THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
T. Fanning and W. Lipscomb, Editors.
VOL. V.
NASHVILLE, MARCH, 1859.
NO. 3.
The following essay was written some years ago for the Tennessee Baptist, but as the editor, after publishing several pieces from our pen by agreement, refused to give this to his readers, we have concluded to print it as it was written.
T. F.
CHRISTIAN UNION.
Mr. Editor:—My text upon the subject of Christian union, you will find in John xvii. 20, 21.
“Neither pray I for these alone; but for them also which shall believe on me through their word: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
From this prayer we learn that it is not the Lord’s will that all professors of religion should be one, judging also, from the different effects of the various religions on the heart and life, it seems neither desirable nor possible for them to be united. When we call to mind the very politic unions of denominations to conduct “revival meetings,” and witness the pious trickery in the division of the converts, and the subsequent hatred of all the parties, we can but doubt the moral influence of such turns.
The Saviour prayed for the union of such “as should believe on him, through their—the apostles’—words;” and while this prayer shall stand on record, we shall be able to find no other foundation of union. I will briefly notice three points, viz:
1.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
- The Union of early Christians.
- The early and continued cause of Division.
- The Terms upon which Christians will be United.
The first gospel sermon of Peter induced some three thousand persons to cry, “What shall we do?” The answer was prompt: they gladly received the word and were united upon the foundation which God had laid in Zion.
“They continued steadfastly in the Apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Acts ii. 42).
A few days later, Peter delivered his second sermon from Solomon’s porch. “Howbeit, many of them who heard the word, believed; and the number of men was about five thousand.” (Acts iv. 4). At this juncture, there must have been at least ten thousand who had believed the Apostle’s words and given themselves to the Lord. “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul.” (Acts iv. 32).
The divine arrangements led the servants of Christ next, to Samaria. Philip preached, “And the people with one accord, gave heed unto those things which he spake. And there was great joy in that city.” But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts viii. 5, 8, 12).
Thus we find the preaching of the word filled the city with joy; and so soon as the men and women believed the word concerning the kingdom and name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized; and the Jews and Samaritans who previously had no dealings, became as one people in the Lord.
Next, “The Gentiles saw his righteousness and kings his glory”—the house of Cornelius was saved—no longer were foreigners to be called unclean, and the Lord placed a “new name” upon his servants. “The middle wall of partition contained ordinances was removed,” and Jews and Greeks were built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. In whom all the building, fitly framed, grew into a holy temple in the Lord. (Eph. ii).
The converts were all the children of God by faith, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. iii. 27, 28).
The divine formula upon which the first Christians were united is: “There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Contents
of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
Eph. 4:4. This spiritual creed was a sufficient basis for the union of early Christians. The items of this creed are few, and cannot be misunderstood. The question of the age is, whether this creed will answer.
Objection: “There is one body” or church. What church is this claiming supremacy? The Roman hierarchy was not then in existence; Presbyterianism was not born till fifteen centuries after, and there was no Campbellism or Baptist church. The church of God, the churches of Christ, and the disciples of Christ were these journals.
The church is not like any other. There is but one Lord to serve. Christianity, in fact, has the one faith, and it is a question, if you believe the Scriptures at all, do not believe the same things you claim.
There is no controversy in regard to the mission into Christ. However, we let the spiritualists have the identical immaterialism still. The same God was acknowledged by every saint. It may be prudent, also, to suggest that the remnants of God in the world are jealous for “the name of Christ”—Christians. In the designation of the New Testament, there is nothing offensive to God’s nature; but while religionists will presume to wear denominationalism, there is an evil in thinking of union.
How long did the disciples remain united?
With the exception of a few factions, Christians enjoyed great unity till the third century. But it was not until the year 325 that error gained the ascendancy and the apostolic unity was fully threatened.
At the Council of Nice, the first human creed was made by Constantine, it was regarded as dangerous and unmanageable for the people to express their belief in Scriptural language, and the most unrelenting anathemas were pronounced upon all who could not conscientiously subscribe to the creed.
All other creeds of Christendom have been taken from the Nicene, and the effect of such is the erection of a human standard in the place of the Bible.
Creeds have created all the schools, clearly illustrating the party practices of the world, and through their influence, Satan has his highest triumph.
Can Christians be united?
This, of all others, is the most important question of the age. It is now a matter of doubt. “A letter men can become Christians or honor God under the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Guidance of a creed. If the proposition that the Bible is a perfect creed is true, there is but little difficulty in ascertaining the proper basis of Christian union.
The apostle informs us that “All scripture given by the inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Again, we are authorized to believe that we have furnished in the scriptures “All things that pertain to life and godliness.” Both Catholics and Protestants assert that they adopt the Bible as an infallible rule of faith and practice, but they, at the same time, establish other rules which completely paralyze the Scriptures. The Catholics in no country are willing for their people either to read or believe the Scriptures. The rule by which they supplant the Scriptures consists in the authoritative interpretation of the church.
This interpretation of the Scriptures by the church, they ardently desire their people to read and believe. If this is reading and believing the Bible, then they do not. Protestants deny the authority of the church to interpret the Scriptures, but adopt the rule that every man has a right to interpret the Bible for himself, which is certainly quite as subversive of scriptural authority. The Bible alone, with the right of private judgment, is the creed of Protestantism. Shall I have the honor of denying the right of every man, woman, and child privately and publicly interpreting the Scriptures? This most specious device of Satan—the right of private interpretation—under the pompous profession of freedom to believe what we please, is the key to all Protestant heresy.
If the interpretations of the Bible are to constitute but one creed, in the name of God, let us have the interpretation of the church, instead of that of each wayward individual. In the multitude of counselors there is much more safety than in the endless whims of unstudious individuals. But to relieve the reader from doubtful suspense, I state fearlessly that God’s book contains all the interpretation of his mind necessary for faith and practice. His interpretations are already adapted to the exigencies of the human mind, and the idea of interpreting what Heaven has commanded us to believe, as it was written, is the extreme of folly.
On this point, Peter gives a rule that needs no interpretation. Said he, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20). The Apostles were commanded to “preach the gospel,” and the Saviour presumed that responsible men would be able to believe the gospel without an in…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Interpreter
Paul, in view of the death and the judgment, commanded his son to “Preach the word.” Jesus said, “He that believeth on me as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters.”
The point in all these passages is, that the words of the spirit are to us the signs of God’s mind—the very images of Heaven’s will that speak to the heart of man, and they need no expounder. The word of God, fully and fairly translated, is to be “rightly divided” and preached as the word of life, “which works effectually in all that believe.” But enough on this part of the subject. The reader may anticipate my final conclusion. Belief through the apostles’ works will completely unite all honest hearts. Those who thus believe cannot misunderstand each other.
Suppose all denominations were to assemble either as bodies or by representations, and to agree to be governed, in all things, by the Scriptures, would they have the desired effect? Let us endeavor to put this matter to the test.
I would respectfully call attention to the power of the book of the law among the Jews. When Israel was in great disorder, Hilkiah found the book of the law, and the good king Josiah gathered all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem, and went into the house of the Lord, and read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant; and the king stood in his place and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book; and he caused all to stand to it. And Josiah took away all the abominations out of the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers.
