THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Editors: F. Fanning, J. D. Lipscomb
Vol. VIII
Nashville, November 13, 1866
Number 46
CHURCH OF CHRIST AND WORLD-POWERS, NO. 34
In resuming the subject of the connection of the Church of Christ with the Church-Powers, we will recapitulate some of the conclusions reached in our former investigations of this subject. We have found in our previous investigations of this relationship, that the institutions of God, with their subjects, have been kept separate from the institutions of man with their subjects. This separation has been maintained and completed in all ages of the world and in every dispensation of God to man. His institutions at all times have been perfect, and fully competent to bestow all the good that God designed upon those who faithfully use His appointments.
To those who fully trust God with the wisdom and sufficiency of His institutions, there can be no reason or desire for any other institutions for their guidance, for their protection or happiness. The institutions and governments of man, one and all, originated in a spirit of dissatisfaction on the part of man, with the institutions and laws of his Maker. They are the outgrowth of man’s rebellion against God, and constitute the embodiment of his efforts to live free from the control of the Great Ruler of the Universe. These institutions constitute, then, the organized rebellion of man against his Maker.
Inasmuch as the evil one is the original instigator of all rebellion against, and opposition to God and His rule over the sons of men, he is the prompter and observer of these organizations and institutions designed to enable him to live and prosper free from the government of his Creator. We have found, in our investigations, these governments of man, so far as their history and character are given by Inspiration, in perpetual hostility to, and conflict with the people who chose to live under God’s government. So far as history, either…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 722
Cursed or profane, shows, they originated with Nimrod, of the accursed family of Ham. In the days of Abraham, the five kings fought against the father of the faithful, and the direst sin that ever overtook the Jewish nation, as God’s people, was an affiliation and association with the kingdoms of human mould, by which they were surrounded. Christ recognized these kingdoms of the world and came to redeem the world from the dominion of the evil one, by the destruction of these kingdoms, and the substitution in their stead, of His own glorious and eternal kingdom. “It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and shall stand forever,” Dan. 2:44.
These kingdoms were in continual hostility to the God of heaven, presenting Him from the cradle to the grave. They sought His life while in the manger of Bethlehem, threw difficulties and obstructions in His pathway through life, and pursued Him while living, falsely swore His life away and nailed Him, “who was holy and harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” to the cursed tree among the companions of thieves and robbers. These surging powers, with the same destructive spirit, pursued His Apostles, through their lives, with stripes and imprisonments, to violent and degraded deaths.
They, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, ever recognized the evil one as the “prince of this world,” as the “ruler of the darkness of this world,” that had nothing in Christ, John xiv: 30. We have found in the history of these governments, in their connection with the government of God, as given by the inspired prophets and apostles, that these earthly governments never came in contact with Divine government, but to persecute or corrupt it. The beasts of the earth helped and carried the beast scarlet-colored woman, the false and corrupt church, but Divine presence never saw the worldly governments aid, help or carry the virtuous woman—the true church. True to the history as foretold by God, these earthly kingdoms have tried to stay the onward progress of the Divine institution, by the javelin, the scaffold, the stake with flames of burning faggots; while these have united to oppress the kingdom which “is not of this world.” The more successful effort has been made, or seducing her, by the manipulation of wealth and worldly power, from fidelity to her Lord. When a portion of that church has been seduced from her fidelity to her true Lord, into an alliance with, and support of, the governments of man, the world power has sustained this corrupted church, but still persecuted and oppressed the faithful church. Thus has it been from the beginning, if the Scriptures be true, so it will be to the end.
We found too, that the first establishment of this world-power was Babylon, as indicative of its character and influence, “which,”—”Babylon,” confusion and strife. In the stages of its development we see its power demanded.
The destruction of this tower of confusion and strife, is foretold in the downfall and destruction of “Babylon,” which heralds the com…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 723
Complete triumph and universal reign of the kingdom of God in unbroken and perpetual peace. “Come out of her my people—that ye be not partakers of her sins, and receive not her plagues.” — Rev. XVIII: 4.
It certainly should require no subtle logical skill to satisfy the true and essential nature of Christ, that he has no part, or joint, nor inheritance in the kingdoms of human minds, over which the wicked one reigns, and which should inspire a spirit toward, and seek to establish and uphold.
