel that we have put away childish labor—that we are somewhat advancing. But alas! if our new theologies are correct, the mighty work carried forward till many of the old soldiers are entering into the “sear and yellow leaf” of life, proves an abortion, and we are just now where we started. Shame upon such doctrine mongers!

But to the examples. Do they sustain the teaching?

  1. The Ninevites prayed. It is written, “He caused it to be proclaimed by the decree of the King, let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God; yea, let them turn, every one, from his evil way. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and God repented of the evil that he said he would do unto them. And he did it not,” (Jonah iii. 9-10.) But Professor Milligan infers, from this example, that men with faith, and without obedience, are to pray acceptably to Heaven. This is the point, or there is none. We can see no evidence from this example, that men of the world, without submission to Christ, have a right to pray.
  2. The Publican prayed. The following is the history: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a Publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee that I am not as other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican; I fast twice a week—I give tithes of all I possess. And the Publican standing afar off; would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner.'” It will be observed that these were both Jews, and had a right to go into the temple to pray. One was a proud man—the other was humble and degraded by his profession, and yet God approved of his humility rather than the vain boasting of the Pharisee. But what connection this can have with an alien praying to God in the name of one he has never honored, we cannot imagine. Had Prof. M. said, humble Jews prayed acceptably, and therefore humble Christians are encouraged to pray to God in the name of Christ, there would have been some fitness in his teaching.
  3. The thief on the Cross prayed. Prof. M. says: “Was it not owing to faith in the soul, that the dying thief was heard to exclaim, in his last agony, ‘Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom?'” Was it not because his prayer was sanctified by faith and repentance, that Jesus so promptly replied: “To-day shalt thou be…”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“with me in Paradise.” What else than the all-subduing, converting, and sanctifying power of faith, could in so short a time, have transformed a thief, a blasphemer, and a scoffer into the humble, confiding, and acceptable worshipper of the suffering Saviour?”

This is the old sectarian dogma that we have so long combatted, but to hear it from one who is put forth as a leader amongst us is humiliation beyond expression. We will reply as patiently as possible, though we confess we do feel that forbearance in this instance is scarcely a virtue.

  1. Admitting that the thief was pardoned and saved by prayer, it was before the establishment of the church, and before the commission, “Go preach the gospel—he that believes and is baptized shall be saved,” was given, and therefore, it can have no application to prayers from such as have not taken the yoke of Christ in this age.
  2. But we gravely ask, what is the evidence of the thief’s faith? Did he believe anything in relation to a spiritual kingdom salvation in the future, or a single proposition regarding immortality? The Apostles themselves had no such belief. These things were not revealed. The thief had heard the Saviour say he could call legions of angels to his aid, and no doubt thinking, if in his power, he would do so, and attempt the establishment of a temporal kingdom, he said, “Sir, when you enter into your kingdom remember me,” or take me from the cross.

The Savior said, “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” What does he mean by being with him in Paradise? Samuel said to the wicked Saul, “To-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me.” (I. Sam. xxviii. 19.) Where? In the state of the dead. In our version, this Paradise is hell. See Acts ii. 31 “His soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

The plain answer to the thief’s request was, I cannot take you down; to-day you shall be with me in the state of the dead, in Hades.

We see nothing like faith, penitence, or “acceptable worship in the thief.” Matthew says, “The thieves (both of them) cast the same in his teeth,” Mat. xxvii. 44. Mark says, “They that were crucified with him reviled him,” Mark xv. 32. Luke says, “One railed on him, saying, save thyself and us”—take us down—he knew nothing about heaven, but the other said, “Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”

We say again, that we see no evidence of faith or repentance in the thief.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

19

Thief, and not the least proof of his salvation by faith alone or otherwise. Hence the doctrine of our hymn book:

“The dying thief rejoice to see
That fountain in his days,”

has not the shadow of authority in the word of God. Moreover, we are satisfied that it is mainly by reverting the case of the thief, a system has gained footing in this country which subverts the whole gospel, and its friends direct sinners, as they suppose, in imitation of the thief, to pray to God for pardon, and they promise them revelations as evidence of acceptance with the Lord at the mourners bench, in the altar, or in a grove. Is Prof. Milligan doing less? And are the brethren blameless who are aiding and abetting in this outrage against the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ?

