THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOMB, Editors
VOL. V.
NASHVILLE, MAY, 1859.
NO. 5.
PRAYER—No. 3
In our examination of the subject of Prayer, the importance of various questions involved, suggests the propriety of keeping the points, which we flatter ourselves we have clearly made out, constantly before our readers. We also deem it quite as necessary for a satisfactory solution of the matter, to be quite as careful in our surveys of negative as passive grounds. By a misapprehension of the proper meaning of prayer, or in consequence of the word being used in different senses by different persons, good men misunderstand each other, and the confusion is quite as confounding as with the builders of the Tower of Babel.
We would remind the reader, that the too oft indulged feeling of melancholy, which takes so many to the mad-house, we regard not prayer; neither is a feeling of helplessness or dependence. Our own natures, our everyday disappointments, our trials and afflictions, deeply impress upon us our nothingness, but we have no evidence they point us to One superior to ourselves, to One who can or will help our infirmities. The wild wail of the infidel Rousseau, “Bewildering ecstasy, to which my mind abandons itself without control, and which in the excitement of my transports makes me sometimes exclaim, oh, great being! oh, great being!” without being able to say or think more, comes nearer affording evidence that from his mother, or from other sources, he had caught a glimpse of the Eternal One, than it is prayer. Guizot considers “the sense of weakness” quite sufficient to prompt us to pray. He says, “There is not a person who cannot produce in his own case a thousand proofs of this movement of the soul seeking…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
out of itself, an aid to its own freedom, which it feels to be at once real and insufficient: In reference to the same matter, J. McCosh, L.L.D., in his “Method of the Divine Government,” argues that our wants suggest all appropriate prayer. His language is, “The lesson taught by his inward feeling is the lesson taught by the external world. God has so constituted his providence that man is at all times dependent upon his Maker for the comforts and very necessaries of life. Situated as he is, he is constrained to feel a sense of dependence, and of this feeling, prayer is the suitable expression.” While we deny not this feeling of dependence, we find no authority for calling an expression of it prayer.
Transcendental philosophers maintain that we have been created with certain natural instincts to provide for the body, and another class of instincts to direct the soul to the great fountain of light; but we deny the truth of both declarations. Man, from no natural sources has ever been able to extricate himself from barbarism, or to rise to a state of civilization. Left alone, he is an animal, and his tendencies are downward to the earth. Heaven has ordained the arts of industry and commerce to lift man from barbarism into a state of intellectual activity, and he has been pleased to direct us, religiously, by supernatural aid. Hence we deny that any expression of the inward promptings of our nature constitutes what is called in the Bible, prayer.
We are the more careful in impressing this point upon the attention of the reader, from the fact, that some of our good brethren who have written on the subject seem to entertain no superior conception of prayer. It may not be improper to repeat the thought expressed in a former number, that this feeling of dependence, sorrow, affliction and want, is common both to man and brutes. There is not a quadruped, fowl, fish or reptile, that does not fear and feel dependent, but no expression of this feeling is prayer.
We now feel somewhat better prepared to call attention once more to the meaning of scriptural prayer. In the words of a living writer of some distinction, “Prayer is the most elevated state of thought and feeling of which the mind is susceptible, reaching higher than the imagination of the poet when his eye is most excited and his fancy takes its wildest flights; embracing more than the capricious thoughts of the philosopher.” If this is a correct view, the conception of prayer is above all inward promptings; it is a spiritual conception. God has taught us by light from without, in a supernatural manner—to lift our hearts to him for aid. This exercise, and this only, do we call prayer.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
It may embrace confession of our sins, and a feeling sense of our unworthiness, both the result of Heavenly teaching, as well as asking promised aid, and forgiveness. If these things are true, it is certainly a subject of no small moment to ascertain who are proper subjects of prayer.
In our second number on the subject, we endeavored to show that the servants of God alone have a right to pray. The mere petition for admission into the kingdom is the right of all aliens competent to come to Christ. There may be human beings so corrupt as to forbid even the effort to approach the Father; and if there are such, we presume not that it is their privilege to lift up their hearts to God.
In our remarks in answer to Bro. John Rogers, in this issue of our paper, we think we have shown that it is highly improper for men to ask, as the Jews did on Pentecost, “What shall we do?” or as Saul exclaimed, “Lord, what will you have me to do?” Then, the plan of salvation, the conditions of pardon had not been made known; but now we have all we need, and the world instead of approaching the Lord for new communications, should at once go to the scriptures, to find all needed information. This, we consider, not the prayer in regard to which we are contending.
A worse feature of the error we are combating consists in the encouragement of preachers and writers to men standing in the world, before they confess or submit to Christ, to pray for the remission of sins promised alone to the obedient, and for the rich blessings of the kingdom of heaven. This we regard as the fatal error of some of the writers whose teachings we have attempted to expose.
Having, however, we think, presented these matters in a form that can be understood, we beg leave to introduce another point of quite equal interest, viz: THE ANSWER TO PRAYER.
In the first place, it is assumed by writers that prayer is intended alone to affect the person praying. This is saying that the answer consists in the service rendered to the subject engaged as physical labor strengthens and invigorates the body; while we deny not that labor is good for both soul and body, it strikes us that there are other profits arising from it. Wealth is the result of honest industry. McCosh, in his “Divine Government,” says, “Like every other good work, prayer is its own reward.” It is illustrated by the case of a man in a small boat being bold of a large one, and who, while he seems to be moving the large vessel, is only pulling the small one towards it. Hence, instead of moving God, it is only intended to move the suppliant towards Him. Even Hume admitted that “we can make use of no expression, or even thought, in prayers and entreaties.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
ties, which does not imply that these prayers have an influence.” We are well satisfied that prayer does have a powerful influence over us. It impresses us most deeply with a sense of our feebleness, helplessness, and sinfulness, and it tends very much to increase our reverence for God.
The bare thought that there is a Being in this universe that cares for us, and even pities us, exerts a holy and sanctifying influence upon us.
But we deny that this reflex kind of influence is the only object of prayer. Leaving out of view all metaphysical views with regard to “an inflexible Divinity,” which shapes, has shaped, our ends, the God of the Bible is a being susceptible of being moved to compassion, and the Savior was “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” that he might have compassion upon us.
While, then, we contend not for a miraculous power to be exerted in answer to prayer, the Lord, in conformity to certain lawful conditions which he has seen fit to prescribe, does answer the prayers of his saints whenever they comply with his will. He blots from the book of his remembrance our sins, as an act to which he is moved by the attitude of his creature of earth towards him. He not only pities our weakness, but in answer to our prayers, throws about us favorable influences, and saves us from the thousands of snares by which others are taken captive and destroyed. Hence, we rejoice in the conviction that “the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and that his ears are open to their prayers.” This is the consolation of the Christian heart, and it gives life and energy to all our struggles to overcome the world.
Consequently, if we represent the answer to prayer by the moving of boats, both move. When we resist the devil, he flees from us, and in exact ratio as we draw nigh to God, he draws nigh to us. Neither can we regard the language of the scriptures as intended merely to conform to our modes of thought in consequence of our exceeding inability to rise to higher conceptions. We believe the forms of the scriptures the highest ever employed by man, that they represent truth literally, and that when it is written the Lord hears, comes down, forgives, blesses, protects, and guards his saints; the language is not to be considered mythical. Everything comes to pass according to the letter.
It is literally true, that God is our Father and our Redeemer; it is literally true, that he answers our prayers, and we rejoice to believe in a literal resurrection, ascension to heaven, and perfect enjoyment in the personal presence of our Heavenly Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and all the heavenly hosts.