Reference
2 Kings 23:29-33
If such a wonderful revolution was accomplished by the Jews “standing to, and obeying the words of the Lord,” what might we not anticipate, if all who profess the Christian religion would but receive the words of the new covenant and “stand” to them? If the churches or representatives could be induced to adopt, in fact, the Scriptures as the only foundation, sectarian distinctions could not exist an hour. While men profess to be governed by the Bible, however, and practice liberty either in avowed creeds or locked in their own beliefs, we have but little to hope in regard to Christian union.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
These views are hastily thrown together; but I trust they are intelligible, and if they should be the means of aiding any of my erring fellow mortals in investigating the truth, I shall feel amply rewarded.
T. FANNING
Franklin College, October, 1852.
SECRET SOCIETIES – NOTICE OF DR. CHIN’S LETTER
Dear Brethren:
It has been a matter of great interest to me to notice the influence of prejudice upon the minds of men. Indeed, in general, is this influence that few, if any, I believe I will say none are entirely free from it. It is one of the most despotic rulers that ever swayed the scepter over the human mind. We often see persons completely under the control of this tyrant, who are not in the least conscious of their subjugation to it. We see its power exerted in all the vocations and relationships of life. It causes us to admire that which would otherwise have been disgusting, and to disapprove that which would have given us pleasure and delight under the dominion of other influences.
It is with great difficulty that the parent can see the defects of his own offspring, while he can readily point out the improprieties of his neighbor’s children; and he is much assisted in seeing these if he can only contract a personal dislike to the family. Lovers see every movement graceful in each other; but let a personal dislike be engendered and those hitherto graceful movements become sources of disgust, and serve only to deepen the impress of hatred in the heart, over which prejudice now exerts unmolested control.
If a school teacher is to be employed who belongs to our party, sect, or denomination, we see him every way competent; but if he is in anything opposed to our prejudices, he is entirely unworthy of our patronage. If a proselyte is about to be made from some of the denominations to the church of which we are members, he is an acquisition of great value, but if he is about to leave us and go somewhere else, he is of no account whatever.
If we hear a discourse from our favorite preacher in our own meeting house, it is every word gospel, and we are charmed with the richness of style and matter, and the eloquence of the speaker; perhaps we may occasionally involuntarily utter a hearty amen; but if it is from some other preacher, in a house where father or mother or perhaps our preacher has taught us to expect nothing but heresy, we…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
cannot appreciate any thing we may hear. If our preacher is pointing out the errors of our neighbors, we are delighted to hear it; but if he condemns a practice of which we are guilty, our indignation is at once aroused.
I do not remember to have anywhere seen a more striking illustration of the truth of these remarks than is contained in the letter of our Bro. J. G. Chinn, as published in the January number of the Gospel Advocate. Our brother is no doubt a good man, but he has an attachment for Free Masonry that will not allow him to hear, even from a Christian brother, the slightest expression of opposition to that organization. He had long read and admired the teaching of the Advocate, but when he saw an article in it on the subject of “Secret Societies,” in some respects opposed to his prepossessions, his prejudices are at once aroused, and its teaching “in the present number in relation to church officers,” he regards as the most objectionable and further the teaching of the New Testament than anything he had ever read on the same subject; and thinks if they were “carried into practice there is no estimating the injury to the cause of truth.” Still he calls it “your useful paper.”
And the article complained was but the further development of its teaching when he had “generally been pleased with its contents.”
But our brother says: “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.” If Bro. Chinn can place before his imaginations two brethren, one a Mason and the other, one who pleases to think it wrong for Christians to belong to the Masonic fraternity, and who are in all things else on perfect equality, and he can then say he does not think anything less of the latter, I will then say he is less under the influence of Masonic prejudice than from his letter I have taken him to be.
But he does “protest against making your opinions, which are founded in ignorance, the rule of action for others.” I have no doubt that Bro. Chinn feels like he would not offset his opinions as a rule of action for others, but in this he illustrates the truth of the remark, that persons are often much further under the control of prejudice than they imagine themselves to be.
He says: “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 broth-
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Did our brother not here give his opinion of your teaching, and if he expected it to have no influence on your “action,” why did he thus give it? But his concluding remarks are still more to the point.
“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 feelings for you personally, and the hope that you will direct your talents in the right way, I subscribe myself,” &c. If there is not opinion given as a rule of action for others or at least another, I am at a loss to know what would be. Was there any more impropriety in your expressing your views of the propriety of Christians joining secret societies than in his expressions with regard to the influence of your teaching? But you will disparage the religious standing of all the brethren that belong to any of the societies in question.
And what of that? Is that a reason in itself why the subject should not be examined? If a number of brethren had been engaged in anything wrong, I care not what, for illustration, say breaking open and robbing a house, would it not “disparage their religious standing” to investigate and publish the fact? But who will say it must not be done even though it should “produce strife and bad feeling among the exposed members.”
But if to prevent disturbance, strife, and bad feeling among the members be an object of any importance, why not make the blow at the root, and say that brethren ought not on this account join these societies at all? I am quite sure that there has been as much “strife and bad feeling” produced by brethren joining, as has ever been produced by your investigation of the subject. If all the brethren who are in would come out, and no others would join them, there would be none left to get offended at the investigation—there would be no need of such investigation—there would be none offended on account of others joining, all would be peace and harmony on that subject, the entire influence and means of all would be exerted in the church, the means of God’s appointment, and God’s name would be glorified by the good done in the place of the institutions of man.
But our brother says; “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 pleaded by us; by throwing all their influence against the Christian church.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 73
Tend to say that Bro. Campbell’s opposition to masonry was sufficient to carry all Bro. Chinn’s influence against the church of which he was himself a member? Such is surely the import of his language, but we hope he did not intend it. He tells us he has “belonged to the Masonic Fraternity for near forty years, and the Christian church near thirty.”
Then he was a member of both at the time when he says “All their influence” (that is the Masonic influence) was arrayed against the church. Therefore it follows that what influence he had was exerted against the church. And that too, simply because Bro. Campbell had agitated the propriety of members of churches becoming members of secret societies. And still he tells us he wishes it distinctly understood that he thinks none the less of you or any other brother for thinking as you please about such societies.
I suppose it matters not what you think about them, if you will not say anything. But suppose Bro. Campbell did wrong in the matter alluded to; does our venerable Bro. Chinn think it in keeping with the spirit and genius of the Christian religion to remain for forty years connected with a body of people, the entire influence may at any time be turned against the Christian church on account of a wrong in one of its members? He tells us if there was anything in masonry contrary to religion or principles of Christian union as played by us, I would at once withdraw and throw what influence I have against that order.
If a spirit that would exert the entire influence of the body it animated against the churches in opposition to the Christian religion on account of a wrong in one member of the church is not “contrary to religion” then I am prepared to say I have read the wrong book. He tells us he saw just this occurrence fifteen years ago, and he is a member yet, and says he does not intend to be driven from what his judgment and conscience approve to gratify the whim or caprice of any.
