THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOMB, EDITORS.

VOL. IV.
NASHVILLE, OCTOBER, 1858.
NO. 10.

CHURCH OFFICERS.-No. 1.

The subject of officers in the churches of Christ has been a matter of the deepest interest for many years, and notwithstanding the many able essays that have been written, the light is yet but dim. Why is this? Is the subject obscure, or even “hard to be understood?” Or has the failure to arrive at the truth arisen from veiling the eyes at the very threshold of the investigation?

Mystery Babylon, the mother of most human expedients, regards an office as a kind of sinecure—an honor without service—as something that can be held by the worst of men without invalidating it. The idea is that there is something in the church called office, that may be conferred, transferred, sold, purchased, or employed, as a man does his cattle, or other available means.

Romanists are free to admit that there have been Popes who were unpardonably bad men, yet they contend that the office of Pope in their hands was not in the least impaired. The abandoned Joseph Smith, Jr., of Mormon memory, expressed to his deluded followers great astonishment that the Almighty should have installed so profane, drunken, and fleshly a creature as himself into the office of law-giver, prophet, and priest of God. This extreme insolence was borrowed, and is easily traced to Rome. This phantom misnamed office, in the various denominations, possesses a charm of inexpressible surprise.

All that men have will they freely give for an empty sound, and especially if they…

290

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

can have their brows encircled with imposing insignia. Hence the idea in all the parties of official worship, that virtue is given to the ordinances alone by virtue of the official dignity of whoever performs it. It has not been many years since we heard a learned Episcopal clergyman insist, in an exhortation to a dying man, that all his episcopal offices had regularly descended to him from the Apostles, there would be special virtue in administering what he called the “sacrament of the Lord’s supper,” before his demise.

This was promising salvation by virtue of office alone. But this is the very quintessence of Roman assumption. The most abandoned larrikins, gamblers and whoremongers in that ancient body, profess the power of forgiving sins, and granting seats in the eternal mansions, solely from official power. Who has not witnessed the degrading service in early religions, of men whose only worth was constituted in their “Reverend” titles, and what neither depended upon their personal worth or their labors as Christians.

Even among us, who profess to take the Bible alone as our religious creed and government, much of the same official worship prevails. Hence we hear writers speak of “routes of office,” “installed into office,” “conferring office,” “authority of office,” “dignity of office,” “perquisites of office,” etc., etc. It has been but a few years since we heard an “official elder,” in Tennessee, in a discussion regarding the policy of the church of which he was a member when he could not carry his point by argument, assert that he was “an officer, and that he would exercise the authority of his office like a man.”

It has not been long since a colored brother approached me with grief and bitter complaining, that the elder’s office which he had held for years, had been snatched from him by the election of another, and he refused to be considered because his official authority had been ruthlessly turned from his brow by votes.

We often hear of claims to office, of ordaining to office everywhere, and there seems a general admission that all rights, surely, as in the discontinuous, must be taken by the church.

Doubtless this is the cause of so much strife to set positions among preachers, and thus men learn to call an assembly of church members, brethren, sisters, and children, white, black, and mixed, to elect men to take certain positions in the body and initiate them into what they call the offices of the church.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 291

But equally objectionable is the practice of preachers traveling over the country to organize churches in their style, by holding elections and ordaining old men, boys, new converts, married and unmarried men, and whomsoever they fancy, to something they denominate the elder’s and deacon’s office. Such appointments are always fancy work, and to the best of our recollection, we never knew such an “organization” that did not result in serious injury to the cause. The reason is obvious.

Men are not usually consecrated on this plan because of their previous labor, but frequently those elected and ordained never read a chapter before their families, returned thanks at their own or other’s table, prayed in public, or did any service further than to confess, submit to baptism and receive the hand of fellowship. It has indeed been but a few years since, in the vicinity, these extravagant modes of office were placed upon a gentleman of our acquaintance who did not even profess to be a member of the church.

But the public was, as it is regarded in England as well as in this country, a commodity of trade which could be conferred upon any one whose electioneering tact might enable to gain the casting vote of perhaps some servant girl, and his office is made sure as well as his living.

We admit this is somewhat the idea of obtaining worldly offices, but we do most solemnly protest against all that is conferred and imposed offices in the church of God. To our mind the whole idea of scriptural officers has become almost dim, and in most sections it has certainly been lost. To be plain and candid, we are not willing to admit there is any reference in the New Testament that such an office may be conferred, given by imposition of hands, or otherwise, or taken away at the pleasure of men in high or low positions in the church.