T. F.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
133
“OFFICIAL” AND CHRISTIAN SERVICE
It is our purpose to give, as soon as convenient, a series of articles under the above caption, but for the present, we wish merely to call attention once more to the action of the Transylvania Presbytery.
We still believe that should a Christian upon any ground whatever desire to join the Presbyterian church, it is the privilege of that denomination to prescribe her own terms of admission, and we have no right to object.
We wish to say, however, that recently, two pamphlets written on the validity of baptism administered by a Christian merely have fallen into our hands, in reference to which we are disposed to offer a thought or two. Whilst we have doubted the necessity of the discussion, we are by no means dissatisfied with the productions of the brethren.
One is by Elder John Rogers, of Carlisle, Ky., and his straightforward, good sense, and his devotion to truth, have enabled him to write a strong document in defense of the cause we plead. It is a much better effort than is evidenced in his well-intended attempt to defend some of our friends in maintaining the acceptable worship of persons out of the kingdom of God.
The other is written by Elder P. S. Fall, Minister to the church of Christ in Nashville. It has given general satisfaction to the brethren. Its style is chaste, respectful, and dignified, while the matter is sound, and the arguments unanswerable.
As we, however, either have the license to find fault, or we are supposed to be inclined to do so, our brethren must pardon us for a single suggestion. The contest seems to us to be too nearly a drawn battle. Should we prove that baptism, as practiced by us, is as valid as the pope’s, or the “official” baptism of any party, nothing would be gained. We stand on different ground.
We declare that the cause of Christ is opposed to all sectarian forms of religion, and that everything in Romanism and Protestantism that “is peculiar to them” in the style of an editor at St. Louis, in reference to Bro. Campbell, is of the world and unauthorized.
We must not neglect, though, to give it as our decided judgment that these productions of our brethren will exert a good influence. Our chief purpose in these remarks is to call special attention to the starting declarations of the Presbyterian church. Half the controversies of society would cease if people understood each other—if the smoke could be so blown away as to enable combatants to look each other in the eyes.
We wish to pen two items of history under the caption of
“`
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
“OFFICIAL SERVICE.”
- “The validity of the Sacraments, is to be determined not by the personal character of the recipients of them, but from the official standing of the administration thereof.”
- “Nor in any case is the question of the validity of a baptism, to be decided upon the judgment of the applicant, but only upon the judgment of the church court.” – Report of the Transylvania Presbytery.
It cannot offend, to call this official service. This is the official worship performed by the Spaniards, when they discovered America. The savages were hunted down like wild beasts, and “officially baptized into the Romish church.” Its validity did not depend upon “the character of the recipient” or “upon the judgment of the applicant.” So spoke Rome, and so speaks the Presbyterian church. When such men as Dr. Robinson and Robert J. Breckenridge maintain such popish views and practices, we must look to others to teach us in what consists the service of Christians. We hope our readers will think of these Presbyterian records, and show them to their neighbors. We desire the world to see clearly the ground we wish to occupy in religion.
T. F.
PRES. D. R. CAMPBELL & PRES. A. CAMPBELL.
Our readers are perhaps generally aware that the Presidents whose names grace this brief notice, have been anxiously striving for months to arrange preliminaries for a discussion of grave religious questions, involving real or imaginary differences between the Baptists and the Disciples; and as the controversy is about ending in a failure to agree whether it shall be a written or oral, we cannot let the opportunity pass without an expression of our sincere convictions regarding the matter. The obvious results from past developments must be of immense value to the cause we plead.
In the first place, the correspondence presents Duncan R. Campbell, though a man of decided talent and learning, an adroit and uncandid partisan; while it presents Alexander Campbell as a giant still, as a man of superior learning, and of high moral integrity, which cannot fail to command the admiration of all beholders. Duncan R. Campbell’s effort to prove A. Campbell’s contradictions is puerile beyond expression; while his attempt to prove the ridiculousness of our position of requiring positive obedience in order to enter…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
the kingdom, and at the same time, claiming the right of all in, and out of the kingdom, to commune together at the Lord’s table, is positively scandalous. His intimation that many are alarmed at Bro. Campbell’s recent teaching on the subject, is without the shadow of authority in truth.
Whoever heard of any one amongst us, advocating the right of an alien, of one who had not put on Christ in baptism, to approach the Lord’s table? The Apostle said to the saints, and not to the world, “Examine yourselves and so partake.”
Doctor Campbell must also pardon our interference, while we respectfully ask him, after opposing “Baptism for the remission of sins,” to be so kind as to point out any ordinance of the New Testament, for the penitent, believing sinner to perform, in order to forgiveness and adoption into the family of the Lord. We would be pleased to give it to our readers.
Will others of our Baptist friends tell us what it is? If pardon or adoption is promised to the alien on the condition of faith, repentance, mourning, breaking bread or prayer, give us the command, or the example. We are not trifling with the matter; we wish to know, whether we or our friends of some of the respective parties of this country are in error. We desire a full discussion of this matter; and our friends who oppose us, may rest assured we are so confident that we are right, that we will not be particular, as to the mode of examination. We are anxious to test the truth of our teaching. If we are wrong, we have too much at stake to remain quiet.
T. F.
PERSONAL
It is rarely the case we can excuse any one for writing or speaking of himself, yet there are circumstances which make it proper to speak in our own behalf. Rarely, have we felt it necessary to offer a word in reply to any thing that has been said of us, but now we consider it a duty to our brethren and to the cause of God, to notice an impression well calculated to cripple our efforts in doing good, that has been designedly made in reference to things we have written.
We felt constrained some two years since, to call in question what we considered new and dangerous teaching amongst the brethren. We presume no intelligent mind who has examined into matters doubts that there were wrongs in the direction we pointed. Some of the parties, most acutely shifted their ground, and soon began to pull down what they had built up; whilst others, either from ignorance of the facts or…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
with evil intention attacked us by impugning our motives. They have endeavored to convince the brethren that we are ambitious, if not malicious, have become “soured” towards certain writers, and are disposed to ill faith.
We say to our brethren, that we have accomplished all we ever desired of an earthly character; and we ask for no worldly honors. We would have no man’s place on earth. We hold all parties and party leaders in abhorrence. We feel not at liberty to recognize them; and were it in our power to command a faction superior to the pope’s, we wouldn’t feel ourselves dishonored before Heaven.
“An heretic, after the first and second admonition reject.” We do not think that we have cultivated unkindness towards anyone. When wronged by an editor of the Harbinger, and when the editors of that paper refused to let the other side be heard, we thought hard of it—we feel the injustice yet—the injury cannot be repaired—and we never expect to feel otherwise, but we wish to harm no one.
We think we have printed nothing as error that was not subversive of Christianity, and hence certain unsound views we unhesitatingly pronounce as invalid. This charge we will amplify if the parties repudiate. But, as intimated, with the view of rendering our teaching powerless, false motives have been attributed to us.
Brethren, we are not guilty, and we do not intend to tamely submit to things that have been said. No man living occupies a higher place in our affections than Bro. A. Campbell, and there is no man who is a more sincere friend to Bethany College and all that is reliable connected therewith than ourself, but whoever pretends to affirm that the tending of certain parties, connected with that institution, is the doctrine upon which we have labored for more than thirty years, either has not studied the matter, or is not candid.
While then, we ardently wish to live in perfect harmony with all who profess the truth, we cannot see how we can permit writers to say what has been more than insinuated, without holding them responsible at the bar of public opinion. We invite all concerned to be considerate.