I wonder if his “judgment and conscience” approved this opposition to the Christian church. I note he has remained a member “to prove to them that as a body we were not opposed to them.” It will take something more than his connection with the “Masonic Fraternity” to convince me that the “body” is not opposed, at least, to the spirit of which he says they are possessed. But we must desist. Bro. Chinn is in favor of secrets, he will know how to excuse us for assigning our name.
FIDELIS.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
POWER OF GOD’S WORD
“In the word of a King there is Power.” – Solomon.
Such was the language of the wisest man the world has ever produced, speaking, too, under the inspiration of the spirit of God. Now if such is the fact, in reference to the word of an earthly king sitting upon a secular throne, what must it be to the word of Him whom God has made “King in Zion,” who is “King of kings and Lord of lords”? What an insult upon His Divine Majesty to say that His word is a “dead letter,” “no more than an old almanac,” and all that, when the word of a mere earthly monarch has such power! How derogatory to him—how wicked, yea, almost blasphemous, to thus speak of, and misrepresent it! To thus sink it below the word of man, when, too, the Apostle Paul says, in reference to the gospel or word of God, (in 1 Thess. ii. 13), “When ye received the word of God which ye heard from us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
What a difference, what a distinction does the apostle make between man’s word, clothed with all the power that earthly office and position can give it, with the sanctions too of life and death attached to it, and the word of the Almighty Creator and sustainer of the universe! And yet man—vain, presumptuous man—can raise his puny, insignificant hand to heaven, and declare, in the face of the Almighty God, in direct opposition and contradictory language to His word, that his word is “a dead letter,” and “has no more power than an old, out-of-date almanac,” until the spirit of God put energy and effectiveness into it, takes it, and in some abstract, metaphysical, mysterious manner, applies it to the heart and soul of the sinner—something nowhere promised or taught in the Bible! Well might the great poet of nature exclaim:
“Man, vain man,
Plays such insipid tricks before high heaven,
As make the angels weep.”
This abstract, supernatural, extraneous operation of the Holy Spirit, contended for by Arminians, or the advocates of “free grace,” has been termed the very essence of Calvinism, but perhaps it would more appropriately be termed the ire of it. Be this as it may, it is a most Bible-contradicting, God-dishonoring doctrine. He who honors God’s word by assigning it that office and agency, he himself has given it, in the conversion of the word, honors God; and he who detracts from that, dishonors Him.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
God has declared that his word is “quick and powerful,” or, “living and effectual,” as the original is correctly rendered; but man says it is not so, but a “dead letter” or “dead and ineffectual.” Shall we believe God or man here?
Again, the Lord says, concerning his word: “Is not my word as fire, and a hammer that breaketh the rock to pieces?” And yet we hear men praying to the Lord, to accompany his word with the quickening influences of his Holy Spirit, in order to render it effective in its operation upon the heart of the sinner in his conversion and regeneration.
How would it sound to hear a man praying to the Lord, to cause fire to burn and to heat anything? Yet it would be just as reasonable and consistent. What a forcible illustration is this! How often do we see in this rocky country, that when men wish to get a large rock out of the way, where it lies in the road, they build fires upon it until it is “broken to pieces” by them! And how often do we see it the case, that the fires in their fireplaces break their hearth stones and arches to pieces when made of rock!
We hear the Psalmist praying to the Lord: “Quicken thou me,” but how? “In thy way;” and “quicken me,” how? “In thy righteousness.” And again: “Thy word hath quickened me,” and, once more, “I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me.”
And if, as the apostle declares: “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,” where, or how, we ask, does he exert any other power? Any abstract power, separate and apart, and independent of his word? The expression is definite, “the power;” and excludes every other agency, and does not include or permit any additional power or influence to render the word of God effective.
If God operates upon sinners by an abstract operation of his spirit, and it is by prayer that this is to be made effective, why send missionaries to the heathen to carry the gospel and preach it to them? Why not let them remain at home, and pray to the Lord to work upon them by this abstract operation of the Holy Spirit, and thus convert them to the Christian religion?
We read of a certain kind of people, in the New Testament, whose characters suit these, as we there find the prototypes of almost everything evil as well as good. God has given the highest honor and greatest power in the universe to his word, by making it the great instrument in the creation and preservation of all things; in redemption and salvation; and by clothing it as himself, with flesh, in the person of his Son. Listen to what he says: “In
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” “In him was life; and the life was the light of men,” “And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth,” “by whom [the Logos] also [God] made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power”—
Thou, Lord, [the Logos] hast in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thine hands.” “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word [Logon] of God”—”by the word [Logon] of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water”—”the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word, are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
And yet, with all these representations before their eyes, many say the word is a dead letter, and no more than an old almanac! God’s Logos, as eternal as himself and which is himself, without any life in it! What blasphemous presumption! In the last place, God has declared: “My word has gone out from me, and it shall not return unto me void, but shall accomplish that wherewith [or for which] it was sent”—the salvation and redemption of the world. Amen.
J. R.H.
Spring Hill, Maury Co., Tenn., Dec. 18th, 1858
Dear Bros. Fanning & Lipscomb: The following article was written for the “Bible Advocate” in 1845, when I was engaged in editing that periodical, by a beloved brother, and one of our ablest proclaimers, but not sent by him to me. Being at his house recently he read it to me, and I was so much pleased with it and thought it so appropriate to the times, and not without its application sometimes among our brethren, that I solicited a copy of it from him for publication in the Gospel Advocate, which I herewith send you. I expect that some brethren may take offence at it, where “the shoe fits,” as we say, and pinches, but they should not, for it contains the truth in reference to an important matter; and if the truth cuts, let it do so.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
77
James says that “The wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle,” &c. We must have purity first, in everything as regards religion, let it cost what it may, and at all hazards. I am your brother in Christ.
JNO. R. HOWARD
November 22nd, 1858.
THE SIN OF USURY
“Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?” “He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward of the innocent.” Psalms 15:1, 5.
“I pray you let us leave off this usury.” Nehemiah 5:10.
DEAR Bro. HOWARD: I have never attempted to write what is generally called a sermon in my life. I have been in the habit of laboring for my bread during the week, and teaching the people on Lord’s day for almost sixteen years. But as to a pen, as Gen. Henry said, “that’s quite another part of speech,” but I have concluded to say a few things to you on the subject of usury.
I once delivered a discourse to a large audience on this subject, in which I stated three propositions, as follows:
- Usury is injurious and prohibited in a political point of view; that is, to take more interest on money than is permitted by the laws of the land.
- It has a demoralizing influence on Society; and dries up the sympathies of those who engage in it, for the cries of the orphan and the tears of the widow.
- It is in open disobedience and rebellion to the laws of God and the country.
Having affirmed on each of these propositions, it was expected that proof would be brought forward to sustain the allegations. I had a very attentive audience for about an hour and a half—while I was addressing them—several persons present taking notes. But at the present I shall not attempt to argue any of these propositions, or any proof in their support, except the third, and on that I promise brevity.
- Every State in the Union has passed laws against usury, forbidding its citizens to take more interest than is permitted by law. Most of the States have restricted interest on money to six per cent per annum; but, some of them have fixed it at less and some at more. And is not he who takes more interest than the laws of the State in which he lives authorizes, a transgressor against the laws of that State? Does he not rebel against the authority of the same? And if so, co…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
78
Can he be considered a good, obedient citizen? He cannot.