  1. Cornelius prayed. Yes; although the blood of his veins forbade him to become a Jew, he had access to God’s law—was devoted, and his alms and prayers went up for a memorial before God of what he was, but still Peter was sent “to tell him words by which he and all his house could be saved”—to tell him “what he must do.” We respectfully ask what resemblance can Prof. M. find in Cornelius’ conduct, and a supposed believer’s right, without submission, to approach the “mercy seat,” in direct violation of the authority of the Almighty? To us, it really seems to be an insult for a man who professes to believe the Bible, and calls himself a member of Christ’s kingdom, to write as Prof. M. does. We most devoutly repudiate the speculations. They have led innocent men astray, and will likely do much more mischief.
  2. Saul prayed. Prof. Milligan represents Saul as praying “while rising from his kneeling position,” “after he believed, and before he was baptized.” In all that Prof. M. said, he has not told the brethren a word in regard to the character of Saul’s prayer—what advantage it was to him—or who answered his petitions. We very respectfully suggest that Saul offered two prayers: “Who art thou, Lord?” was the first. This the Saviour answered, and the second was “What wilt thou have me to do?” This the Lord could not answer. The authority to tell sinners what to do to be saved had been committed to his disciples. Hence, when the Saviour said to Ananias, “Go into Straight Street and enquire for Saul, for behold he prayeth,” the only idea before him was “Saul has asked instruction of me; and you must go and answer his prayer.” Ananias said, “Why tarriest thou; arise…”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Now the question is, what was meant by calling on the name of the Lord? Was it “God be merciful?” Saul was fully conscious of the Lord’s mercy. Was it, Lord, pardon me? If such is the teaching of the spirit, divers ways are authorized. Prof. M. is cautious to say that the participle in Greek is not in the future tense but the first aorist, but why not tell us that the first aorist is the indefinite past, and if we translate the word with the aorist idea, it must necessarily read “Be baptized and wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord.” We know some good scholars who render the word in conformity with the idea, “Saul, you have prayed for information as to what you are to do, therefore, be baptized and wash away your sins.”

There is another view of the subject which might be noted. Baptized, wash, and calling are all in the middle voice, of course have a reflective meaning; and according to a note given by Bro. Campbell, the passage should read, “Have thyself baptized,” and thy sins washed away, and the name of the Lord called upon thee. Pres. Campbell adds “Calling on the name of the Lord,” supplies essentially, “In the name of Jesus Christ,” Acts ii. 38. Pres. C.’s view is that Saul was commanded to have himself immersed and his sins washed away in the name of the Lord.

We see no insurmountable objection to this reading. But all verbal criticism aside, to what did Saul’s prayer amount? He desired to know how to escape the punishment of his governor, and it is by no means certain he asked for salvation from sin, and if there is the least fitness in his case to persons who might now desire to become Christians, it can only afford evidence that they should know the truth before they can possibly perform acceptable service to the Lord.

We have thus disposed of all the examples of our friends in their new discoveries, and we regard it quite respectful to say, that there is not the shadow of ground for the application that has been made of them. There is not the slightest evidence in the Scriptures to conclude that sinners can have a “living faith” which is not made so by “works;” there is no evidence in the case of the thief, or others, that by faith alone the soul is brought to the “mercy seat,” or that a sinner can become “an acceptable worshipper”—pardoned and saved by merely believing. These honors can be attained alone by a hearty belief through the words of the Apostles, sincere repentance before God and

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 21

Men—confession of the Saviour, and immersion into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While we do not desire to see the penitent believer “walk from the church (meeting house, we would respectfully suggest) to the water, like a culprit to his prison,” we wish to see sinners pierced to the soul, and yield their subdued hearts and bodies to Christ in full confidence that the Lord will remember their sins and iniquities against them no more.