We have fearlessly attacked the views of certain men, because we knew what they were, and felt it our duty to expose them. Some of these writers still manifest their waywardness, their speculative tempers, and their determination to render feeble and ineffective all that has been done; and the Lord bringing our helper we hope to stand ready to resist whatever may plainly foreshadow evil.
Still, we bear no malice, and would greatly rejoice, if we were to take the Bible alone, should prove ourselves able to present an unbroken front to the enemy. God surely will enable us to stand.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
137
though some may fall by the way. We wish to offend no one, and we pray for strength to employ the word of the Spirit, as becomes a servant of the Prince of peace. We will publish anything from the brethren written in a Christian or gentlemanly style.
T. F.
THE PRAYER OF SINNERS
“Since you are brethren, why do you wrong one to another.” Acts vii, 26.
BRO. FANNING: Your January number of the Gospel Advocate fell into my hands a short time since, and I have read the principal parts of it over and over again, marking, and endeavoring inwardly to digest and understand your teaching. In that number you have introduced my name in such a connection as makes it my privilege, and, I think, even my duty to address you. Will you, then, permit an old man who has been in the service some forty years, and who trusts he loves the cause of unadulterated Christianity more than life, and who deeply deplores the schisms which humanism have made in the religious world, and who, most of all, deplores any want of unity of feeling and unity of faith among ourselves, even the slightest approximation to schism in our own ranks: will you, I repeat, permit such an one to speak kindly, but plainly to you, regarding some matters in the number of the Gospel Advocate referred to?
I think that you have misapprehended and thus misrepresented me, Brother Milligan and others. They, however, can speak for themselves. You speak of the idea, that a sinner, a penitent sinner, may pray before he is baptized, as a “new discovery” of Prof. Milligan; and you speak of many who have adopted this doctrine, and of brethren in several sections of the country, who are upon the point of serious difficulties in consequence of men preaching the new doctrine upon the subject of prayer, as discovered and set forth by Prof. Milligan.
I am a much older man than you or Prof. Milligan, and I am not aware that this is a new doctrine in Kentucky. I have always believed and taught it, and know of no difference on that question among us. On page 19, you represent Prof. Milligan, as well as the sects, as encouraging sinners “to pray to God for pardon—at the mourner’s bench, in the altar, or in a grove.” You add, “Is Prof. Milligan doing less?” “And are the brethren blameless who are aiding…
138
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
ing and abetting in this outrage against the Lord Jesus Christ?
Again you say, on some page, “To us it really seems 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.” You add, in the same strain, “We most devoutly repudiate the speculations; they have led innocent men astray, and will likely do much more mischief.” This language, we think, besides being unjust, is extremely severe and unkind. We could multiply quotations of the character already made, but these may suffice.
Let me now see if I cannot satisfy you that you have misapprehended us, and therefore misrepresented us; and that there is nothing mischievous whatever in our teachings on this subject; and that of course, all ill feeling should cease, and we should live, and labor, and strive together for the Gospel. Lord, help us!
I will state, first, what we do not believe, and, second, what we do.
- What We Do Not Believe
We do not believe in the sinner’s coming to the anxious bench or the altar, to be prayed for, and to pray for the remission of his sins there. We reject that idea, as constituting the great error of the sects, upon the whole subject of “getting religion,” as if God were unwilling to save sinners, and as involving the whole subject of pardon in mist and doubt; and thus encouraging practices and hopes which constitute the hotbed of religious enthusiasm and fanaticism, and open wide the door for new revelations, such as Shakerism, Mormonism, and even modern Spiritualism. - What We Teach Affirmatively
We think the course pursued by the sects, at camp-meetings, and upon occasions of great excitement, shows an utter ignorance of the simple method of salvation as set forth in the Commission of the Apostles, and illustrated in their execution of it, that their practice in praying for power, for fire, for the Holy Ghost to come down and give the weeping penitents religion and evidence of pardon, is infinitely more analogous to the practice of the worshipers of Baal, than that of the Apostles of Christ in teaching sinners the way of salvation.
But this is enough on the negative.
- The Sinner Must Believe
That the sinner must believe—that without faith it is impossible to please God—that through faith, the sinner receives all his right thoughts and impressions in reference to God, to Christ, himself as a lost sinner, and the way to salvation through Christ; that, in a word, faith is the divinely appointed channel, through which all divine light and life flows into the soul; and hence the importance, everywhere in the scriptures, ascribed to faith. Everything in religion is done by faith, and is consummated, finally, in a glorious triumph over the last.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
139
enemy, which is death, by faith. But it is not faith only, or alone, apart from its fruits, – all works. Hence, we say,
- In the second place, the sinner must so believe, as to see and feel his lost condition, to repent sincerely and heartily of his sins against God, and be disposed to make them, and find it in his heart to enquire what must I do? This is the prayer, this the natural language of a penitent, sensible of his lost condition. I fear, bro. Fanning, that we, as a people, have been so much occupied in the important work of trying to show the sects and sinners the simple terms of pardon, as laid down in the Commission and the Book of Acts, that we have not dwelt sufficiently upon the nature and heinousness of sin, so as properly and fully to arouse the sinner to a sense of his terrible condition. This, by the way,
- In the third place, we teach such sinners to confess with their mouths the faith of their hearts.
- In the fourth place, we teach all such, (the very language of whose hearts, is prayer) not to come to us, not to come to the altar and pray for pardon, but, to arise and be baptized, and wash away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Now, my dear bro. Fanning, what say you to this? Is there anything dangerous here, or insulting to Jehovah? I do not speak authoritatively for bro. Miligan, but I am persuaded he will cordially endorse all I have written. You will agree with me, that we have no right to pray for anything that God has not promised to give us.
Well, then, has he not promised the sinner the pardon of his sins in baptism? May he not, then, arise and be baptized, asking God, in the confidence of faith, to pardon his sins? And if God will not fulfill his promises to his children, only as they ask him in faith to do it, will he fulfill his promises of pardon to the sinner who is baptized without a heart that prompts him to pray, in obedience, for that boon?
Will you, my dear brother, receive this plain letter, that I have written from the fullness of my heart, in the same spirit of kindness in which it is written? I am sure I have intended no offense, but being an old man, I have spoken more freely to you as my junior, and as from the same side of the house with myself, than I would otherwise have done.
I never saw you but once, and that was at Georgdown very many years ago. I have always respected and loved you; and was greatly rejoiced at the stand you took against J. B. Ferguson, and the success with which you lifted the veil which covered from the view of many his infidelity.
Poor Jesse! I once loved him much as a…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
good brother, and rejoiced in his popular and useful talents.
But, alas! He has fallen, and I fear forever! Great beauty in a female,
and great eloquence in a male, without properly balanced minds, are
alike dangerous to the possessors and all who come within the sphere
of their fascinations. May Jesse yet recover himself from the snare of
the devil, is the prayer of the writer. Amen.
My dear bro.: We look to you to sustain the cause of primitive
Christianity in Tennessee, especially. While Presbyterians, Methodists,
Baptists, and all the self-styled “Evangelical Churches of Christ”
are uniting against us, and proclaiming to the world that we are no
Christian people, have no Christian ministers and no Christian ordinances,
let us not strive about words to no profit, but, harmonizing as
we do, in everything vital, let us present an unbroken front against
the allied armies of the sects, and strive together, O, together! for the
truth, for the faith of the gospel—in theory, in spirit, and in practice.
Heaven bless you, my dear brother, and make you a great blessing, is
the fervent prayer of your old brother in Christ.
John Rogers
REPLY TO ELDER JOHN ROGERS’ DEFENCE OF PROF.
MILLIGAN’S DOCTRINES RELATING TO THE PRAYERS OF ALIENS.