Let us be careful, my brother, lest we be found to fight against God. We have found, too, that while God gave to his servants instruction that throughly furnished the man of God unto every good work while he gave rules by which his servant must conduct himself in every relationship of life, it is lawful or even possible for a Christian to enter into the most important and vital relations of human life. Yet, if it is lawful for a Christian to enter into these relations, it is the most important and vital involving the world or worldliness that he is even called to enter.
Why is it then, that we should have outlined directions—plain and specific rules—as to how we should conduct ourselves as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants, and even to the less responsible party to this relationship of civil ruler and subject, while no specific rules are given for our conduct, but not a word, not a hint within the lines of the Bible, as to how a man should conduct himself in the position of ruler or active participant in human government?
Why then, we conclude a Christian may be a husband, a wife, a master, a servant, a Christian, may even sometimes be wronged; he may be a participant in earthly human government, because the Holy Scriptures thoroughly furnish him with direction for his conduct in these relations, but it provides him with a single word for his guidance as ruler and active participant. The Scriptures thoroughly furnish the man of God for all good works. The Scriptures tell where he may be the man of God for the work of establishing, sustaining, and carrying on human government. Therefore, the man of God cannot engage in the work of establishing, sustaining, and carrying on human government. But these institutions, human, political governments, are ordained of God, and the rulers of these governments are God’s ministers.
Therefore, Christians can become active participants in human governments. This is a principle of reasoning that frequently arises like a principle based on this syllogism in the argument of the article based on the assumption that Christians might actively enter into the strife.
Elder Errett, of the Standard, President of Benevolent, with the Northwestern University, and others.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Kench·icl, of the Philanthropist, have put forth the same reasoning as conclusive evidence that Christians may engage in the strife and bloodshed in which human governments frequently involve their subjects. Are the premises true and conclusions correct? If so, Nimrod and Abraham, Phinehas and Moses, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, Paul and Nero, stand precisely upon the same footing as approved and accepted subjects. The letter to the Romans, with most of the other epistles of Paul, were written during the reign of Nero. Of the civil rulers that constitute the ministers of God to which Paul tells his brethren to submit, Nero was the chief and supreme.
To say then that a Christian can be such a minister as here spoken of, is to say that he was a sect in place and character. Who is prepared for this? There is, beyond doubt, either a false premise or reasoning that leads to such a conclusion. The remaining when fully stated in its proper order is this: None but the approved subjects of God are his ministers. Civil rulers are his ministers. Therefore civil rulers are the approved subjects of God. Now, we hesitate not to affirm that the major leading premise is false. Among the conclusions that accompany it are altogether uncertain or ethically wrong. For the proof, Nero, the bloody persecutor of Christians, the man whose history tells us, received no name, but in excuse of the Christians of it, that he might find a pretext for persecuting them, who is said to have expressed the wish that humanity had but one neck, that he might sever it at one blow, and see the death struggle of all the whole race at one glance. Such a monster was not a Christian. But Nero was a minister of God, if Paul’s letters be true.
OFFICIAL SERVICE IN THE CHURCH
Our readers will, perhaps, remember that, a few weeks since we asked Brother B. Franklin, Editor of the American Christian Review, some questions in regard to the church and its officers. In Bro. Franklin’s issue of Oct. 9th, 1861, we responded, but as there has been no point as yet been discussed, it is scarcely necessary to repeat or publish what has been further than may be necessary to present our purpose in the interrogations propounded.
For more than a quarter of a century, we have been satisfied that the brethren generally employ the words office and officers, in a very equivocal and unscriptural sense, to say the least. Furthermore, we are satisfied that by mixing the words office and officers with unscriptural ideas, immense mischief has accrued.
In order that the reader may see what we intend, we will quote from some of our own standard papers, a few passages in which the words office and officers are found. In Brother Franklin’s response to us, he says: “An elder is not an overseer or deacon unless being chosen or elected by the church.” We think there can be no mistake that Bro. Franklin intends to…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
say that an overseer or deacon is made by a choosing or election of the church; or that what he calls officers are made and constituted by an act of the church. But we must say that Bro. Franklin seems to us in this instance, to write without one degree of hesitation, and not with the confidence he would in former years. Still, we know his teaching, and even in this paper, he illustrates what he is pleased to describe as Christian officials by civil officers and officials. He says:
“The office of a Bishop, or any Overseer, is simply the Bishop’s or Overseer’s office, as the office of Clerk or Sheriff is the Clerk’s or Sheriff’s office, or the office of Governor, is the Governor’s office.”