Thus I consider the latter part of my 3d proposition fully sustained. Now for the first part, which is to be proved and sustained by the word of God alone.
- The reader will please open his Bible and read from the 1st to the 13th verse of the fifth chapter of Nehemiah, and see what that reformer, in reference to the Jewish law, said on this subject. Then Exodus xxii. 25: “If thou lend money to any one of my people, that are poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.”
Lev. xxv. 36: “Take thou no usury of him or increase; but fear thy God: that thy brother may live with thee.”
Deut. xxiii. 18-19: “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is put upon usury.”
Ezek. xxii. 12: “In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbors by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God.”
Now kind reader, if you will put yourself to the trouble to examine the above quotations, and their connections, you will see in what kind of company the man stood, or was placed, who took usury of his brother under the law. But the Jewish law is done away, says the objector. Well, we will not argue the question as to that at the present, but will come to the New Testament and see what that says on the subject.
Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9), says:
“But now I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one not to eat.”
Now, kind reader, open your dictionary and look for the definition of the word “extortioner,” and what will you find it? It means “to gain by rapacity or usury;” and we are commanded not to eat with such a one, that is, we are not to break the loaf with such a one on Lord’s day, and not to fellowship (“not to keep company”) with him. Again, in (1 Cor. vi. 9-10):
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
And now I ask, if he who takes usury is…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 79
Not disobedient to the law of God, both in the old and New Testaments?
Is he not a rebel against the government of the King of Zion?
Can he inherit the kingdom of God? Let me again ask the reader to examine the foregoing quotations from the New Testament, and their connections; and he will see where the apostle has placed the extortioner (usurer) and in what company he has him. He ranks him with the liar, drunkard, fornicator, idolater, &c., such characters, as the apostle declares, “shall not inherit the kingdom of God!”
Dear brethren and friends, “be not deceived.” Let not the god of this world blind you. Hear it! O ye sons of men, hear it! Let it sink deep into your hearts, never to be forgotten: “such shall not inherit the kingdom of God!” Remember that “they who sow to the flesh” in any of these ways “shall of the flesh reap corruption;” but, on the other hand, “they who sow to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting.” And “be not weary in well doing, for in due time ye shall reap, if ye faint not.”
Dear brethren, let us follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which, no man shall see the Lord. Your brother in the kingdom and patience of our Lord Jesus Christ.
W. B.
THE KINGDOM OR CHURCH OF CHRIST, NO. 1
CLEVELAND, EAST TENN., Jan. 7, 1859.
Bro. Fanning:
Having been requested by many friends to write an essay on the Kingdom or Church of Christ, I have consented to do so, and hope you will give it a place in your most excellent “Advocate.”
My principal object in this essay is to speak of the economy of the Constitution of the Kingdom, commonly called the economy of the gospel of Christ. This is a subject worthy of our most serious investigation—one which has called forth the efforts of the ablest and wisest of mankind.
As an introduction, we will remark that the religious world is much divided upon the subject of the kingdom of Christ in many respects. One party contends that it began with Abel. Another with Moses at the foot of Mt. Sinai. And that the tables of stone containing the ten commandments of God exhibited the basis of the kingdom. Another equally inconsistent and untrue, contends that the kingdom or church was organized through the agency of John the Baptist, while a fourth party says that John the Baptist preached the full gospel and that the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Mesiah himself, while in a state of inaction, completed a church organization, over which he presided as King and Priest, antecedent to his death. All of which, we are of opinion, are incorrect. It is true that the family of Abraham was organized into a kingdom through the agency of Moses, the mediator of the covenant confirmed to Israel through his instrumentality, which covenant was dedicated by the blood of beasts, but not by the blood of Christ; neither was Christ the mediator of the covenant dedicated by the blood of beasts, but he is the mediator of the New Testament or New Covenant. The children of Israel, collectively, were constituent members of the first kingdom which was established in the name of the Father, the elements of which are brought to view in the former covenant or will. And the regenerate believers in Christ as the Messiah, are the only legal members of the second kingdom or church of Christ, which is organized in the name of the Messiah, and not in the name of the Father.
Points of Investigation
- The first point to which we invite attention in this investigation, is the prophecy of Daniel (ii. 44). It will be admitted by all Bible readers, that Daniel was a constituent member of the Jewish organization when he testified that in the days of certain kings that the God of heaven would set up a kingdom. And also that the kingdom spoken of by Daniel which was in future to be “set up,” that it was the kingdom or church of Christ, which implies, to my mind, a separate and distinct organization to the one of which Daniel was a member; and also that the church of Christ was not set up either in the time of Abel, Noah, Abraham nor Moses.
- The second point worthy of attention, is that after the death of John the Baptist, the Messiah said to his disciples that he would build his church, and would give the keys of the kingdom or church to Peter to use in opening and shutting, to be used in an organization (on earth) of his. (Matt. xvi.) This implies that the church was not built nor in building at that time.
- Matt. xix. 28. Christ taught his disciples that when he should sit upon the throne of his glory, that they should sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This teaching shows conclusively that the King Messiah was not yet upon his throne. Or that he was not yet prepared to reign in his own kingdom.
- Luke testifies in the words of the Saviour (xxii. 18), “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come.” This spoken immediately before the crucifixion of our king; also in the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
81
28 and 29th verses, testifies to his disciples, that his Father had appointed to him a kingdom; and that he designed them to manage the same kingdom, and sit at his table in his kingdom; also to sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The Messiah here gives us to understand plainly, first, that his reign had not yet begun, and secondly, that when it did begin, that it was to be carried into effect by human agency. The apostles were to sit on thrones presiding over the affairs of the kingdom as the king’s agents.
- Paul said that if Christ “were on earth he should not be a priest.” Heb. viii. 4. And Christ testified that “of himself he could do nothing; that he came not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him.” Therefore he was neither priest nor king in authority while he was acting under another, or controlled by the will of his Father. We learn from the foregoing testimony, together with all kindred teaching, that Jesus Christ was subservient to the covenant which was dedicated by the blood of beasts, and therefore he was a covenantee of that covenant, as much so as any other one of the Jewish family and as obedient to its precedents.
While he was a covenantee together with his disciples, antecedent to his spiritual reign, the promises embraced in the covenant under that dispensation were the source of comfort to them in that capacity. But when its ends were accomplished, and “the commandments contained in its ordinances were abolished” (Col. ii.) and taken out of the way and nailed to the cross; after the Word which was made flesh and dwelt among us, suffered upon the cross, and the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom. It was then and not before that it ceased to be a comforter.
But the Saviour, in view of that event, said to his apostles: “Let not your heart be troubled.” “If you love me, keep my commandments: and I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth.” John xiv. 15, 16; also 26 verse, “But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you.” Inasmuch as the will, developed in the Father’s name was fulfilled, the promises made in it to the covenantee thereof, could no longer be a source of comfort.
Our Lord has mistaken the whole matter. Jesus Christ presented himself to the Jews as the Advocate of a new church, but as he was going away, he promised another (Paraclete) Advocate that should remain.