We are thankful to Bro. Rogers for all the good feeling manifested
in his communication, and while we dislike to disappoint his expectations,
we have felt constrained to delay, at least for the present, the
publication of his remarks in defence of Prof. Robert Richardson, and
others of like faith. Should we, however, be permitted to speak
through the papers that have given the world essays involving all that
is clear to us on earth, we will take pleasure in submitting to our readers
any respectful articles in defence of Prof. R. and coadjutors, or their
doctrines.
Whilst we desire to treat Bro. R. with all proper respect, we must
say that we consider his disavowal of taking sides, unfortunate. His
amity for Prof. M, to be right, has involved him in the present controversy.
No doubt he thinks he is acting for the best, and possibly he may be;
but upon a further survey of the premises, he may see that he has not
looked carefully over the whole ground. If we are not much mistaken,
we will be able to show that while he is evidently laboring to defend Bro.
Milligan, he is really opposed to…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
141
his teaching. A mere birds-eye view of a few points in Bro. R.’s letter will reveal the whole ground of controversy.
- The charge of “misapprehending and misrepresenting” is of too serious a character for any one to make, without the fullest evidence. We are always prepared to retract the least injustice done to any one, saint or sinner, but we must assure Bro. Rogers, and all whom it may concern, that we run not wildly, recklessly, or madly into controversy with Prof. M., or others. Would to God there were no cause of differences in the world, but the existence of evil places us in perpetual warfare.
There is no place of escape; fight we must; and there is no rest for us. But we must intimate to Bro. Rogers, that owing to the fact that men in high and low places, without offering the shadow of proof, have charged misrepresentation upon us, we not only feel sore on the subject, but we fear we are becoming impatient. Our brother must remember that grave charges, made without sufficient authority, place those who make them in an unenviable position, before God and man.
We have called in question no man’s theory without the maturest deliberation, and we have not been mistaken in the smallest matter. This is no vain boasting, and we respectfully ask our brethren not to add insult to injury, by intimating that we do not understand the position of Prof. R., Prof. M. and others.
When Mr. Russell wrote that “Genius is God’s message to the world,” that all possessed an “Elemental Inspiration,” and talked of “returning to absolute being,” we understood him; and when Prof. Milligan said, “In our present condition, we can, as a church, do but little for the salvation of the world,” we understood him; and when Doctor Richardson wrote that “All attempts to reduce spiritual truths to the forms of the understanding must be futile and derogatory to that divine which addresses itself to our higher spiritual nature—to our self-consciousness as the only auditor of its communications,” we understood him.
We doubted the truth and tendency of this teaching, and we regretted the necessity of employing our pen against it. We felt satisfied as to the delicacy of our position, but we had studied the masters of these writers, knew their views well, had seen a Jesse B. Ferguson fall under their blighting influence, had begged in vain our seniors to examine the matter and check the tide of speculation, and finally we entered our protest against the monster.
We know our ground, have sustained every position, and we say again to Bro. Rogers and others, we are neither mad, ambitious, or dis…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
posed to engage in controversy with our brethren or others. But we must say that after all that has occurred, to charge us of writing we know not what, offends us; and if the brethren desire harmony on the authority of the Gospel, they should desist from their accusations. But a more serious feature of the case is presented in the fact that these speculative writers are flattered by our venerable men—taken to their bosoms, and put forward as models of piety, and as teachers of high authority in the church.
We ask ourselves the question, does such a course indicate a very high standard of morality among us? Have these men repented? Have they repented of the evils they intended to inflict on such a really loved truth? And if not, how can our veterans ignore a wrong with them? We sincerely trust our brethren will not tell us again that we do not understand transcendental infidelity, and we pray them not to charge “misconception and misrepresentation” on us. “These things were not done in a corner.”
Touching what we have called the “new doctrine” announced by Prof. Milligan, Bro. Rogers says, “I have always believed that a sinner may pray before being baptized,” as set forth by Prof. Milligan. If we are not mistaken, we will show that Bro. Rogers contradicts the doctrine; and moreover, that it is impossible to believe it and the Gospel plan, as he sets it forth even in his remarks.
We will notice again the leading of Prof. Milligan. He finds one, as he supposes, “transformed from a blasphemer and a scoffer, into an humble, trembling and acceptable worshipper of the suffering Savior,” without baptism, and this case is held up as evidence that sinners of the nineteenth century can do likewise.
In the same connection, Bro. Milligan says, “It is the only brother left for any sinner and the only state.”
Again, he states, “It was right for Saul 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, before or after his baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
We ardently hope therefore that we shall hear no more of that cold, lifeless, and anti-christian theory, that would not 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.”
Having thus given quite a sufficiency from the Harbinger to show Prof. Milligan’s teachings, and believing that it cannot be misunderstood, that it requires no interpreter, and that it is a plain attack upon something amongst us, which he calls “that cold, lifeless and anti-
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
143
Christian theory, of which he hopes to hear no more, we will examine if this doctrine already endorsed by Bro. Rogers, is identical with his own.
He says, “the sinner must believe, repent sincerely of his sins, and be disposed to forsake them, and find it in his heart to enquire, ‘what must I do?’ This is prayer—this the natural language of the penitent sensible of his lost condition.”
He adds, “we teach all such, not to come to us, not to come to the altar and pray for pardon, but to arise and be baptized and wash away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” If Bro. Rogers really means, he says, to affirm that the “inquiring” what must I do,” is the prayer for which he is contending, we would beg leave to suggest that it was proper for the Pentecostians, Saul, and the jailor to ask such a question, but since God has revealed the plan of salvation, there is no apology for it.
True Stwionr, as Bro. R. has very well set forth, has told sinners to trust in Him with the whole heart, to renounce their sins, and upon a confession of their faith in the name of Christ, to be immersed for the remission of their sins.
But should sinners under the influence of such teaching as Prof. Milligan and Elder John Rogers are enforcing, be turned from this simple statement of the Spirit and led to the altar or into the grove with the exclamation, “Lord, what shall we do?” under the apprehension that it is an authorized prayer, and of course one that God will answer, their mistake and its consequences must be attributed to false directions.
With the book of God before us, such enquiries evince either the greatest ignorance, or extreme impertinence, in the sinner. God has told the world what to do, and no one who has respect for the heavenly message will cast it behind him, and ask for other light. This the sinner has, and should not ask for it. Hence what Bro. Rogers calls prayer, we consider anything but prayer. We cannot speak tenderly on this matter. The authority of our Master is involved.
The Lord has told sinners to believe or they shall be damned, but our venerable brethren teach that they shall pray, “Lord, what must we do?”
In reference to the salvation of Saul, Bro. Rogers quotes the passage “Be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” and asks, “has he not promised the sinner pardon of his sins in baptism?” “If God will not fulfill his promise to his children only if they ask him, will he fulfill his promise of pardon to the sinner who is baptized without a heart that prompts him to pray, in obedience for…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
that boon?” This is not Prof. Milligan’s doctrine that we have called in question. He finds a “mercy seat upon the condition of faith alone and acceptable worship with the unbaptized.” Should Prof. M. now tell us that bro. Rogers’ teaching is just what he meant, it would only serve to show that he is contradictory, and that his writing upon the subject of religion is calculated to produce much confusion among the brethren.
But before we forget it, we wish to remind Bro. Rogers that good critics maintain that the passage “Be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” (while journeying to be baptized,) is equivalent to saying, do this by the authority of the Lord, or in the name of Jesus Christ.