These civil offices are something into which men are initiated by forms of law, by an office administered by one sustained for the purpose. The office can be considered at any time, and the officer’s authority is in the something called an office into which he was installed. This is a clear representation of officials and officers in the world’s thinking.
But on this subject, Bro. W. K. Pendleton, President of Bethany College, and Editor of the Harbinger, is so clear that no one can misunderstand him. In the August number of the Harbinger, Bro. Pendleton has received an article from a Baptist minister, which he has critiqued, but he has made the following notable quotations:
“There is not a single instance of Elder’s being appointed without being placed in the church by the appointing power. Bro. Pendleton adds: ‘There is abundant evidence that the church collected the elders, applied the law and made the decision.’ He continues: ‘The church, collectively, did choose their officers by voting, by lifting up the hands; and secondly, these officers are by authority vested in them by the church distributing power.’ Bro. Pendleton does not tell us whether the deciding by the church is a matter of divine authority or merely a human arrangement.”
This is a pretty clear statement of official authority in the churches. In the last place, the churches make their elders by voting—lifting up the hands; and secondly, these officers are by authority vested in them by the church distributing power.
Bro. Pendleton does not tell us whether the deciding by the church is a matter of divine authority or merely a human arrangement.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
A vote of the majority induces into offices, but with us, it does not matter whether the inauguration is by election or by consecration. We are disposed to conclude that Brethren Franklin and Pendleton are one, at least in their views of official service in the churches, and in reference to the importance of officers, the number of making them, etc., etc.
Now we wish to say to our brethren that we have fairly stated their teachings on the subject, as well as the teachings of the Brethren generally; and we conceal not the fact, that we differ from them in every particular; and our purpose in asking the question, was to elicit discussion of the whole matter of authority in the churches. We not only believe that our brethren are in error, notwithstanding they speak so confidently, but to our mind, their error is of a serious character.
Should our brethren consider the matter of sufficient moment to engage in a friendly and Christian examination of the various points that bear upon it, they will discover that we will hear the negative side of perhaps every question. Still, we will most cheerfully state what we consider the teaching of the Bible in regard to church organization, officers, official acts, and at the proper time, every question that bears upon the subject.
In the first place, we invite our brethren to examine with us the planting of churches, or what is properly called, church organization. We frequently notice in our periodicals, that evangelists visited communities in which they organized churches, meaning that they had officers elected and ordained in these churches. We feel free to say, that we find no such procedure in the New Testament. Without laboring, for the present, have we not become evangelists? The order of God is, that the preachers announce the Gospel, and when the people believe, on a confession of their faith, they are baptized into the body of Christ, and the very moment, after having thus given themselves to God, and given themselves to each other, they constitute, in the proper meaning of the subject, a church of the saints.
It is true, it may be an infant church, but as the new born infant, though feeble and helpless, is as perfectly organized the first moment after its birth as it ever becomes. Each church is scripturally organized the moment it is planted. Hence, on the day the church was planted at Jerusalem, the saved were daily added to it, Acts ii: 47. The members of this first church, “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, in fellowship, in breaking of bread, in prayers and in praising God,” Acts ii: 42, 47.
The members are considered in Scripture, “As lively stones, built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter ii: 5. Again in this verse, the Apostle says: “You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
727
“light.” To our mind, it seems clear that “lively stones,” composing “holy priesthood,” are amply competent to offer all their sacrifices to God. So far as the worship of the church is concerned, all the service is required of the members, as lively stones, Christians and Brethren. We have no authority for claiming that officers are elected for performing any part of the worship. But we may be told by our Brethren Franklin and Pendleton, that rulers must always be appointed. Let us see. The beloved John, guided by an angel, said, “The Lord hath made us kings and priests unto God,” Rev. 1:6. A king is a ruler, an officer, and if Christians are really, by virtue of their royalty, kings, officers, priests, we do not well see how they can be made officers at election and ordination. Again the body of Jesus Christ is represented and illustrated by a natural body of man. Hence, Paul says: “For we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office.” Rom. XII: 4. It appears from this Scripture, that each member of the natural body, perhaps is a woman’s office, and if there is any analogy in the illustration, each member in the body of Christ is, by virtue of his spiritual existence in the church, the office. In other words, we are not prepared to affirm, that some of the members in the church are officers, and others are not, as our brethren teach.