T. F.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Comfort, for it was taken away that the second or new covenant might be established. Heb. x. 9. The spirit of which became the comforter of all who adopt it, or become the covenanters into it. The Christian is comforted by the gospel.
But the Jew was comforted by the law. It has been said that Christ was the first comforter and that the Holy Spirit was the second. I hold that every communication has a spirit in it. The Old Testament was a communication to man and did contain a spirit, which evidently was the spirit or will of God. The New Testament or New Covenant is likewise a communication from God contained in his will or spirit.
But the will of God developed in the name of his Son is different from that developed in his own name. Now if Christ was the first comforter, why is he not the second? He said that if he went away he would come again. Therefore, if he was the first, when he was here personally, and went away to come again, when he returned, in the power of the gospel, was he not the same comforter come again? This, certainly, is plain and conclusive.
But he did not say to his disciples that the Father would send the same comforter, but he emphatically promised another comforter. That teaches that a Testament is of no strength at all while the testator liveth, but is of force after the death of the testator. (Heb. ix.) Also that Christ took away the first Testament (will) that he might establish the second (will).
Hence the precedents of the first will was the predicate of the first organization or kingdom, which was a source of comfort to its members; and the gospel of Christ, when established, is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believes it.
And therefore being a second revelation containing the second will of God, it becomes the predicate of the second kingdom—it becomes the source from whence its members derive comfort.
But the Messiah declared that this promise could not be realized unless he went away, and if he went away he would send the spirit, who was to guide the witnesses into all truth, that is, his holy apostles were to be thus prepared to develop the organic principles of the kingdom of Christ in the name of the king, and teach the same to all nations.
Wherefore they were constituted the king’s agents to set up, to build, to organize in the name of Christ—a church—a kingdom that is designed to prevail, and break in pieces all other kingdoms, and stand forever.
Respectfully,
A. ALLISON.
(TO BE CONTINUED.)
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
PRAYER. NO. I.
In compliance with a previously expressed wish, we begin, in the present issue, our examination of the subject of Prayer. Its importance is suggested from the frequent occurrence of the word, particularly, in the New Testament, as well as from the deep interest felt by all enlightened nations of the earth.
We admit that we feel considerable embarrassment. Religionists of the different orders, and even of the same order, differ so widely regarding prayer, that we cannot hope to please all, and indeed, we should not be surprised if we were to fail to please any party.
Still we do not consider prayer so difficult to be understood that all Christians may not agree in every jot and tittle. Differences, however, upon this, as upon all other matters of deep moral interest, afford but additional evidence that we either have no standard of spiritual truth, or that we are profoundly ignorant, touching what is authoritative. We have profound confidence in a perfect rule of faith, and if we err not at this point, the failure to see eye to eye must be attributed to ignorance of the law.
In our preliminary remarks, we are sorry to admit that we write not in the strong assurance we once felt of giving satisfaction, even to all who profess to take the Bible alone as their only creed. Oft have we united in the unity of the faith of the brotherhood, and we feared not an interruption of this unity, while all should walk the narrow road, with the eye fixed upon the figure set before us, but tears have been shed.
Presbyterians, Baptists, Spiritualists, and Transcendentalists, devoid of their names, have come amongst us to build up parties. Some of them boast of their profound spirituality, talk of the world’s right to pray for “the children’s bread,” and refuse to discuss subjects fairly, honorably, and spiritually.
Still we believe that four-fifths of the professed disciples of the Lord Jesus in the United States, and a much larger proportion in Canada, England, Ireland, Scotland, and the islands of the East, are perfectly satisfied with the truth as it is written; and will humbly bow to the teaching of the Good Spirit, as the subject of prayer is set forth by many good and great men over a quarter of a century ago.
We wish also to suggest that our fear of success arises from the difficulty in getting the questions before the brethren. All do not read what the brethren write, and some who read do not carefully study the Scriptures to see if these things be so. Still we believe the brethren will, in time, examine all sides of every question of importance.
We are fully aware that in the eyes of many, it indicates great impudence in us to offer an objection to what is written by old and esteemed…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
ingly well-tried men—men who are supposed to maintain the doctrine that has done much to revolutionizing the religious world.
But in getting at the main question under consideration it will be admitted that there are various preliminary matters intimately connected with prayer, which must be noticed in order to understand it as it should be. We will call them forth in the order that we consider best calculated to lead the student to correct conclusions.
1. What is the meaning of prayer in the Scriptures?
Should we be fortunate in defining the word, our labors will not be very arduous in the details. As is usual, it becomes us, first of all, to look at the subject negatively, viz: What is called prayer by many, has no authority in the word of God. In our view, this is the chief point of difficulty.
In the first place, we are disposed to conclude that many in the parties, and some also amongst even the disciples of Jesus Christ, consider the feeling of dependence, the feeling of inferiority, of want, common to all animal creation, scriptural prayer. Hence the style of many, “It is natural to pray”—”it is the spontaneous feeling of the soul.” “Men can but pray.” “It is the impulse rising from belief,” etc., etc. If feelings of melancholy, helplessness—mere dependency, etc., constitute prayer, then men are perhaps less inclined to pray than any other animal.
There is not a songster in the grove, a wild beast of the forest or domestic creature, that does not manifest its wants—its dependence and need of aid in various ways. The horse, the bull, the dog, imploringly look to man for succor. If this is what our brethren and others mean by prayer, then we admit prayer is a universal impulse of both man and beast.
The wickedest man of earth cringes—cries for help in distress—moans, sighs, says oh Lord! And Dr. Livingston speaks, like the savage, in the lion’s mouth, who cried “help, help, help,” to the last breath. Is this what our friends mean by prayer? If so, we admit our error, and will be compelled to reconstruct our entire religious belief.
2. The Right of Aliens to Apply for Admission
Secondly, we notice that not a few confound the right of aliens to apply for admission into the kingdom of heaven—the mere right to inquire “what must I do?” or what is more commonly styled the right of petition with acceptable prayer to God.
We suppose there is no one who admits not the right of sinful beings “to come to the Father—to seek his face—and petition for adoption into the family of heaven.” Saul cried “What will thou have me to do?” Was Saul right in his petition? The Saviour could not and did not answer it. This authority had been committed to others, and therefore Saul was sent to…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
85
A servant who was authorized to instruct penitents. The light of the Gospel of our salvation had not reached Saul, neither had the saving truths of our Father been written in a book for the instruction and salvation of blind and lost sinners. But men of the world are now somewhat differently situated.
We have all the light, the power of God unto salvation in the written articles, and therefore, there is no authority even to petition for a higher light, greater power, or even a light, in order to conversion. Jesus Christ has made it the duty of the Church, and especially the evangelists, to preach the Gospel to the world—to tell sinners to come, for all things are ready; but they have no right to ask or expect other light—different aid—much less a right to petition the Lord to pardon them, adopt them, grant them the Christian honors on earth, or the Christian reward in heaven without a faithful compliance with all that is required in the gospel.
Any foreigner has a right to his petition to become a citizen of the United States; but to demand or ask for the blessings of citizenship, without a scrupulous compliance with all the demands of our government in order to adoption, would certainly constitute a high offense against our institutions. It would, in fact, be laughing at defiance all constituted authority, and afford an insult to the supreme authority.