But to conclude the matter. We wish to express our candid conviction, that Bro. Rogers is slightly confused, owing, we believe, to his anxiety to sustain certain parties, and we feel pretty well satisfied, that when he comes to define prayer, we shall not essentially differ. If he means to contend that a believing, penitent sinner should submit to Christ with his whole heart lifted to heaven, and that every act of Christian obedience is to be performed lifting up holy hands, with a devoted soul and even a reverential voice, we do most heartily agree with him.
This is not prayer before baptism, or approaching a mercy seat out of the church of God, as maintained by Prof. Milligan. It may not be improper to say in closing, that in a short interview with Prof. Milligan, at Bethany, two years ago, when we visited the place to beg Tiro. C. to use his influence against what we regarded as most dangerous tendencies, we thought well of him as a man and as a Christian, and we have all the time seriously regretted the necessity of calling attention to his writings.
But he has come from among us as an elder in Israel, and proposes to direct the minds of a great people, as we think, without that accurate information indispensable for such a labor. The sectarian smoke seems yet to obstruct his sight; and we really entertain no unkindness to him, and should he defend the cause of God in opposition to all human institutions, and human speculations, he will find us most cordial in our approval of his cause; but while he puts forth his rickety theories, and we use a pen, we shall feel no mercy for his speculations.
Finally, we would most humbly and respectfully suggest, in answer to Bro. Rogers’ prayer for unity among the brethren, that we may be able to maintain our ground against the boasts of sectarianism; no one is more anxious on the subject than ourselves: We, however, will en-
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
146
Courage no policy in the matter of union, but we are ready to operate and co-operate with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone. We feel that we are an unprofitable servant, have done no more than our duty in any instance, desire no flattery, have nothing that we wish to accomplish of a worldly character, and ask nothing more than simple justice at the hands of men.
We cannot hope for sympathy upon any mutual plan, and pray for no good or bad feelings, but ardently labor for the union of all the sincere through the words of the Apostles, and most assuredly believe that when we stand together on the one foundation, we shall be one in spirit and good feeling, and all the rich blessings and priceless enjoyments of the Christian institution will be ours as the result of our residence on Mount Zion—the City of our God.
—T. F.
CONSULTATION MEETING PROPOSED
Various brethren have written to us urging upon us the necessity of calling upon the churches of Christ, in Tennessee, to hold a meeting of delegates as soon as practicable for the purpose of consulting in regard to more effectually evangelizing the destitute portions of the country.
Bro. John K. Speer, of Spring Grove, Tenn., proposes that the meeting shall commence on the Friday before the second Lord’s day in August and requests that “Bro. Fanning” should designate the place. The time seems appropriate, and would respectfully suggest, Franklin, Tenn., as a suitable place for the first consultation meeting, and should it not suit the brethren of the congregation, we suggest Murfreesboro.
No doubt the disciples at either place will be glad to entertain all who will attend. Will the brethren generally express their wishes on the subject? Let Franklin be the place, till further notice.
It is good for brethren to freely confer with each other. The worst apostasies of Tennessee are the result, at least in part, of a distant, selfish, money-hunting and place-seeking course of conduct. If man could successfully buffet the waves of the world alone, society would not be necessary.
We are all dependent upon each other for our Christian progress, and therefore we should often assemble together for advice, and pray for and with each other. Brethren, shall we have a free response?
—T. FANNING
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED?
With all our faults and failures to attain perfection, we can but believe, the effort of the disciples of this age, is far superior in its achievements to any other that has been made since “The Reformation” of Jesus of Nazareth. It is not presumption to say, we have attained to a perfect measure of truth. We have settled the question as to the perfection of the scriptures. God has blessed us greatly in the work and there are not only warriors in the United States, but throughout the British possessions. Many are rejoicing in the truth.
We should take courage. We stand on a religious platform that fails not to unite all who will take their position upon it. It is not too much to affirm that all Protestant denominations have been more or less leavened by the truth, as preached amongst disciples of Christ, and even the world is looking on with deep anxiety. We must exercise a little more patience in well doing to reap the rich reward awaiting the faithful. Brethren, we have espoused a good cause, and if we but “stick to the old ship of Zion” all will be well.
T. F.
NEW PAPERS
Several publications which promise well to the cause of Christ, have commenced their career since the opening of 1850. Amongst them, we are pleased to mention the following, viz.:
- The Christian Ultion. – This is a weekly paper published at Louisville, Kentucky, at $2 per annum, and is edited by an association of brethren of acknowledged ability. From the numbers we have examined, the writers seem to be earnest and intelligent men, and we hope their efforts to do good will be successful. We presume Bro. Doctor Theodore S. Bell is prominent in the editorial labor.
- The Bible Advocate. – This is a monthly, which commenced its course in 1858, at Jacksonville, Illinois, and is sent to subscribers at $1 per year. The brethren who write seem determined to sustain the honor of the church, and we are happy to find them, so far at least, free from “Mysticism,” “Speculation,” “Modern Spiritualism,” etc. We wish them God speed.
- The Banner of the Faith. – This is Bro. D. Oliphant’s new paper published once in two months, at Brighton, Canada West. The price is $1 per year. There is no man north or south more devoted to the cause of the Saviour than Bro. Oliphant.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
147
“Western Evangelist.”—This is the style of a new monthly issued at Santa Rosa, California, edited by Bro. W. W. Stevenson, formerly of Little Rock, Ark.; assisted by Bro. G. O. Burnett, and Bro. J. N. Pendergast. These brethren evince a strong determination to maintain the honor of the Master’s cause, and seem to be troubled with no dreams or visions, or new light, inward or outward. We welcome them to the corps editorial. There are several other publications of which we have heard but have not seen.
Some of our old papers are doing excellent service. The American Christian Review, at Cincinnati, edited by Bro. B. Franklin, maintains a healthy tone, and so soon as it entirely frees itself from the last and least remains of human policy, it will certainly accomplish much more in the cause of the Redeemer. Bro. F. is an earnest and good man, and his paper we are glad to know is succeeding. The Harbinger, which has done more for the cause than all other papers, is well known. Our space forbids further notices.
T. F.
SECRET SOCIETIES
Bro. Fanning:—Dear Sir:—When I wrote to you in reply to your essay on Secret Societies, I had no idea of getting into any controversy with you or any other individual on that subject, but having often witnessed the bad effect of introducing such subjects into the church, I addressed you as a friend, for your personal benefit, as well as for what I believed to be for the good of Christianity as pleaded by us, and from your private letter to me you seemed to regard what I had written in the true light, but since that time several communications on the same subject have been published in the Advocate, and in the present number it seems I have aroused some nameless individual who, while writing against Secret Societies, has veiled himself in concealing his name, place of residence, and date of communication. The principles of the Masonic Fraternity forbid my getting into any controversy with those that are prejudiced and ignorant in relation to our order—but before I close this, my last communication on this subject, I will barely add that Pidelos reminds me of an anecdote I once heard of a certain Dutch Judge before whom three individuals had been arraigned for the same offense, that of getting drunk; after enquiring of each, upon what they had become intoxicated, he fined the two first…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
the penalty of the law, because they had got drunk upon some kind of liquor he had no fondness for; but the third was acquitted, the learned Judge remarking I does sometimes get drunk on that myself. This brother thinks it a most heinous offense for one to be prejudiced in favor of Secret Societies, but (judging from what he has written) it is altogether lawful or right to be prejudiced against such societies. Further, it is altogether wrong for one Brother who is well informed in relation to a particular subject to advise another brother what course it is best for him to pursue in relation to that matter, but it is altogether right for another brother to give his advice to others on a subject of which he is entirely ignorant, and go so far as to lay down a rule of action for those who have more information on the subject than he has. But after all it is probable that this good brother may be so prejudiced that he cannot see the force of the above remarks.