Yet we have the word “officer” in the Christian scriptures, and it is our purpose in this paper to give, if possible, in the plainest possible manner, the meaning as communicated by the good spirit. It may be well to repeat, that the official of the New Testament partakes not of the nature of civil offices, and we are not sure but the attempt to comprehend their import by worldly offices is the cause of much confusion, contradiction and most pernicious falsehood.

The office of squire, captain, major, colonel, or even general may, for instance, exist, in the absence of all official labor. The nature seems to be a privilege, honor, or authority, imparted or granted, that depends upon really nothing in the subject. We confidently believe that there are no offices in the church of Christ of this character.

We moreover declare that we are not satisfied that an election or ordination, or both combined, ever conferred a New Testament office. We repeat, such measures, such empty sounds, are unknown in the Bible.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

But the question is, how shall we arrive at the truth on this question? We need utter no opinion, it would be of no value. If we have no plain teaching of the spirit on the subject, then all is worse than midnight darkness. We are encouraged, however, to open the Divine volume for light.

The word which the New Testament expresses simply and alone, the particular labor of the various members of the body. It is translated from four different Greek words.

Paul says, “I am an Apostle to the Gentiles. I magnify my office.” (Rom. 11:13). The word in this passage is Diakonia, which means service, labor, employment, work, as will be apparent by its use in a few other places.
Luke 10:40. “But Martha was cumbered with much serving.” Her domestic labor constituted her office, as Paul’s labor amongst the Gentiles was his work or office. (Rom. 12:7). “Or ministry, let him wait on his ministering.” (Rev. 2:19). “I know thy works and charity and service.” (1 Cor. 12:5). There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. From these scriptures we not only learn that each disciple’s religious occupation is his office, but also that the word office was predicated of Paul, and should be of all Christians who really labor in the Lord’s vineyard.

It may be in keeping with our general purpose to say that when Paul speaks of “the office of deacon” (1 Tim. 3:10), he employs the verb diakoneo, which should be translated, “The service of ministering to the wants of the needy.”

In 1 Tim. 1:4, Paul says, “As we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office.” The word here is praxis, meaning work. He adds, “For we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” In this passage we see that the functions of the different members of one individual body are not offices—that each has its office—and if there is likeness in the Apostle’s illustration, the members of the one body of Christ, each has his particular office to honor. If all Christians are kings and priests, we cannot see why all are not officers.
1 Tim. 3:1. “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” The word is Episkopee, and denotes visiting or overlooking. It is found in three other passages in the Greek Testament.
Luke 19:44, reads, “Thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.” Visitation of the Lord to the needy.
1 Pet. 2:12. “They may, by your good works, which they shall…”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 203

“School, glorify God in the day of visitation.” In the day of his special overlooking favor or regard to a lost world.
G. Acts, 1, 20. “His bishopric (work of visitation, overlooking) office, let another take—undoubtedly.”

7. The Fourth Word Translated Office in Ephesians

Paul says, “They that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of priesthood.” The literal reading is “Receiving the commandment of the priest’s service.” We do not regard this word as differing essentially in meaning from the others employed, but still it is applied alone to the Jewish office, and when Christian offices are endorsed words are used whose meaning can but be understood. This matter, however, we wish to present from another point of view.

It will be remembered that our position is, that “they, in the body of Christ consists not in a commission, whether from the Pope, a college of Bishops, evangelists, or a church, but is a work expressing the labor of each disciple, and is taken from the labor really performed, and not from any election, ordination, purchase of money, or present, as in Rome or England.”

A few examples will fully illustrate our idea of office in the highest and only Christian sense:

The word God is not arbitrary, but denotes good, and conveys the idea of all perfection. The Savior asked, “Why callest thou me good; there is none good but one, that is God.” It is true our Savior was entitled to the name God by inheritance, but the word is expressive of all the infinite perfections of our Father in heaven. This title conferred expresses nothing, and can have no meaning when applied to any other being in the universe, save the Father. Human earthwards have decreed the Pope to be “Lord God the Father,” but it amounts not to put such a frail, sinful worm of earth. God is, and there is not another.
The word Jesus is not a title of honor, but said the angel, “He shall be called Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” The word applied to any but the Savior, would be a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
John, the Baptist, is John—in English—the immerser, sprinkler, or pourer, if the word expresses either action. He immersed the Jews, and it might have been said they were the immersed of John, but to call them on account of this act being performed by John or others, immersers, sprinklers or pourers, is the very extreme of folly.