We see then that there is a wide difference between what is usually termed “the right of petition” and “the prayer of subjects.” Our friends, who have adopted this style from sectarianism, are guilty of the fallacy styled by Logicians, Ignoratio Elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion—drawing a conclusion foreign from the premises.
As if one were to say, “Alfred was a great scholar, because he founded the University of Oxford,” or that “Gen. Jackson was a saint on earth, because he fought fiercely in the Benham difficulty.” We must suggest to our brethren that they have certainly done serious injustice to themselves and the cause we advocate, in inferring the right and duty to pray as subjects, because all human creatures are graciously permitted to knock at the door of the kingdom for admission. Hence petitioning for entrance is by no means prayer.
Before dismissing this matter it may be well to take at least a bird’s eye view of sectarian teaching on the subject. The bitter wailings, sorrowful lamentations, and gnashing of teeth of the unthought, and frequently, rude and condemned sinners, are regarded by all revival “getting religion” sects, as genuine prayers. Indeed, the convicted are exhorted to mourn for the comfort of pardon, to agonize, struggle and pray to God for the blessings of religion. Is it not well known…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
that this is the course recommended by Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists particularly, in order to pardon? Are not converts required to say that, in answer to their bitter groanings—called prayers—they have light from heaven—revelations from heaven’s court to their inner man, that all their sins are blotted out. Our friends are doing nothing less. They pray at the altar for the direct conversion of sinners; write that the penitent’s impulse is an authorized prayer to the Almighty for “salvation,” in the style of Dr. Walsh, for “the pardon of sins.”
Truly, Milligan, and his defender, Bro. George W. Elley, either teach the same thing or there is no meaning to their words. We deem it proper in concluding on this matter, to say, that in our humble judgment, their system nullifies the obedience of the gospel, blots from the world the church of God, and says to the world, you have as good a right to ask for the pardon of sins, regardless of obedience, as the humble disciple of Christ that has meekly submitted to his authority and humbly bears his cross before men.
We deem it, however, unnecessary to occupy more space in examining negative views, and come at once to what we regard as the only correct definition of prayer.
Prayer is lifting our hearts to God our Father, in worth authorized by the spirit for blessings which he has promised, and for which he has made it our duty to pray to him. Prayer is the right of the children of God, in yielding to the authority of their King to ask for the promised blessings. More at present we deem unnecessary.
Can it be true that the right of petition has been denied to all unimmersed persons?
Bro. Fanning: Your January number is at hand, and I have read with care, your review of Bro. Milligan’s essays upon prayer. From the alarm which you manifest as to the result of his teaching I will be constrained to re-read the July number of the M. E., containing the 4th No. of his essays, from which you quote, and to which you so strongly object. I confess my total inability to see the harmful tendencies of his teaching which you so much deprecate.
On page 13 of your review, he thus writes: “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,
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 87
and the Holy Spirit. And shall we understand you as denouncing this position as dangerous and heretical in its tendencies? Can it be possible that Bro. F. can see in this position or tendency toward the mourning bench, and faith alone, system? Upon page 21, you say:
“We always encourage them (penitent believers) to receive the truth, gladly,” and while we see so much propriety in believing penitents feeling deeply, and thanking and praising the Lord, with all their hearts 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, and give them the good spirit whom the world cannot receive.
It cannot be doubted from anything said by Bro. M., that he would heartily endorse your decision. Surely I would, but sir, to me it seems that your first statement is suicidal to all your objections against the right of prayer by sinners.
You encourage them, first, “to feel deeply; second, to thank and praise the Lord with all their hearts for his rich mercies in offering them salvation.” Are we to understand you to restrict such thanks and praise simply to the exercise of their feelings, or may they utter the warm emotions of their hearts in words? I can scarcely think that you would object to the use of words. If not, by what authority could you “encourage them” in such expressions, and yet refuse to them lawfully the right of petition? I am really curious to find such proof.
You seriously object also to the following statement of Bro. M.:
“Out of faith then is a divine restriction upon the right of petition, and, may we not, add that, in connection with that penitential change of heart, which a living faith always produces, is the only restriction.”
This I have always believed, and taught. Yet you say that such teachings “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,” pp. 16. This said, and opinions of Bro. M. Rogers, who commends highly, Bro. M.’s teaching, and also my own, are not “worth a straw.” This may be true, or may not. It will require, however, more than an assertion to convict others of its truth.
With Bro. M., I ask, “Is not prayer a natural and necessary consequence of faith?” I believe it, and so teach. Again, “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?” Such are my convictions, and such were the feelings of my heart when I first trusted in my Lord for salvation. I could but praise him for his…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
goodness, and implored him at his throne for grace and strength to help me overcome the world.
But ah, say you, Bro. E. was educated in the Baptist ranks, whose teaching had thus educated his feelings and views.
Be it so: I throw away no good things, or truth, because others, out of our ranks, are teaching it. Perhaps you may say that all the tendencies of such a practice leads inevitably to the faith alone system, and to the “mourner’s bench.”
I can see no such tendencies, and cannot feel such objection. You may call upon us for authority to encourage such sinners to petition God for any blessings. I want no positive enactment, directing or permitting it. It is wholly unnecessary. It grows out of the very nature of the relationship and obligations of the parties.
How can a truly broken hearted sinner feel otherwise? Does he not now feel and own his dependence upon God? And with such feelings of dependence, and unworthiness, is it not strange that any one could be found who would denounce his right to express to God his gratitude for the promise of salvation through a crucified Redeemer, and ask him to lead him steadfastly on to obedience, not in one, but all his commandments?
To take grounds against such a right, as I understand you to do, and then raise the cry of alarm against all who thus teach, is, in my humble judgment, both dangerous and unwarrantable.
For myself, I have to say, after a scrutiny upon this subject for thirty years, I cannot admit your reasonings and conclusions. Yet I am fixed in my opposition to the whole “faith alone” or getting of religion system at the “mourner’s bench,” as any man living.
Because, by such teaching, its advocates have set aside the gospel, and set up a standard of their own by denying prayer, and giving to it a power in conversion which cannot be warranted by Scripture, reason, or common sense.
I will not go to another extreme and make prayer nothing, and even forbid its right to true penitent believers before obedience.
I do then heartily agree with Bro. M.’s teaching as quoted by you. I do not ask you to insert this reply as a defense of his essays, because he is able to plead his own cause, but in vindication of my own practice and convictions.
If I have misunderstood you I shall be glad to be corrected.
I now enclose one dollar for Gospel Advocate for 1859.
Yours truly,
GEORGE W. ELLEY
Lexington, KY., February 1859.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
REPLY TO BRO. GEO. W. ELLY’S ESSAY ON PRAYER
It would be gratifying to us if some brother who is disposed to defend the right of aliens to pray in the sense set forth by Prof. Milligan and others, would carefully state the full meaning of such right, before further discussion. We fear almost to attempt an answer to Brother Elly’s remarks. If Prof. Milligan, Bro. Rogers, Bro. Elly, Dr. Walsh and others, satisfy us that they are maintaining the right and duty of even believing and penitent sinners to pray, in the sense the term is used by most religious parties—pray for salvation, pardon of sins, the blessing of the gospel institution before submitting to the King in baptism—we may feel it incumbent upon us to be more pointed and even severe than we are wont to be.