We always encourage them to receive the truth “gladly,” and while we see much propriety in believing penitents feeling deeply, and thanking and praising the Lord with all their heart for his rich mercies in offering them salvation, we could but regard it as the result of ignorance, unbelief, and open rebellion, to hear such pray to the Saviour to forgive their sins, convert their souls, or give them the good spirit, whom the world cannot receive before their translation into the kingdom of God’s dear son.

Is it right for aliens, when the Lord says, “Come unto me all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest; take my yoke upon you and learn of me, and you shall find rest to your souls,” to say “we believe, and therefore we pray for salvation, and expect to be acceptable worshippers,” regardless of the “yoke” of Christ? Such teaching we consider in direct opposition to all that is true and sacred.

May we add that Prof. M’s views, in common with most partisan teaching, seem directed more to what the Lord will do for us, than our obligations to our Creator. He is always ready to fulfill his promises, and waits to hear the humble prayers of his servants who honor Him.

Would it not be better, beloved brethren and friends, for us to employ our powers in teaching and encouraging the saints to lead devoted and pious lives, and in forewarning our perishing fellow creatures of earth of their imminent danger in refusing submission to the Lord’s authority, than in troubling the church with shallow metaphysical speculations touching matters unrevealed, and wild conjectures as to the probability or possibility of men being saved out of Christ?

We can have union on the plain words of the spirit, but not elsewhere. We pray for fellowship with all who believe through the Apostles’ words, and delight in the service of the church. All others we regard as beyond the precincts of spiritual enjoyment, and we feel not disposed to fellowship religious aliens or men who contend for a “mercy seat” and “acceptable worship” out of the church of God.

T. F.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

DR. JOHN THOMAS’ SECOND VISIT TO TENNESSEE

In our January number for 1858, we gave a brief notice of “Dr. John Thomas and his cause,” since which, the Doctor has submitted to his readers, no doubt what he regards, two respectful notices of us, to which we consider it not improper to pay some attention.

As he considers us “not altogether so dark as multitudes,” and thinks our remarks are “slightly suggestive,” we regard it at least becoming to offer a few more thoughts which we trust may prove still more suggestive.

In the first place, Dr. Thomas complains that we did not publish a letter of seven pages of brevier against our teaching, found in his Herald fourteen years ago. We think it was prudent in us not to trouble our readers with a document which was written, as he reports, “before he had discovered the gospel of the kingdom and the glory of God.”

Again he says: “He disliked the name of Campbellite as much as he does, but when our eyes came to be opened by the prophets and apostles, came to perceive it was the appropriate name.” And “in the days of our ignorance of the prophets, we used to preach it (Campbellism) with great acceptance.”

We will, no doubt, be pardoned for “suggesting” that it would have been exceedingly idle in us to publish a review of sentiments which the author admits were written “before he had discovered the gospel.” The bare thought that honest and thoughtful men and women cannot discover the gospel by looking into Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is an insult to the intelligence of the age.

Can we regard it as less than wicked for Dr. Thomas to intimate that his “eyes were opened by the prophets and apostles, to perceive it appropriate” to call us Campbellites? This is requiring the prophets and apostles to open his eyes—to speak words offensive to God against the disciples of the Lord.

But before we forget it, we must say that Dr. T. came through East Tennessee, went to Memphis, and into Mississippi, and returned to Mott Haven, N. York, having traveled three thousand miles, preached twenty-three times and uttered more ill-tempered things than will likely be blotted from the book of God’s remembrance during his natural life.

One of his most remarkable sayings is that “M. W. Neber and brother Anthony (as he calls him) are the first fruits of Tenn. in the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Gospel

Alas for the balance of Tennesseeans, if these fortunate men are all that have “discovered the gospel” in this goodly land. We find it difficult to treat the Doctor’s vain boasting seriously. Towards him personally, we have never cultivated unkind feelings. He has seemed to respect the word of God, but when such men as he, Dr. Richardson, Mr. Russell, etc., turn mystics, and tell us the “common mind” cannot appreciate their profound doctrines, or that the light of heaven has not reached the hearts of others, besides, friends Weber and Anthony in Tennessee, forbearance is no longer a virtue.