The Apostle again says: “By one spirit we are all baptized into one body, but the body is not one member, but many.” Hence he spoke of the head, the eyes, the ears, the smelling, the feet, the hands, and all that “the members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary,” but concludes the whole subject of organization by stating that “God hath set the members, every one in one body, as it hath pleased him.” 1 Cor. XII: 21. This general statement of Paul’s, I will explain the whole subject concerning the church. God never set the members as it hath pleased him. Are men asked how God has set the members in the body? We answer, that in Acts 20th, 28th, Paul declared that the Holy Spirit made the seniors or elders of the church at Ephesus, the overseers; and by virtue of thus being designated to the work by the Spirit, they were called “To feed the church of God.” This feeding was put, by virtue or authority, vested by an election of ordination, but simply because they were seniors. Again the Apostle said that the “Aged women should teach the young women” (Titus 2, 3, 5), but these aged women are not to teach by authority of any special election or ordination, but because they are Christians of age and experience. Now, our Brethren will please remember this is the divine order. God has set the experienced men, such as Stephen to rule, because they were amongst the first converts, and believers in the cause of the Master, just as all other Christians are required to do.
Of course we should not exhaust the subject in one very brief introduction, but we desire our brethren to see clearly where we stand. We have failed to learn that Elders, Bishops, Deacons, Deaconesses,
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Evangelists or other officers were made or constituted officers in the Apostolic churches by virtue of an election or unification, or both together. If our brethren think the Scriptures teach differently, as we are assured they do, we are ready to hear them. We desire not to boast, but we believe we understand the subject in all its bearings, and we feel confident that the matter can be made plain. If we are right, our highly respected Brethren Franklin and Pendleton are wrong, and if they are in error, the churches taught by them are in great danger. Thus, if we are mistaken, our error is fatal, and hence, our anxiety to hear the best arguments of our ablest Brethren. Give us, therefore, Brethren, one single instance of official service in the church, or of officers constituted by choosing any other act of the body, and we will confess our ignorance of sacred truth.
T. E.
“CAN WE DIVIDE?”
Under the above caption, we are pleased to find an essay from the able pen of our Brother Moses Lard, in his Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 3, which contains conclusions of the greatest importance. We do not, however, refer to the essay because we entirely approve of all that is said, or because we desire to object, but we are glad that the attention of the brethren has been directed to the subject. Still, we do not pretend it is exhausted, or that Brother Lard has said all that he would be pleased to say. We regard it as a fruitful theme, and while we heartily appreciate the main points, there are difficulties that will naturally occur to the investigating mind, that we might do well to give at least a passing notice. The great question of the age, and indeed, of all time, has clearly set before his readers.
How is one, and his teaching is full? There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body, one spirit, and one hope. These seven divinely appointed articles constitute the only legitimate elements of Christianity. It is the right of none to elect, to appoint officers, and still provide for the unity of the church. Not only does Paul say, “There is one body.”
We would be glad to know that all who profess to be followers of Christ were seriously impressed with the doctrine that there is but one family, one kingdom, one household, one general assembly written in Heaven, and all his people are brethren. All, in obedience to the teachings of the one Spirit, have been immersed into the one body, and because we are brethren, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
That it is impossible for this church to think, we, with our Brother, rejoice to know. Hence the notion that the many sects have branched out from the one body is extremely preposterous. These parties are the legitimate daughters of a scientific colored mother, describ…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 720
In the Bible, whose end is destruction. Still, God has people struggling in Babylon, who are earnestly called to come out of her, that they be not partakers of her plagues. It is somewhat singular that most religious people speak in respectful terms of the different religious denominations, sects, or parties, but all cry out vehemently against heresies, not knowing that heresy is but another name for sect, party, or denomination. Wherein has God authorized denominations or parties? Becoming such has been given to a thing. We never dare to say anything called a church, neither did Alexander Campbell. He always repelled the idea of building up a new denomination, sect or party, and it seems to us important to show our contemporaries that our ambition is not to build or advocate a sect or denomination, but to fight in defense of the one body called “the Church.”
If correct in these views, Brother Lard says: “things of extremely doubtful character.” While we do not wish to appear hypocritical, and make fault with Brother Lard, we can but say that we are definitely not important in regard to some matters mentioned by Brother Lard, or the head control.