Do our brethren mean this? For our life we cannot see that they are attempting to do less than our partisan friends. Dr. Walsh comes boldly up to the matter in the February number of his “Christian Baptist,” and says: “Salvation then is clearly made dependent on the prayer. This salvation is from sin; in other words, it is remission.” Again, he adds: “It is the glorious privilege, as well as duty, of the believing penitent to pray; and to pray too for salvation. May not the rebel ask for pardon?”
It is well known this is the style of sectarianism, and the meaning is that men of the world have a right to ask the Lord for pardon, and after sins are blotted from the book of God’s remembrance, if they feel it to be their duty, they may tell their experience of grace—give the evidences of pardon and salvation, and if convenient, be baptized and join some denomination. This seems to be the teaching of Bro. Elly, Walsh, Milligan, etc. If they do not mean this, they will confer a lasting favor on us by telling us for what the alien is to pray. If they mean that we are all saved in obedience calling on the name of the Lord, there is no ground for controversy.
But Prof. Milligan attacks something amongst us he is pleased to pronounce, “That cold, lifeless, anti-christian theory that would not allow the believer to raise his voice to the heavens and say, with the poor Publican, ‘God be merciful to a sinner.'” We have said this publican had a right to lift his voice to God, but we add, foreigners, who refuse to take the yoke of the Savior have no such right.
To us it is clear, our friends have fallen into an error that completely nullifies the obedience to the gospel, but we will give them a full hearing. We suspect when they attempt to explain themselves, they will, with Dr. Walsh, Mr. Russell, etc., either take the mourning bench view of prayer, or find themselves unable to give their stand point. There is no middle ground.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
ENCOURAGEMENT IN CANADA
Brampton, C.W., Feb. 1st, 1850.
Bro. Fanning: For months past it has seemed to me that a token of approval should be sent to you from this quarter for your unswerving zeal in pleading for the great Master’s sanctions. The Advocate, if my vision is clear, deserves applause for coming out firmly against all schemes of men which are made substitutes for heaven’s wisdom—for its unceasing exhortation to the Lord’s friends to be governed by the holy oracles—and for the plain and palpable rebuke administered to the bargain and sale system connected with the employment of laborers in the gospel.
Judging from what is seen upon the pages of your periodical, the friends of restoration appreciate your efforts, and are determined to hold up your hands.
Truth must yet triumph. What we need, it strikes me, is an armory of living faith, heavenly fervency, spiritual patience, and an immense supply of the brotherly kindness that the gospel inspires and requires. When the Great Teacher of all teachers, the Advocate of all true advocates, uttered severe things against scribes and Pharisees, he loved them as men, for he loved all; but, in perfect benevolence, he hated their scribe and pharisaical attributes. It is our privilege to love every one as a man, to esteem every brother as a brother; and while we enjoy the Lord’s liberty and selection to put on better than carnal armor to oppose every high thing and every low thing which may be against the knowledge of God, it appears to be very necessary to watch unto prayer lest in opposing evil customs and contrivances we permit our spirit to have a bitter edge against pious friends who take part in these unsafe and unspiritual things.
But every truth, every precept, every promise and sanction properly included in ‘the faith’ has the word triumph written upon it. Heaven’s wisdom was foolishness with some of the wise among ancient Greeks and Jews, and it is accounted foolishness by many a noble-hearted man to this day; yet this sort of foolish power will assuredly gain the victory over all the wisdom of this age. Jesus says to every disciple, “Work and Win.”
Go on, dear brothers; “the sword of the Lord and Gideon” worked wonders of old—the word of the Lord and the Lord himself through his people will work greater wonders in this sectarian age.
Yours in gospel affection,
D. Oliphant
Remarks: We are happy to believe that most of the disciples in Canada find no place for human institutions or human wisdom in their religious pleadings. No one can regret more than we, the disposition of many to measure themselves by the wise men of the times.
T. F.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
THE CONFESSION—DO WE TAKE IT RIGHTLY?
Dear Bros. Finning & Luskorn—We profess to be a Bible-loving and Bible-adhering people; to be endeavoring to restore primitive apostolic Christianity, and to carry out the Christian system or institution, in its details as well as in the aggregate, or as a whole; but there are some things in which I believe we are defective, like I am tending to as they should be, and as did the apostles and primitive Christians. One of these is a very important one of the conditions of discipleship. I believe we do not attend to according to their precedent and practice—the Book being judge in the matter, or our standard of judging. It is that of taking the confession of those who present themselves for baptism.
We ask the subject if he believes that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” and he replies, “yes,” or nods his head, or gives some other sign of assent. Now such was not the practice of the apostles and first Christian preachers as far as we can ascertain. We have no record anywhere of their asking such a question as this. From every notice we have of their custom, they always required the individual to make the confession for himself; but we make it for him!
Philip said to the eunuch, “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?” No, he did not. How was it? The eunuch, as he rode along in his chariot, on his return home from Jerusalem where he had been to worship, was reading at the 53rd chapter of the book of Isaiah, the prediction in reference to the lamb of Jesus for our sins, when the Spirit told Philip to go and join himself to his chariot. We are then told that he took the book, and beginning at the place where the eunuch was reading, (“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter,” etc.), “he preached unto him Jesus;” and coming to a certain place of water, (deep enough to immerse him of course), he said to Philip, “See here is water! What hinders me from being baptized?” (Of course Philip preached baptism to him, its designs, etc., in preaching Christ, or he would not have asked him the question.) Now what was his reply to the eunuch?
“Have you felt the Lord precious to your soul in the pardon of your sins,” or, “If you have experienced a hope that you are forgiven, and God has received you as a child of grace, and you have been made to doubt it,” etc. No; none of this. Did he ask him: “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?” Not this either; but “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” It is true I had the confession was implied in this; but the eunuch must make it for himself: Hence he replied: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
“in the Son of God.” Did he then baptize him in this confession, without requiring any thing else or any thing more? Most assuredly he did. The eunuch had his chariot stopped, and “they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and”—the eunuch baptized Philip, no—”he baptized him.”
“And when they had come up out of the water,” after Philip had immersed him, “the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, so that the eunuch saw him no more”—lifted him up in his sight, and snatched him away. Thus confirming the preaching and action of Philip by this miraculous manifestation or demonstration, so as to leave him in no doubt as to its being from God. And “he went on his way rejoicing” in the pardon of sins and acceptance by God as his son, into the kingdom of Christ, as “an heir of God, and joint heir of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Paul tells Timothy, his son in the gospel, that he “had made a good confession before many witnesses”—those present when Paul took his confession, and immersed him. Paul did not make it for him, but Timothy made it for himself. Paul says, in Romans, in speaking of the “word of faith” preached by the apostles, that it was this: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, [that Jesus is ‘Lord, or the Son of God,] and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for, with the heart man believes unto righteousness, [justification,] and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
Now, I would ask, how is it possible that this can be done unless the human makes the confession for himself? How can the assent of the person to this great proposition or truth, when asked him, with any consistency, be termed his confession? It cannot. Jesus said, when on earth: “He that confesses me before men, him will I confess before my Father and the holy angels.” Can it be termed a confession of him, or confessing him, unless we make it ourselves, with our own mouths, by saying “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?”