Such writers openly insult Jehovah and his people, and we cannot regard them as friends of righteousness and peace. It is certainly a low ambition for Dr. Thomas to waste the remainder of a poorly spent life in attempts to make himself the leader of a few wayward disciples, that he may, perhaps, live to see another miserable faction in the country.

But we say in kindness, he possesses neither the breadth, depth, or force of mind to accomplish much, even if all were right with him morally. His bad temper places him beyond the pale of the kingdom. It seems, indeed, a controlling feeling of his soul, to utter bitter things against Alexander Campbell, and the disciples of the Lord generally. Dr. Thomas should remember that he owes who he is, mainly to Alexander Campbell and the brethren he so willingly abuses. They taught him all he knows that is useful; have sheltered and fed him, and no other people, even now, show him the least countenance. But for the disciples of Christ, indeed he might have been driven about the country as a crazy man, and yet he insults us, questions our motives, and in every way treats us rudely. The Doctor has but little time to close up his accounts, and we beg him to desist from his folly.

Before closing, we deem it respectful and proper also to suggest, that while the Doctor and his admirers have boasted for years of their advances, “discoveries,” and progress, we have not found one of them who can define the new acquisitions of knowledge, or even tell a straight story with regard to what he thinks it is. If there is any one of them competent to define their position as different from the disciples of Christ, our columns are open for respectful statements.

LETTER FROM DR. CHINN

Lincoln, KY., Oct. 28, 1858.

Bro. Fanning – Dear Sir: I have been a reader of your useful paper for several years, and have generally been pleased with its contents, but candor compels me to say that I regard your views, in the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Content Extracted

Present number, in relation to “Church officers” as the most objectionable and further from the teaching of the New Testament than anything I have ever read on the same subject; and if carried into practice there is no estimating the injury to the cause of truth. I also regard your views on Secret Societies as ill-judged, erroneous and calculated to disparage the religious standing of all the brethren that belong to any of the societies in question, and to produce strife and bad feeling among the brotherhood, and injury to the cause of Christ.

Viewing matters in this light, and having belonged to the Masonic Fraternity for near forty years and the Christian Church near thirty, I feel safe in putting my experience against your observations, and I assert, without the fear of successful contradiction, that your conclusions are without the least foundation in truth.

Now I admit that there are many unworthy members of churches belonging to those societies, but with a full knowledge of all the facts before me, I feel perfectly safe in asserting that the great mass of our brethren who belong to any such societies, to say the least, are as religious, benevolent, and active, in all their duties as members of the church, as any others.

I know the enemies of religion generally select the worst members of the church as a specimen of the rest, and the enemies of Secret Societies do the same thing, and hence come to the conclusions you have.

Now I wish it distinctly understood that I think none the less of you or any other brother for thinking as you please about such societies, but do protest against making your opinions, which are founded in ignorance, the rule of action for others.

Some fifteen or eighteen years ago, Bro. Campbell agitated in the Harbinger, as you are now doing, the propriety of members of churches becoming members of secret societies, the only tendency of which was to build up those institutions and injure the cause of primitive Christianity as preached by us, by throwing all their influence against the Christian Church.

Now, if I know myself, I prize the Christian religion above everything else in the world, and for this reason I have remained a member of the Masonic fraternity to prove to them that, as a body, we are not opposed to them.