He speaks on the 3rd page, for example, “0( the denominational spirit in this country.” “Other churches.” It is scarcely known how to account for such expressions from the pen of Brother Lard. Is it the result of misunderstanding, carelessness, or the result of a lack of the spirit of Christ?
We have no cause, no holy, but we have no denomination to defend. If we are not Christians, we are not Christians. We have been bought with a great price, and should therefore glorify God, even in our bodies and spirits, which are His.
While we fully agree with Brother Lard in reference to the impossibility of a division of the body of Christ, it is evident that the present condition of things is not what it should be.
What is religion? Is it the substitution of some other love for Christ’s government? Is it a substitute to create denominations, organizations, or sects that are known in the Scriptures, through which, as substitutes for the churches, to perform religious duties?
We have not the creation of organizations and rules or actions, which their friends…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 730
“Are we authorized by the Bible, frequently grown into ‘anomalous heresy’—apostates?”
We ask, is the following is not an instance of organized apostasy or heresy on a large scale?
In what is improperly called “A Compendious Millennial Harmony,” for Jude, 1st, and on page 274, we have from the pen of Prof. U. L. Lins; one of the editors, the words, viz.: “The evidences from all quarters of our land, and from other lands, demonstrate that the great matter of religious organizations for cooperative efforts, is nearly no longer a doubtful question among us; that it is declared and accepted. The whole matter has been thoroughly sifted, and may now be regarded as settled.” This does not imply that there are no voices of opposition at all. There will always be men opposed to every movement, however titanic and important. There are men in our land even now opposed to common schools.
Where, in the name of Heaven, do they find the audacity to oppose the lowest grade of ignorance, other thousands opposed to religious and secular grounds, to colleges? So in the churches, there is yet opposition to missionary associations and education of the ministry. Can you say opposition to education and the ministry? The law who have been or are persistently and noisily demanding missionary associations, have by their unscientific bitterness, and patience of their attacks, (as the spirit of missionary societies?) Is this union? When naturalists of the causes of their opposition lack knowledge, of all enlightened piety and a true spiritual culture. To attempt to trample such men, is well nigh useless, as it is almost hopeless. Was it a minister of peace who spoke thus?
This is a terrible picture drawn by one who would stand near A. Campbell’s Church. Who are these ignorant, unspiritual, obscurantists, that are opposed to common schools, colleges, and strange organizations, to do something titled the work of Christ? Thus Prof. J. denounces all the believers in the Lord in Canada, Brethren Beattie, Colston, Ash, Oliphant, and thousands of the best people known to us. Thus he calls overharned all the believers of England—Dare I say it!—and the rest, ninety-nine hundredths of the best men and women in the eleven infested states. So that, if we are not mistaken, Prof. J. consigns to the ignominy of ignorance and desolation a large portion of the more talented of the Northern, Middle, and Western States of this great country of ours.
We hold that these matters have never been discussed amongst us. Now let us hear Brother Lard on the subject. He says, on the 33rd page of his Quarterly, that, “The only organizations among us possess a measure of authority. (See our churches.)”
Who is right? Who speaks the truth? Both claim it. If Prof. J. speaks the sentiments of the Brethren, when he claims that “Organizations”—that the churches—are to do the work, the editor of the…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
731
Quarterly has extraordinarily erred. But suppose it should turn out that the editor of the Quarterly, even Brother Moses E. Lard, is not only a member of one of these human organizations that are taking the place of the churches, but is an elder and teacher, in fact, of the movement in Kentucky, which our friends G. W. Elly and T. N. Mitchell proposed shall test our Christian cooperation with us, and suppose that these writers should succeed in driving the human organizations of which Brother Lard speaks, into authority throughout all lands, will not the result be a complete apostasy from the cause of Christ? We hold Brother Lard in no style of our own, for we really do not know positively that he goes the same length with Prof. L., Prof. Elly, T. N. Mitchell, and men of like opinions, but it strikes us as remarkably just what is said by Prof. Lard to be true, the cause that some of us have lost sight of, is well nigh, if not entirely, abandoned. Suppose it is settled that new organizations, sanctified or rectified, are to assume the responsibility in future, and ninety-nine hundredths of the brethren should go into them, will there not be division? Or rather, will there not be apostasy? But we have not got to the bottom of the question yet. When the organizations succeed in the world, will not the churches be lost, forgotten, trampled down, and despised? Will not the Church of Christ be driven into the wilderness by heresies on a larger scale? What was the assumption of Constantine the Great, and his three hundred and eighteen bishops? Suppose they were primarily Christians, when they formed a new organization on their new creed, which they said was taken from the Bible, and was just like the Bible, did they not abandon Christ by separating from such a new organization?