Brethren, let us have a change as to this matter, and require every individual who comes forward to obey the gospel, to make the confession for himself, (or herself.) If we teach them rightly, they will know what to do, or what to say; and custom will soon make it a matter of course, and something to be expected. When the individual presents himself (or herself) for baptism, let us say to them: “My brother or sister, will you make the confession?” or, “the Lord requires of you to make the confession” or something of this sort. And if they then will not make it for themselves, they are unworthy of the Christian…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
93
Salvation!
It is not now attended with the risk of life, as it once was, in the days of the martyrs for the Christian faith; and any person who really desires the great salvation of the gospel, will not be deterred from making the confession by a little diffidence or any thing of the sort. If a “candidate” for admission into a Baptist or any sectarian church can muster up courage enough to tell a long “experience,” a thing not required in God’s word for admission into the Christian church, can not the penitent believer say boldly and unhesitatingly, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?” when God and Christ are abating, and angels and saints are rejoicing at it? Let us have this thing rightly attended to; and may God bless us all.
AN EVANGELIST.
Tennessee, Dec. 3, 1858.
“LAY HANDS SUDDENLY ON NO MAN.”
No. F. — I have received the January number of the Gospel Advocate, and am in the main, much pleased with its contents. I wish you and Bro. Lipscomb great success in your efforts to the knowledge of the truth as it is written.
I observed, in reading on the 6th page of the Advocate, Jan. ’59, under the caption, Church Officers, No. 4., with reference to consecrating the office of bishop, this language: “Timothy was not to lay hands suddenly on any,” and “Titus was not left in Crete, as he was appointed, to ordain elders in the churches,” “and these are of scriptural authority.” Am I right in understanding here, I have not yet been able from the reading of the 1st chapter of 1st Timothy, nor by the reading of the 3rd chapter, to arrive at any such conclusion.
I understand you to be speaking of quite a different matter, that of rebuking the brethren, and not of ordaining men to office. In the 19th verse we have this language: “Receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.” That sin rebuke before all, (the congregation) I charge thee before God and the elect angels, that thou observe these things.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
without preferring one before another, doing nothing (in matters of church discipline) through prejudice. It appears just at this point that the apostle saw that Timothy might conclude from the language (“against an elder” etc.) he might, without being so cautious, receive an accusation against the body. The apostle, anticipating this result, says: “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” be not hasty in receiving charges, or “laying hands on any man,” neither old nor young, to bring him before the tribunal of the church for trial; for you are partaker in other men’s sins: keep thyself pure. He adds: “Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men’s sins follow after.” But in all this affair Timothy is charged to be very cautious, lest some member of the church should suffer consequence of false accusations.
Your brother in the love of truth,
H. B. TRIMBLE
Lester’s Fork, Tenn., Feb. 1, 1859.
REPORT FROM TEXAS
Bro. Fanning: Believing that you are always glad to hear triumph of the truth, I will give you the result of my labor in the beautiful little town of Uvalde. I held a meeting, embracing the third Lord’s day in October; I delivered three discourses; had four additions. Held another, embracing the third Lord’s day in December; delivered three discourses; had seven additions, making in all, fourteen.
I also organized a congregation of about forty. Our congregation is new country, and very attentive, and are growing in interest. I have lately emigrated from Missouri and have not been able to devote much of my time to the word. Hoping to be able to send you more, I subscribe myself yours in the hope of eternal life.
J. A.
Uvalde County, Texas, Dec. 29th, 1858.
We rejoice much in Bro. Scruggs’ success story.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
CORRESPONDENCE
Bro. Jonathan Owen writes from Denton County, Texas:
“Our little congregation is prospering in the service of Christ.”
Bro. A. Newman of Brenham, Texas, writes:
“I have been afflicted for several months, but there have been some twenty-five additions, mostly by confession and immersion. At our annual meeting at Post Oak we had five additions. Bro. Dr. Grant, from Alabama, has commenced proclaiming the glad tidings. His heart is in the work. The Gospel Advocate is the kind of paper we want.”
Bro. W. S. Fears, of Georgia, writes:
“I pray God’s blessing to rest upon your labors while you continue to plead for God’s truth in opposition to all human theories.”
Bro. J. A. Anthony, from Silver Springs, Tenn., writes:
“We continue to meet on every Lord’s day at our private houses, to keep the ordinances of the Lord’s house.” We rejoice to hear so good a report from the brethren. The Lord will abundantly bless them if they continue steadfast.
W. L.
Brother D. D. Smith, of Bolivar, Mo., writes:
“The cause is advancing in this section of country; I have recently immersed fifteen persons upon the confession of faith in Christ.”
Bro. A. Flower, of Albion, IL, informs us of some fifty recent additions in his section.
ENCOURAGING FROM MISSISSIPPI
Bro. Fanning:
“It affords us sincere satisfaction in this country to witness the able, and yet tender and prudent manner in which you are conducting some of the most important discussions that ever engaged the attention of mortals. It is a work very much needed, and I hope you will still battle for the truth, and that the Lord of all goodness and of all mercy may aid you, and enable you to direct your investigations in such a way as may redound to his glory, and the advancement of his cause on earth. As ever, your brother in hope,
MATT. HACKWORTH.
Columbus, Miss. Feb. 5, 1859.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
A GOOD EXAMPLE
Bro. Fanning: Much has been said in regard to the organization of churches. I will state a fact and let you draw conclusions. Myself and brother moved to Texas and settled in a portion where there was no church. We called our own families together; and not being a speaker, I would read the word of God and break the loaf. We have been blessed with a visit, occasionally, by preaching brethren; and from time to time there has been added to our little congregation, until we now number near thirty, and they are nearly all young, either in age or profession, and we are meeting every Lord’s day when the weather will permit.
Now comes the question, must we organize by appointing overseers and deacons, etc., and who is to do this?
J.E.
Circleville, Williamson Co., Texas, Dec. 7th, 1858
Answer: Appointing men to office is not organization. The brethren seem to be doing so well, we can only recommend them to persevere.
T. R.
REPORT FROM THE BORDER
Uvalde, Uvalde Co., Texas
Dear Bros. Fanning & Lipscomb: Away here in Texas we are living, yet, thank God, not without the gospel. We have the word of God among us. I came here about two years ago or a little more perhaps than two. Such a thing as a preacher, or preaching, was at that time not known on this frontier. Shortly after I moved here, a Methodist Circuit Rider (preacher) preached here. Last October, Bro. James F. Scruggs, from Missouri, moved in among us, and has settled upon the fences, and has been preaching with us. Brother Scruggs is an able advocate of the gospel cause; and he has preached here with much effect. Bro. Scruggs will make a report to you shortly.
However, we have a church of Christ organized here, with about thirty members. May we not feel happy that the truth is mighty and will conquer. May God speed the time when it will be embraced by all the world.
C. C. McKinney.
The above is accompanied by a list of twenty subscribers. Our Texas brethren especially deserve our thanks. So far, their lists have come in with large increase.
W. L.