Paul understood this matter when he asserted he was all things to all men that he might gain some, the same principle induced, on account of the Jews, to circumcise Timothy. The preachers of other religious denominations have learnt wisdom from the example of Paul, and almost universally (particularly the Methodists) belong to the Masons, Odd Fellows, and Sons of Temperance.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

25

perance, and thus exert a tremendous influence in favor of their respective churches; and as an offset to what you have said about preachers that belong to secret societies, notwithstanding I differ almost in toto from the Methodists in their religious views, I am bound to admit their preachers, as a body, are more zealous and indefatigable in building up their cause, and labor more for less pay than any others known to me. If there was anything in Masonry contrary to religion or the principles of Christian union, as advocated by you, I would at once withdraw, and throw what little influence I have against that order, but knowing the reverse to be true, I do not intend to be driven from what my judgment and conscience approves, to gratify the whim or caprice of any. If time and space permitted, I could relate many facts that would put to shame all the churches in the land, and with your permission I will relate one circumstance that took place about ten years ago while I was living in Lexington, Mo. A talented but poor lawyer, belonging to the Presbyterian Church, (as did his wife,) in the prime of life, was suddenly cut off with that dread disease—the cholera—leaving a wife with six or eight children, without a house to shelter them. The lodge to which he belonged, without a dissenting voice, at once bought a house and lot which she now occupies, and being a lady of intelligence, got up a school, and has raised and educated all of her children—the oldest son having read and recently commenced the practice of law under flattering circumstances. If the Presbyterian church did anything for this sister I know it not. Think you any society, secret or open, thus acting out the principles of benevolence, and having stood the test of opposition for ages, can be written down? I tell you nay! You had therefore as well cease your opposition, and strive to make the Christian Church excel, as I admit she ought, those worldly institutions, and they will then cease to exist as something that is useless.

With the best feeling for you personally, and the hope that you will direct your talents in the right way, I subscribe myself,

Fraternally yours,
J.G. CHINN.

“OPEN COMMUNION”

BRO. FANNING: In my former communication I showed that the Lord’s supper is “open” to all who will come to it as the Scripture directs, and “closed” against all others; and also, that if our principles…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

are right our practices should conform to them. I am aware that this is conceded by nearly all, but at the same time many of these invite persons who have never submitted to the gospel as proclaimed by us to the communion table; and as a reason for doing so they plead policy—that we are a union people, and should therefore make some concessions in order to affect a union among Christians. This seems to me to be the most shallow of all excuses for doing that which is not authorized by the word of God. And our inconsistency in this matter is seen and read of all men who have intelligence enough to understand the teaching of the Christian Church.

Suppose a Christian preacher rises before an audience on Lord’s day morning and delivers an address upon the great theme—the remission of sins. He preaches the gospel in its facts, in its commands, in its promises—that the facts must be believed, the commands must be obeyed in order that the promises may be enjoyed—the commands are to believe, to repent, and to be baptized—that when these commands are obeyed, the promises, which are the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit and hope of eternal life, are received and enjoyed. When he has thus preached the gospel to his audience, how inconsistent for him to walk down to the table and invite persons whom he knows to have never submitted to the commands—as he has just preached them—to commune with him. Is he not in effect saying, that after all, it matters not what people believe, or what they obey, if they are sincere, all is well? And does he not destroy that which he has just been building? It seems to me there is no escape from this conclusion. I know it is said by some that baptism has no relation to the communion. However this may be, it is very evident that all the sects, and Christian church also, require all persons to be baptized (in the same form) before they admit themselves to the table of the Lord.

And if those who have been sprinkled are the truly baptized, then all that are immersed are not. No two acts could differ more than sprinkling and immersion. And if both are scriptural baptisms, then was Paul mistaken when he said, “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” and we declare as much whenever we invite sprinkled persons (for baptized persons) to the communion of the Lord. And not only so, but we acknowledge (by our actions) that sprinkling and pouring is baptism. Hence, it seems to me, we encourage disobedience, instead of obedience to the commands of Jesus Christ.