We wish, in plain words, to say to Bro. Lard, and all whom it may concern, that whilst we desire to be as amicable as possible, when he makes such an authoritative recommendation as missionary societies, we give it as our Christian judgment, that his mistake is dangerous! While our brother treats heresies with studied severity, the causes of heresies seem to be treated respectfully. We hope for the best, and yet we fear the worst. As said months ago, we do not desire division from any sectional direction, but if the history of the past eighteen hundred years is to be taken into account, then we can see causes of strife now amongst the disciples that may operate unfavorably to the sacred cause of truth. These may overthrow much that has been done.
We may, when we have more space, very respectfully call Bro. Lard’s attention to his “opinions” concerning zeal amongst Christians, as not being all adequate cause of alienation, separation, etc. We think we love our brethren and the cause of our Master, and with this conviction, we desire to speak plainly, but in the fear of the Lord.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
A HUMILIATING CONFESSION
Bro. Robert Milligan, after years of labor in the Missionary Societies’ State and General, in the Review of October 15th, asks the question, “Cannot our Missionary Societies be placed on a true and Scriptural basis; and the work of redeeming the enslaved millions of our men be carried on more efficiently and harmoniously?” This is an acknowledgment that the societies which he has been laboring to sustain and has relied upon the brotherhood are unscriptural, unscientific, and cannot produce harmony in the work of redeeming mankind.
Bro. Milligan proposes something else; we confess we are not able to understand exactly what. But as he has acknowledged himself to have, for quite a number of years, been advocating unscriptural, inefficient, and unharmonious associations, as he refers to them, we shall naturally distrust his judgment, and ask for some authority for a new one lest it prove to be of the same character as the old one. We apprehend Bro. Milligan will find it difficult to place unscriptural organizations upon a Scriptural basis.
Bro. Franklin, of the Review, responds quite lengthily, from which we extract the following:
“But after writing more to recommend the brethren to them, and give them efficiency, than any other man among us, we were forced to the conclusion that there was no possibility of confining these unscriptural organizations to missionary work; that they opened the way for dangerous and mischievous elements to be thrown in, spreading confusion in every direction; that such confederations were nothing but an open door for seductions, modifications, or change of some sort, disturbing our thoughts, and I would say not only deleterious but injurious. Yes, now. Bro. Franklin has done more to recruit the brethren to these things, and to let them upon the churches of Christ, than any man among us.”
Bro. Franklin urges the adoption of societies that open “the field for dangerous and mischievous elements to be thrown in, and that tend to introduce into themselves,” and in advocating them, denounced in the current year of his advocacy, those who were opposed to such human inventions and devices to God, complete and imperfect appointments in a simple style, indicating things that will scarcely be settled in time, and causing strife among the people of God. We admire the spirit that prompts him to acknowledge the great wrong into which he has misled the brethren, and we suggest that his previous mistake in leading confounding brethren into such mischievous and dangerous courses, “into confederations wrong in themselves,” ought to make him a little modest in proposing other unscriptural organizations. Yet, instead of acknowledging that, or the danger of such institutions, he continues to propose an organization, which we can discern, as unscriptural, unauthorized, entirely human, and embodying all the objectionable and unscriptural features of the “confederation-wrong.”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
738
In itself that opens the way for dangerous and mischievous elements, spreading contention in every direction. “Bro. F., what guarantee can you give us, that in ten or fifteen years from now, you will not tell us that your centralized ‘Evangelistic Committees,’ National, State and District, will not serve as your present Missionary Society.” We see scarcely any change.
Let us give the plan of Bro. F. in his own words, and let our readers judge for themselves:
- We need an Evangelistic Committee and a Financial Agent, who shall do the work now done by the Board and Corresponding Secretary of the General Missionary Society, limited in extent only to the national work.
- We need an Evangelistic Committee and Financial Agent, who shall do the same work now done by the Board and Corresponding Secretary of each State Missionary Society.