I look upon this as I do all political questions, such as Slavery, Abolitionism, &c., as calculated to engender strife, rather than Godly edifying, and consequently should be kept out of the pale of discussion in all of our periodicals and churches. If I were so disposed I could give the name of several individuals that had been instrumental in nearly ruining some of our best churches by their indiscreet opposition, not only to Masonic and Odd Fellows, but even Temperance Societies. But should you differ with me in relation to these matters, you will pursue that course your Judgment may approve, and whatever that may be, I pray the Lord it may result in good to the cause of Religion.
Fraternally, Yours,
J. G. CHINN
Lexington, Ky., April 1859.
The author of the essay on Secret Societies in the February No. is Dr. John R. Howard, and in the March No. Dr. T. W. Brents.
T. F.
INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
Richmond, March 21, 1859.
Bro. FANKING: – One thought in your article on “Christian Union,” strikes my mind with much force, and especially one word in that thought, or rather popular opinion, deserves attention. “Protestants adopt the rule that every man has a right to interpret the Bible for himself.” “Right” means ordered or directed. In this
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 149
Republic all men are allowed to think for themselves. If I choose to interpret the Bible none dare hinder—but has our government commanded or directed us thus to act?
No.
Then it is not a civil right, though a privilege. Does the Bible command me to interpret it for myself?
No.
Then it is not a Bible right, and of course, not allowed by God. Right always has reference to commands or law. He who claims a right must show the law for it. Hence until a law can be shown in the Bible authorizing us to interpret it for ourselves, we dare not claim the right.
Again—he who claims a right for sinners praying should not be permitted to dodge the responsibility of showing the law, by saying, “I want no positive enactment,” for in asserting the right the law is asserted.
Then let us have it. Once more. If I interpret the Bible and give a belief differing from that which the words express, I deny the Bible as a revelation from God, and am an infidel. If I “want no positive enactment directing or permitting” anything as “it is wholly unnecessary” and as “it grows out of the very nature of the relationship and obligations of the parties,” I deny the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, and set up an additional rule of the “nature of the relationship and obligations of the parties,” and deny the revelations of the Bible as being necessary.
I. N. J.
Lay on Bro. I. N. J, you are in the right.
T. F.
THE CONFESSION
Bro. Fanning: “An Evangelist,” writing from Lewisburg, Ten., seems anxious to have the manner of taking confessions changed, as he thinks a simple “yes” to the question, “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?” is not in accordance with the practice of the Apostles. In support of his position he refers to the case of Philip and the Eunuch, and argues that because the Eunuch said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” this must be the form of all confessions—forgetting a principle in language that when the proposition is implied in the question, the answer must contain it or when the question expresses the proposition the answer may omit it.
Again, citing from Paul in reference to believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth he asks, “How can the assent of the person to this great proposition or truth, when asked him, with any consistency, be termed his confession?” and answers, “it cannot.”
Now, while we believe that “with the mouth confession is made” and that the Eunuch said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” we…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
beg leave to ask for the proof that this was the formulary uniformly used or required by the Apostles.
“Men and brethren what shall we do?” was the confession on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:37.
“Lord what wilt thou have me to do?” was the confession of Saul, Acts 9:6.
Speaking “with tongues and magnifying God,” was the confession at the house of Cornelius, Acts 10:46.
In this case we use the term confession, for the sake of unity. From these we see that it was sufficient for the Apostles to know that the penitents believed without requiring a certain form of expression.
But let us see whether there are not parallel cases in the scriptures that will give us some light.
Mark 14:61, 62; “Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” “And Jesus said, I am.”
Was not this a confession by Christ that he was the Son of God? According to “An Evangelist’s” position it was not because he omitted the proposition in his answer.
Luke 22:70, 71, “Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.”
How foolish, “they all” were—this was no confession, for the “proposition” was omitted!
John 18:37, “Pilate, therefore, said unto him, Art thou a King then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.”
Hence Christ did not even give Pilate a simple “yes” nor “nod his head,” yet Pilate understood him to say, “I am a king,” by repeating the words to Pilate, and Christ himself said it was to this end he came to “witness unto the truth.”
But “An Evangelist” would tell us it is no “confession”!
Let us be careful lest we imitate the Athenians in striving to “tell or to hear something new.”
Good, very good, Bro. Isaac.
A LAY MEMBER.
T. F.
SPIRITUAL INFLUENCE—BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. No. 1.
There is, perhaps, more error existing in regard to spiritual influence than any other subject pertaining to the Christian religion.
Error on this point is destructive of correct views of Christianity, giving us false ideas of everything that pertains to it. The errors concerning spiritual influence are in a great measure attributable to the want of this.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
151
Criminalization, between the common or converting and sanctifying, and the miraculous influences of the Spirit.
We propose, in a series of articles, to present to the public true scriptural views of spiritual influence, which will not only be useful in themselves, but which will also perhaps prompt to that spirit of inquiry and examination, that will dispel the superstition and error, that now exist in regard to the subject.
The first part of our treatise on spiritual influence will embrace the subject of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Let us appeal to the “law and testimony.” The first passage we shall notice, is found in Matthew iii. 11. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”
Here is foretold an event, which, afterwards, became the subject of promise from Christ to his apostles. In elucidating the subject before us, there are two questions to be answered, viz: when was the promise fulfilled? and, What was the design of this baptism?
When we come to answer the latter, we shall probably show by an examination of texts, that the claims of persons of this, or any other age, since the close of the revelation to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, are false and in the highest degree absurd. If we shall succeed in leading one soul from the ruinous error of disregarding the sacred word of God, and depending on influences of the Spirit to convert and sanctify the soul wholly independent of it, our labor will be amply repaid.
We remarked that the event spoken of by John the Baptist, became the subject of promise from Christ to his disciples. We will now notice some of his promises. The first is found in John xiv. 16, 17. “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,” etc. The promise will be found repeated in this chapter, and in the 15th and 16th chapters also. Our first object is to show when this promise was fulfilled.
In John vii. 39, we are informed that the “Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” We understand from this, and also from the tenor of Christ’s promise that the event would not take place while he was on earth; and not till he should go away, and receive his glorification in heaven by being seated with his Father on his throne. It was when he ascended upon high that he “led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.” In Luke, xxiv. 49, we find the city of Jerusalem designated as the place where he would be…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
stow his promise by our Savior. He says: “Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” Again, in Acts 1:4, 5, we have the promise recorded for the last time, previous to the account of its fulfillment. “And being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem; but wait for the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”
Having now the place and time so clearly designated, we are prepared to witness the fulfillment of this promise. Let us turn to Acts 2:1 chapter. “We are here informed that when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from Heaven as of a rushing, mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire; and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” Here was the fulfillment of the great promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Having now traced this promise to its fulfillment, our next object will be to show the design of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. This will not only show the true scriptural reasons and purposes of this baptism; but will as a consequence, refute the absurd claim to that miraculous gift, which persons of this age set up: and, we hope, tend to lead the mind to rational and scriptural views of this important subject; and from those false views which prompt men to ground their faith and hope on dreams and imaginations of their own mind; and lead them to believe that they have a higher source of information than the sacred word of God, in their own blind and blundering minds by some undefined and undefinable impression of the Spirit, made by physical contact.
In order to do this, we present a proposition which will cover the ground. It is as follows:
The baptism of the Holy Ghost was given for the purposes of inspiring and qualifying the apostles to preach the gospel; to empower them to work miracles to confirm it; and to guide them infallibly in everything which pertains to the establishment of Christianity, and the completion of revelation; and when these things were accomplished, it ceased.