It is said by some that most all pedo-baptists who commune with us…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

In the end unite with us—that our charity towards them is inviting them to commune with us, eventually causes them to come to us. Suppose that many do thus come to the obedience of Jesus Christ—which I do not admit—is this any reason why we should act inconsistently—should violate the plain teaching of the Holy Scriptures? Would we not be more likely to win such to the obedience of faith sooner by adhering closely to the word of God, than by acting contrary to it? At any rate, is it not the safer plan to obey God, rather than court the favor of man? Our eternal safety is suspended upon our observing the conditions by obedience to which it is offered to us.

A. W. O.

4 MrLE BRANCH, BARNW’IDLL DISTRICT, S. C., Nov. 15, ’58
Remarks.—We have no right to invite persons to the Lord’s table. Those who upon a confession of their faith were immersed into Christ were exhorted to “examine themselves and so partake.”
T. F.

JUVENILE LIBRARY

Challen’s New Juvenile Library, for the Sunday School and Family. Thirty volumes of this popular series are now ready. As Messrs. Challen & Son propose to publish the twenty additional volumes, to constitute the fifty volume library, as soon as five hundred copies of this series are ordered, we earnestly request all our readers to use their influence to secure the 30 volumes now published, either for their own library or that of the Sunday School.

Nothing is so much needed at the present time as good, instructive, and interesting books for the young. It is the aim of the present series to supply, as far as possible, that want. The 30 vols. will be sent by express for $6.00.
Address:
TOLBERT FANNING,
Franklin College, Tenn.
or
JAS. CHALLEN & SON,
Philadelphia.

Bro. James Challen & Son, of Philadelphia, have favored us with an Almanac for 1859, that is the prettiest thing of the kind we have seen. The pictures are worth ten times the cost; send 6 cents worth of stamps to the publisher.
T. F.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

ENQUIRIES REGARDING OFFICERS

From the Disciples in Texas: (Sunday Queries.)

Without any disposition to be critical, technical, or dogmatical, it is earnestly requested that some additional explanation be given through the columns of the “Advocate” relative to some things heretofore presented by its Editors. Please answer the following, as plainly as you can, for the satisfaction of many friends:

  1. If the word elder simply means older, how come the term to be applied to the Jewish rulers, or the overseers of Christian congregations? Was age any part of the qualification of the Jewish elders, or what was it that gave them qualification and authority to rule?
  2. In the New Testament we are to understand elder and bishop means the same thing, particularly in Titus i. 5-7?
  3. What is the difference between “the elders office” and the office of bishop?
  4. What is the difference between consecrate, ordain, and set apart, and installed? What is the precise meaning of this phrase: “consecrated as to time and place?” Should the brethren understand Peter in his exhortation to simply mean the aged or experienced brethren, or overseer who had been set apart by the laying on of hands?
  5. Are a wife and children an indispensable qualification of an overseer? Can a man at the age of thirty years, who has been raised by Christian parents, and has arrived to the stature of a full grown man in Christ, being the husband of one wife with two or three children, be a competent overseer; provided he possesses the qualifications: apt to teach—not given to much wine—no striker of good report by them that are without, etc.? Can a man at the age of forty, possessing all other qualifications—having never been married—act as overseer?
  6. Can men get so old as for their age to disqualify them for being bishops or overseers? What seems to be the most fitting age for overseers?

When congregations are organized, or collected together by the Evangelist, is it their duty, particularly, to take the watch and care of them until men can be raised up possessing qualifications for overseers? What is the chief work of an overseer? What kind of authority has an evangelist over an overseer? Has an overseer any more authority to conduct the worship in the congregation than any other member?

These queries are presented in rather a promiscuous form, but we…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

hope the importance of the subject, and the anxiety of the brethren will be a sufficient apology for our intrusion. Brethren consider this subject with respect to our edification, and may God, our Heavenly Father, prosper and guide you in your work of love.