- We need a similar Evangelistic Committee in all the districts where we have district societies.
- Churches and individuals could make their contributions to the district committees, designating what portion of their funds shall go to the district, what portion to the State, and what to the National Committees.
- We might, instead of our present business meetings, have one National, one State, and one District meeting at some suitable place in the nation, in each State and each District, for the special lectures, exhortations, and forming organizations. These meetings might be held from place to place for the benefit of different sections.
Now brethren, where is the Papacy in this? Except that it concentrates the power in fewer hands. If that is desirable why not concentrate all power?
Let us go to Rome at once, acknowledge that all of our protests against her assumptions were wrong. That man has the right to dictate and control the institutions of his nation. When we have done this it would be the part of wisdom to seek support within our own ranks, and attempt expedients and devices, for we need not expect to see any human devices in religion surpass those in simplicity, efficacy and maintaining the unity of a human religious organization.
We do not wish to use others’ comparisons or appear querulous, but it seems to us that the brethren, after making such admissions, and then proposing to adopt the same mischievous and harmful principles under another name, is trifling with great and sacred principles, and jeopardizing the highest interest of the Church of Christ. God’s law and God’s appointments, just as he gave them, are sufficient for the ends for which he gave them, or there is no limit to the right of man to change, alter, or abolish them as his wisdom and preference may dictate.
We see too, Brother Benton, of the Herald…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
of Truth, pronounces the plan “eminently Scriptural.” Brethren please show us one precept or example of scripture authorizing such organization, and we will most heartily approve it, otherwise we must admit at least as long as the Missionary societies have been on trial, to see them prove themselves. Brother Franklin, kindly your excellent article, “Thus saith the Lord,” in the same page with this plan of yours, and see what will become of it. Speaking of the time, Brother J. says, “they remind us much as ever, to call for Scripture,” “thus saith the Lord” for everything, and to reject everything for which there is not a “thus saith the Lord.” Again, “nor will they regard anyone as true who does not walk in or sympathize with any name, constitution, law or organization not authorized by the majesty of Heaven and earth.” Brethren, the “thus saith the Lord,” the authority of “the majesty of heaven and earth,” your Evangelistic committees, National, State, and District, with their financial Agents, managing the work of the churches and controlling the accounts of the churches of the Lord, is what we want.
D. L.
VISIT TO THE MISSIONARY MEETING AT HOPKINSVILLE, KY.
During the past summer, and the autumn that has almost closed, we visited several churches in Tennessee and Southern Kentucky, with the view of giving brief reports, but other matters have so occupied our attention, that we really have not found an occasion for gratifying our wishes. We feel, however, that it would be treating the brethren with proper respect, if we were not, at least, to mention the fact, that we spent three or four days most pleasantly with the disciples of our Lord, at their Missionary meeting at Hopkinsville, Ky., in August. With the kindly spirit of the brethren in the meeting, we were much pleased, and we trust the meeting will result in good. Doubtless, they act with the sincerest intentions, but the machinery that they are employing, it occurred to us, was disjointed, awkwardly, unskillfully, and unsuited for the work intended. Our beloved brethren, will bear us kindly, when we say, that it seemed to us, it would be far better than to co-operate as Christians and churches, in doing all their power, without looking to a board at a distance, to choose their Missionaries, prescribe the wages of each and give them special directions.
The Brethren generally, and representatives of the churches also, listened most courteously to our objections to their machinery, and we doubt not for a moment, that the time will come, when the saints in all lands, will be one in teaching and practice, in conducting the affairs of the kingdom of our Savior. Jesus prayed, that all might be one, who believe through the Apostle’s word, and his prayer the Father tenderly rejected. Barnest devotion to the cause of God, will enable all the saints to walk together in love.
T. F.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
735
FAVORABLE INDICATIONS
We have just returned from a brief visit to the congregations at Silver Springs, Lebanon and Benu in the county of Wilson, Tennessee, and Hartsville and Union, in Sumner county, and we rejoice in saying that we found the brethren, almost universally, fully alive to their responsibilities, and the people everywhere heard the truth with deep interest. Very large audiences, at every point save one, were in attendance, and we think we cannot be mistaken in suggesting that the indications are most favorable. The large and popular interests that have heretofore rivaled the religious mind seem to have lost much of their power. The revival spirit throughout the land, moving both men and women, has long held undivided sway over the hearts of our countrymen, and we should not forget to “speak the truth in the love of it.” Brother Isaac Sewell, who, we believe, is the most constant laborer in Wilson, has done and is doing, good service in the Master’s cause. He loves and speaks the truth, and from all we can learn, he relies on it. For success, without making unnecessary war upon believers who are fast destroying themselves and their cause, the darkness is best dispelled by letting “the true light shine in all the dark recesses of the land.”