This proposition being true, which we will very clearly prove; what becomes of modern baptisms of the Holy Ghost, so much prayed for by…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
153
Revivalists at camp-meetings, and so often claimed by their converts? And if the proposition be true, where is the authority for people to pray to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire, which we so often hear? Indeed there is no more authority in the scriptures for us to pray for the baptism of the Spirit to effect the conversion of a sinner, than there is to pray for God to convert him with a stroke of lightning; and no more authority to expect it, or pray for it for any purpose, than there is to expect and pray that God will raise the dead.
How long will it be before people will learn to love light rather than darkness, and to distinguish things so plain? Ye have often felt horrified when standing by at camp-meetings and other places, we have heard preachers and people praying to be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire, as though they were promised such things in the scriptures.
To the intelligent observer, who properly understands the teachings and promises of the scriptures, such proceedings appear not only absurd and ridiculous in the extreme, but to border on irreverence and presumption. No true ideas of God’s plan of conversion, or of the true nature of Christianity can ever enlighten the mind of one who entertains such ideas of spiritual influence. You may point such a person a thousand times to the conversion of the three thousand, of the eunuch, and of the Samaritans; but they can see no likeness in any means of conversion, except the manufactured one of prayer at a bench—called “the mourner’s bench”—devised and instituted by man’s ingenuity and authority.
F. M. STRATTON.
KIND WORDS AND GOOD SUGGESTIONS.
Bro. FARNER: Time! how fast it flies. In anticipation of some future good, a few months seem to fly back, but look back, and the occurrences of years ago seem to be of yesterday. My pen scarcely seems to have dried since writing for the Gospel Advocate of 1858, yet the time has arrived to write for 1859. The last volume has been received and read; it has created a desire for more. It gives no quarter to error, no matter how richly decked or how honored by custom. It knows no such thing as “the inner light”—it knows only Jesus Christ, and him crucified—it speaks the truth plainly, earnestly, boldly, and leaves consequences where they should be left, with the consciences of its readers and with its God.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
sickly tastes of distempered fancy – it strives not to bend scripture to conformity with the institutions of men, but it makes the Bible the christian’s chart to life eternal, and endeavors to bend all things to it. With my whole heart I bid you God speed.
Another year is drawing to a close, and well is it with each and all of us who can look back twelve months with a consciousness that every duty has been duly performed. I hope your bosom feels such quietude, as for me I can only say God be merciful to me a sinner. During the past year our number in Wilkinson has increased a little. Some young people determined to throw the influence of their whole lives in the right direction, and some at a green old age have confessed the good Lord.
The congregation, meeting at the Christian Chapel, can look back with a consciousness of having assembled themselves at least eleven times in 1858, and if the roads are not too muddy will, perhaps, meet again tomorrow. Several years ago that congregation had nothing but an old smoky schoolhouse to meet in, and each Lord’s day they met; now they have a neat and pretty little house, and meet when a preacher is at hand, as none of the members feel competent to lead the way in attending to the institutions peculiar to the day. The congregation of today compared to the congregation some years ago, is somewhat as the ladies of today compared with the women of half a century ago. The congregation then was the ornament of the house, now the house is the ornament of the congregation. Some worthy brethren belong to it, their light is hid.
Yours in hope,
J. Baty Chambers
Woodville, Miss., December, 1858.
Pickensville, Ala., Feb. 19th, 1859.
Bro. Fanning: – I am of the opinion the Advocate is accomplishing a great deal of good, notwithstanding it meets with some opposition from certain quarters. It just speaks right out in plain English what it considers to be the truth. No circumlocution about it. And, sir, this is the very style for this age of the world. Men have no taste for reading a book whose preface is longer than the book itself. So it is with pamphlets, and sermons too. The people in some portions of God’s moral vineyard are beginning to get their eyes open to the pernicious influence of big-keyed pamphlets, big-preacher, as well as big-preaching. My dear brother, the last two of these have been,
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
and are still doing the cause of our blessed Lord and Master more hurt than all the enemies combined. Instead of laboring to present the glorious gospel of the Son of God in its own native beauty, glory, grandeur and sublimity, each one seems to be trying to get up some strange arrangement in a sermon, of which the others have never thought. This, and similar methods of procedure among us as a people, will give the people an ear for such preachings, and soon it will be that the plain word of God can neither instruct nor entertain them. When will men learn wisdom, as well as knowledge? But I will trouble you no more at the present with my scribbling.
As ever, yours,
MATT HACKWORTH.
IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT VIEWS
Lower LaFayette, Ark., Jan. 30th, 1859.
Bro. Fanning:—I have just received the January number of the Gospel Advocate, and I find but one objection to it—it is so short that it does not detain me long enough in the reading. I must say in all candor, that I am better pleased with it than any publication I have ever read. It is, at least, free from that mystic theology.
Your strictures on Prayer, and your articles on Church Officers, in the January number, are peculiarly appropriate, and loudly called for in the present state of affairs. Your article on church officers should be widely read, as it must be evident to the careful examiner of the Scriptures, that it is in strict accordance with their teachings.
To this subject my mind has long been attracted; and those views I have been careful to inculcate. The attention of evangelists should be directed to the necessity of placing before the minds of the brethren, definite and scriptural views on the important subject of church government.
There never has been a general and systematic understanding of the points involved in your articles, among the disciples of our age; and certainly nothing tends to impede the prosperity of Zion more than misunderstanding, doubt, and confusion, in regard to the nature and arrangements of her government among her people. A human government, the subjects of which would be in doubt, in regard to the nature of her offices, and the duties devolving on her officers could not subsist except through the natural forbearance, and intrinsic virtues of her subjects. Such, in a great measure, is the con…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Discussion of the Church of God at Present
And while the various parties have been strongly bound together, and powerfully arrayed under their various and unsightly organizations, we have been working almost without system. Why is this? Not because the Scriptures, our rule of faith, do not furnish us with sufficient information, but because that attention which is requisite to the full development of this matter, has not been given it.
Let us strive then to understand, to appreciate, and to put into practice that information which God’s word furnishes in regard to this matter. Let us hear no more of “Elder’s office,” till we can find such a phrase in the Scriptures. We have in the Scriptures the phrase “office of a bishop,” (1 Tim. iii. 1), but nowhere “Elder’s office.” The term elder being placed, as it is, in contradistinction to younger, plainly shows that it has reference to state, condition or quality in regard to age, and not to office.
He, then, who contends for an elder’s office, should admit a younger’s office. And he that contends that elder means office, should inform us in what congregation Peter was an officer, as he speaks of himself as an elder; and whether it was the apostles’ duty to rule in particular congregations or to proclaim the gospel to the world.
Elders by virtue of their qualifications as such, undoubtedly had a right to direct the affairs of the church in reference to the younger. But eldership was something without appointment or ordination; the bishopric was acquired only through that means.
Yours in hope of immortality.
F. M. STRATTON.
SUCCESS OF THE TRUTH
Tarrant Co., Texas, Dec. 15th, 1858.
Dear Bros. Fanning & Lipscomb:
I am happy to inform you that the cause of our blessed Savior is still prospering in this part of our beloved Texas. I have been delivering a series of discourses at Fort Worth, (the present County seat) of this county, during the past week, and on Saturday, at 2 o’clock, I immersed four good sisters upon a profession of their faith in Christ. A good impression is made upon the citizens, and we hope much good will be done in the name of our Lord and Master, for many others are “almost persuaded to become Christians.”
I should have stated that one of those immersed, has hitherto belonged to the Episcopal church, and had been sprinkled, but was not satisfied, and hence desired to put on the Lord by immersion.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
I am now at Birdville, (Monday); delivered two discourses here yesterday (Lord’s day) to attentive listeners.