A. B. & C.

REPLY

Answers to Queries

  1. Men are called elders because of age. A young man was never called an elder. Jewish and Christian rulers were denominated elders, because none but seniors or elders were competent to rule over the people. The best critics agree that experience is intended by the word elder. Hence it is not indispensable that a man should be very old in order to be regarded as worthy of seniority in the church. “The first fruits,” as in the instance of Stephanas, other things being equal, were the first to attain eminence in the congregation. The God of Nature and the God of the Bible has made age honorable. Hence rulers in church or State are, or should always be elders.
  2. The word elder and bishop are both applied to the same persons in Titus; but this no more proves that they have the same meaning than lawyer and judge mean the same thing when applied to the same person.
  3. There is no Elder’s office. Men who speak thus have not studied the Scriptures carefully.
  4. Consecrate, ordain, and set apart mean about the same thing.
  5. Men give evidence of ability to rule the congregation by ruling their own family correctly; but as an evangelist is not a pastor or overseer, he may be an unmarried man, as were Paul, Timothy, Titus, etc.
  6. Many become so infirm in body and mind, on account of age, that they should neither attempt to rule or talk about religion. All other points will be answered in our articles.

T. F.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

We rejoice to know that the prospects of the Gospel Advocate were never so promising; but if each subscriber will secure one more reader, the work will be placed upon a very independent basis, and much good may be the result. We will send the January number to most of our old subscribers, but unless the subscriptions should be renewed, the paper will be stopped. The brethren and friends will be so good as to think of our terms.

T. F.

AN ANNOUNCING.

W. LIPSCOMB

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

CO-OPERATION OF THE CONGREGATIONS OF SOUTHERN KENTUCKY

Bno. FANNING: The present state of things in the religious world, when viewed in relation to our obligations as members of the body of Christ, as citizens of our Lord’s kingdom on earth, should cause the anxious enquiry in the mind and heart of every one: Am I doing what I can to promote the honor and glory of God? Am I doing all in my power for the perfection of the disciples in all the Christian virtues, and for the conversion of the world? Who can contemplate the languishing condition of the cause of Christ in many parts of our highly favored land; the coldness and indifference of many of its professed friends; the careless unconcern of our unconverted friends and countrymen, and the sin and wickedness which unblushingly stalk abroad over the whole earth, and supinely sit down and fold his hands as though God required nothing of him?

Can we suppose that the righteous Judge will hold us guiltless, unless we are found earnestly, constantly and zealously engaged in the use of all the means which he ordained and placed in our reach for the accomplishment of the great mission of the church—the conversion of the world and the perfection of the saints; the building up and edifying of the body in love, by walking in all the ordinances and the commandments of the Lord blamelessly.

The present purpose is not specially to speak of the details of Christian duty, but to earnestly invite the attention, and exhort the brethren to a fuller appreciation of the responsibilities resting upon us as individuals and as congregations, as the church of Jesus Christ, to preach the Word—to sound forth by word and action that gospel which is the power of God for the salvation of the world. We want more piety, more devotion, more consecration to the work of the Lord. More benevolence, more self-sacrificing effort, more earnest labor in assisting the destitute and scattered brethren, and in preaching the gospel to the world. This is common ground—a work in which all can engage, with no diversity of opinion, all agree that it is the duty of each member and every congregation to engage in its accomplishment.

Since the days of the Apostles, the church has been, and is, God’s missionary to the world. It is the light of the world, and the salt of the earth. How superlatively above all the honors of the earth is the honor of being a member of the body of Christ. How fearfully im-

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Responsibilities and Duties

Important and solemn the responsibilities and duties that result from this sublime relation. May we ask of our brethren, how are we discharging these duties? Are we doing what we can? Our Saviour gave no higher commendation to any mortal on earth than to the woman of whom he said, “She hath done what she could.” Brethren and sisters, in Christ, can this be said of us? Let each answer to his or her own conscience and to God.

Meeting Overview

A meeting composed of brethren from a large number of congregations in Southern Kentucky, whose hearts and minds, we trust, were in a good degree filled with the importance of these great themes, was held in Hopkinsville on the fourth day of November last, in accordance with a call from many of the churches, to consult together upon the best means to co-operate as churches in sending the gospel to the world.