We should do our work well, and “wait till Jesus comes. And we’ll be gathered home.”
— T. F.
OUR SCHOOL PROSPECTS
We are happy to inform our readers that the prospects of our contemplated literary institution are brightening every day. In the county of Wilson the friends of the enterprise, as we could see them, nobly responded to the proposition made in the first number, to endow teachers’ chairs. Six of them, and one of the six, a member of the church, became responsible for eight thousand dollars, and others did their duty cheerfully. We expect to see many more in Wilson who we are assured will cooperate in this noble work. Indeed, we feel an unyielding confidence that not only the brethren, but many of our fellow citizens without, so soon as they become acquainted with our purposes, will most cordially cooperate with us. As soon as we can offer five independent professorships to any good section of the country, we feel assured that ladies and gentlemen will be furnished successfully.
It will be borne in mind that we are resolved, first of all, to educate hundreds of our destitute youth without charge. We have a number of plans in the country, the aim for us establishing such an institution, and by the exercise of a little patience in making known our plans, this great work can be accomplished. Our hope is to secure, in short time, two or three plain, practical agents in the field. Most of our time we expect to devote to this enterprise.
We shall not go amongst our people as a beggar, but to open up a way rendering good in the church. We, and all we have, are the Lord’s.
— T. F.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Franklin, Mo., Oct. 11, 1866.
Dear Lepard:
I send you to-day, by express, funds for the relief of suffering disciples in the South. I have noticed for some little time the appeals made through the Advocate and A. C. Review, but have not until the last few days felt it my duty to do anything.
The source of this contribution is Bro. H. W. Longan, who has been in the work, and now sends you what we have been able to collect. This contribution is not, in any sense, a relief offering.
Background:
- I began the work, and now send you what we have been able to collect. This contribution is not, in any sense, a relief offering.
- The brethren of the old church on the Campbell field were among the best, and most liberal contributors.
We trust the disbursement of our little offering will be satisfactory. I will only say, that many years ago, I met with that delightful brother, Ephraim A. Smith, of Kentucky, whose accounts in the Harbinger of the disciples at Georgetown, and elsewhere, I have not time to repeat.
Though I never saw his face, I have cherished a very high regard for Bro. H. W. Longan ever since. If Bro. H. W. Longan’s wants have not been supplied, there can be no more satisfactory direction given to that fund than to appropriate it to him, therefore.
Financial Contributions:
- Seventy-two dollars and fifty cents ($72.50) were contributed by brethren and friends at Mt. Zion, Johnson County;
- Liberty two dollars ($2.00) at Windom, Henry County;
- And the remainder, $68.50, at this place.
Please acknowledge the receipt in the Advocate giving the amounts raised at each place.
Your Bro. in Christ,
H. W. LONGAN.
We take the liberty of publishing the following, understanding it was marked “not for publication.” Our brother Longan, I feel confident, will receive it, when we explain our object.
In this place, many are apt to conclude that those who call for help are only the indolent and unworthy men of the South, who now want something, and whose courses have been such as not to command the respect of the healthy public.
Bro. Longan’s reference to the character of Bro. H. W. Longan, as he learned it long years ago, from Bro. Smith, is evidence of the contrary to those who will take a moment to reflect.
We wish to record the facts for our brethren South, that this offering is no political one—no sectional one, but one of pure Christian fellowship. We wish all to be so regarded, in both the giving and receiving.
We have never inquired into the political antecedents or sympathies of a single individual, either in soliciting or sending to him help. Bro. H. W. Longan, Bro. Smith, Bro. Dunn, Bro. Ussery, and Bro. Bacon of the other brethren who have accepted assistance, have had characters above reproach for many years. The younger ones, whom it is our duty to help, are equally deserving. They have characters above reproach, and their labors give good accounts of them, as devoted and excellent Evangelists.
We have received ten dollars from Snell’s Mills, Mo., which has been appropriated as directed.
D. L.