As ever,
A. M. DEAN.
WASHINGTON, ARK., Dec. 8th, 1858.
Dear Bro. Fanning:
We have just closed one of the most happy meetings at Antioch, Pike Co., that has ever been at that place. There had existed an unfortunate division in the church at that place, which was adjusted satisfactorily to all concerned, and five were immersed. The prospects are very flattering for good to be done in the future, at that place. O, may the brethren live in peace and love! May the Lord bless you in your labor of love.
J. S. ROBERTSON.
Bro. E. D. Moore, of Red River Co., Texas, writes:
“Bro. Fanning: We are not doing much here, yet the churches seem firm. My health for some three or four months has been feeble. When able we devote our strength (as we expect to do the remnant of our days) to the good cause. When we become too old and infirm to go ourselves, we hope our friends will assist us to the assembly of the saints, and while we are able, we will still say ‘little children, love one another.'”
Bro. Berry Moore, of Springfield, Mo., bids us God-speed in our efforts to maintain simplicity of the institution of Heaven. Our brethren about Springfield have ever been our warmest friends. Their list usually has numbered nearly fifty.
REPORTS OF EVANGELISTS
Bro. W. P. Matteson, of Nacogdoches Co., Texas, writes:
“I rejoice to inform you that original Christianity is gaining ground in this country. Under the labors of Bro. Power and myself, upwards of forty have found pardon in obedience.”
Bro. M. Love, of Athens, March 8th, writes:
“Brethren, on my last visit to Georgia, I immersed five noble recruits into the great head of the church, and received two from the Baptist and Methodist.”
Bro. Henry M. Lovelady of Jackson Co., Tenn, writes, Feb. 20th:
“Brethren, I desire to inform you and the brethren that we have had about one hundred fifty additions within the last three or four months. There is much opposition, but if we study faithfully our Bibles, one can chase a thousand and ten put to flight thousands. Let us especially not forget our young brethren and sisters who are taking their stand.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
“on the sure ground, to teach and exhort them to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they have been called.”
SPAVINAW, BENTON Co., ARK., Nov. 27th, 1858.
Bro. FANNING & LIPSCOMB: We have been reading the Gospel Advocate the present year. We find many things in it that are excellent.
I have been preaching for about two and a half years in the Northwest corner of this State, and Southern part of Missouri; and also a portion of my time in the Northern part of the Cherokee nation. I have had about 150 or 200 additions to the good cause in the midst of strong opposition. But the truth is powerful and will prevail. The harvest is truly great, but the laborers few. Eighteen months ago I commenced preaching in the Cherokee nation, in a part where there had never been any Christian teaching, and organized a congregation which now numbers upwards of fifty. The Indians seem much more susceptible of receiving the truth than the people in the States, owing to the fact that they are not so traditionalized; we can teach them the truth in its original simplicity, and they are willing to receive it, and obey it.
Your Brother in Christ,
EDWARD GOODNIGHT.
YELL Co., ARK., Jan 23rd, 1859.
Bro. FANNING & LIPSCOMB: I have received two numbers of your interesting journal, and I am much pleased with it. I preached during the past year in the surrounding counties with some success. My efforts are, however, paralyzed by poverty, and I find that I will have to quit preaching in order to make a support for my family. (Preach along and the Lord will give you houses, land, gold, bread, etc., T. F.) I will try and do something for your paper before the year is out, as I shall perhaps preach considerably during the latter part of the year.
Yours in hope of immortality,
F. H. STRATTON.
WEEKLY MEETINGS
No one can forgo the most distant idea of the value of communing with the saints on the first day of the week, who has not enjoyed this inestimable privilege. We are greatly rejoiced to witness so general anxiety upon the subject amongst the disciples who are in correspondence with us. A very good sister who has not enjoyed this honor, writes from Columbus, “I earnestly wish that I could have the privilege of meeting with Christian people at least on every first day of the week.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
159
“week.”
Will not the brethren determine to aid their wives and others in the Lord’s service.
T. F.
MISSIONARY REPORT
Dear Brethren:
Since I wrote you last, I have attended the Annual Meeting of the churches of Washington Co., Ark, held a protracted meeting at Fort Smith in company with brother Northum, held two protracted meetings in Washington, and continued my regular lectures in my own neighbourhood. The annual meeting was numerously attended and interesting. Some twenty or thirty persons have been added to the churches in Washington during the past year, and the prospect for many more is good. There are about thirty disciples at Fort Smith. Brother Northum teaches school in the city and preaches for the brethren. He is a good preacher and we hope his labors will be productive of much fruit in this important junction of overland California mails. We constituted a small congregation near Christian Mission in August last of ten members. Since that time some more disciples have moved into the neighborhood, so that when we meet we number about twenty.
There is also another congregation of disciples in the Nation about forty miles North of us planted by our brother Goodnight, who has extended his labors of love from Benton Co., Ark into that part of the Nation. I hope to cooperate with him in his good work next spring.
Having raised one crop and placed my family in a condition to live without so much of my own physical labor, I hope to spend much more of my time in preaching the word. Self-sustaining missionaries, like un-endowed Colleges, require untiring industry and rigid economy. But it is more blessed to give than to receive, and we should therefore rejoice for the opportunity of doing good. We have sowed good seed, the words of eternal life, and we still hope for good fruit.
Yours in the one hope,
J. J. TROTT.
Paducah, Ky.
Bro. W. C. Rogers has lately held a meeting here, which resulted in eighteen additions to the congregation. There will be a meeting of representatives of the following churches, at Spring Creek, in Graves County, Ky., on the fourth Lord’s Day in April, for the purpose of uniting their means to send the Gospel to the destitute portions of the county: Spring Creek, Union, Marry, Green Plains, and Antioch.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
The representatives of all the other Churches in Kentucky, west of Tennessee river, will hold a meeting at Clinton, on the first Lord’s day in May, for the same purpose.
J. C. W.
Good Thoughts—P. H. Neilson, of New Market, says: “I have the unspeakable consolation to know that you and your associates are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints.”
Bro. Leonard Robey, of Greenville, Texas, writes—”I will add, I am truly pleased with the Gospel Advocate, and will do yet more to extend its circulation.”
OBITUARIES
Bro. Fanning—I address you on one of the most painful subjects a mother is called to endure in this life—that is the death of our only son—Don Miller. He had just entered upon his third year at the time of his death, which occurred on the 22d of February. This is our second bereavement—our son John W. having died seven years ago in the City of Mexico; but we hope to meet them where parting and grief is felt no more.
Cassy Newland
Whitleyville, Feb. 20.
Brethren—It is my painful duty to announce the death of brother Joseph Roddy, who died on the 12th of February, 1859. He submitted to the Lord only a few days before his death, and it was a matter of deep regret to him that he had neglected obedience so long. He leaves a wife and large family.
Henry W. Loydady
Lamar County, Texas, Feb. 28, 1859.
Bro. Fanning—Dear Sir, it becomes my painful duty to announce to you the death of sister Ellen A. Hooten, wife of brother Dr. E. R. Hooten, and daughter of Daniel B. Bills. She was born Oct. 21, A.D. 1818, embraced the Savior in her twelfth year, was married to Bro. Hooten, June 1, 1831, and departed this life Feb. 4, 1859. From the time she put on the Saviour, until her death, she lived a devoted Christian. She bore her last suffering with patience and resignation, and died in the triumph of a living faith. She leaves a kind husband, ten children, an aged father and mother, and numerous friends to mourn her loss, but they sorrow not as those who have no hope.
J. C. Matthews