After spending several days together in most interesting and edifying Christian intercourse, in giving and receiving information of the condition and wants of the cause in the various localities represented by the brethren present; and full and affectionate interchange of opinions and suggestions as to the best method united by operating as one body—the Church—in the use of Heaven’s appointed means for the conversion and salvation of the world, with great unanimity adopted the following preamble and resolutions:

Preamble and Resolutions

WHEREAS, The interest of the Redeemer’s kingdom demands a cordial and earnest union of effort of all the congregations in a well-defined and permanent system of co-operation, in the use of all the means ordained of Heaven for the conversion of the world and the building up of the Church, therefore,

Resolved, That we, the messengers of sundry congregations and co-operation districts, in the Southern part of Kentucky, do hereby organize the churches and districts represented by us into a permanent co-operation, to be styled The South Kentucky Christian Co-operation.

Resolved, That this Co-operation shall be composed of such messengers as may be sent up to its meetings, regularly accredited by the several churches and districts in the counties embraced in the fourth Appellate District of the State.

Resolved, That the first object of this Co-operation shall be to arouse the churches and brotherhood to a fuller appreciation of their obligations as Christians—to excite among the congregations a more general missionary spirit, and induce the organization of all the congregations.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 32

In the counties embraced in the fourth Appellate District of Kentucky, into convenient local co-operation districts.

Resolved, That the officers of this Co-operation shall consist of a President, a Recording and Corresponding Secretary, and Treasurer, and an Executive Board of fifteen members, who shall be elected annually by the body.

Resolved, That it be recommended to the congregations (and the brethren here assembled will use their best efforts) to raise the sum of two thousand dollars, with which to secure the services of at least two aged and experienced Evangelists or teachers, who will devote their whole time, for the ensuing year, in visiting the churches inside said boundary—aid, advise and assist such as are not fully organized—to put on the whole armor, and form themselves into local co-operative districts, of convenient bounds, by which they may be enabled, unitedly, to supply the destitute of their immediate vicinity with the proclamation of the gospel.

Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to suggest boundaries for the local Districts, with the view of forming all the congregations in said Appellate District, into convenient local, or smaller districts, of convenient bounds, and that some general suggestions be made to the churches, forming such districts, to observe uniformity in their organizations—the better to unite all the brotherhood in the one great object of this Co-operation.

The Co-operation elected the following officers:

  • George Poindexter, President
  • Henry J. Slites, Vice President
  • Isaac R. Caldwell, Corresponding Secretary
  • John P. Ritter, Secretary
  • B. S. Campbell, Treasurer

The Executive Board consists of the following brethren:

  • O. F. Young, of Holman
  • Elder J. C. Waller, of Paducah
  • Elder O. Collins, of Madisonville
  • Elder W. T. McKay, of Owensboro
  • P. Clayton, of Hopkins Co.
  • W. B. Sims, of Todd Co.
  • A. S. Dabney, of Cadiz
  • Elder Enos Campbell
  • Elder Robert Dulin
  • B. S. Campbell
  • Geo. Poindexter
  • Dan’l J. Gish
  • John B. Knight
  • Isaac H. Caldwell
  • John S. Bryan, of Hopkinsville

Elder Robert Dulin, of Hopkinsville, was elected Chairman of the Executive Board.

The Co-operation adjourned to meet at Hopkinsville on Thursday before the first Lord’s Day in November 1856.

I have given you the resolutions forming our union of Churches for missionary work in our own vicinity; the mere details of the deliberation, all of which were interesting to the brethren, are not given. We hope that much good will be the result of the happy meetings of the brethren, held for mutual aid and communication, and we trust the interest already exhibited will increase more and more until all will be fully aroused, and actively engaged in our Master’s work. Yours, in the good hope.

P.

Remark: By the united efforts of the members of a single congregation, great good may be accomplished, but the union and cooperation of the churches of Christ, as churches, in sections favorable for united labor, can but exert a powerful influence. Our greatest want is union of effort.

T. F.

Leave a Comment