The baptisms—if the word is English—are Baptisms. If their labor is…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

to immerse, as was John, they are really and in truth immersers.
With such a view no one is deceived.

The twelve were called Apostles because they were sent by the seniors, and Paul and Barnabas were called apostles (Acts 14, 14); in consequence of having been sent from the church at Antioch.
There were men called angels or messengers of churches, because it was their business to take messages from their respective churches to the needy, and especially the message of life to the poor. But to speak of a man being a messenger who goes nowhere and does nothing to entitle him to the designation, is certainly most inappropriate.
The word “disciple” denotes a pupil—one taught and instructed by another. Thus we have disciples of Plato, Kant, Cousin, etc., and we can very readily conclude the meaning of a disciple of Christ. Men and women cannot be directed to this honor, and it is not in the power of God or men to confer this distinction. It is, in strictness, the natural result of one’s own conduct, and all the powers that be can neither make nor unmake us disciples.
The name Christian has been the subject of warm controversy for more than a quarter of a century among us. The point in debate has not involved the meaning of the name, but has reference to the manner in which it came into use. President Campbell, for instance, has long maintained that, although it is the most appropriate name, it was given by the enemies of Christianity. Others say that it was conferred by Paul and Barnabas. Is it not infallibly certain that it is a title which was never given, granted, or conferred, either by Christians or infidels, but had its origin in the very nature of things? The followers of Christ could but be Christians, and so soon as the fact of believing was acknowledged, the name exclusively of the life was sung by both friends and enemies. King Agrippa said, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” but Paul and Barnabas first called the disciples Christians in Antioch (Acts 11, 26).
The language and the fact do not imply that Paul and Barnabas conferred or gave the title Christian to the disciples, but as the only proper designation growing out of the profession and life of the disciples, these servants of God expressed the whole truth with regard to their name. Hence, as was said of the Son of God, the name is one by inheritance.
We are not followers of our respected Bro. Campbell, and were not baptized in his name; it is an insult to our Master as well as to us, and also a very gross blunder to name us “Campbellites.” Sacred designations must spring from facts and character, and hence the effect.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

295

SECRET SOCIETIES

If we are not naturally disposed to oppose whatever is not ours, and whatever is out of our reach, we are often anxious to find motes in our brother’s eyes, although beams may be in our own. Foot travelers despise such as ride in carriages, because they are deprived of the luxury themselves; persons in poor apparel sneer at the well-dressed from envy; the poor contemn the rich the world over, because wealth is beyond their grasp; the foolish hate the wise on similar grounds; good men are disliked by the vicious, and even righteous institutions are often condemned in consequence of ignorance regarding them.

Yet there are proper grounds of opposition to many even popular institutions, as well as to the conduct of men who travel in different directions from ourselves. We have had occasion several times in our life to refer to secret institutions, and we have found their friends always unyielding, and the usual reply is, that we know nothing of them, and have no right to speak. We wish to say in the most respectful terms that we consider it our privilege and duty to examine impartially and thoroughly every society claiming the attention of our fellow-citizens, and particularly such institutions as occupy the talents, time and energy of the brethren.

Frequently church members give more of their money, time and influence to human institutions than to the church of God. We think we are not prejudiced against any association, and we are sure our feelings are kind to all. The Christian religion was revealed to the world in the midst of all influences, and proved adequate to relieve all who would adhere strictly to its requirements.

Though it is not our present purpose to enter into an argument regarding human societies to denounce the affairs of the kingdom of heaven, or the various secret associations employed by men of the world and Christians formed into a closely united brotherhood, to do whatever may seem best in their own eyes; but we design merely to intimate their bearing with care, caution and sincerity.

So far as men of the world are concerned, we have but a single remark to make. We should feel…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Disposed to urge our contemporaries with all the energy of our soul, to take advantage of the institution of Free Masonry, Odd Fellowship, etc., it has seemed to us that when our friends of the world engage seriously in such organizations, it is too often concluded that they contain all that is necessary to form the best state of society, and hence the religion of the Bible is treated lightly.

We are more than free to say that in the secret societies of the age there is much to command our respect, and it was said by a celebrated preacher of the north a few years past, that the benevolent institutions of the times were doing more for the human family than the churches.

We assert nothing regarding such conclusions. The statement may be authorized, and yet there may be substantial reasons for dispensing with all human organizations, secret and open, for moral enactment.

Whilst, however, we cheerfully admit good principles in all the secret societies of which we have knowledge, we give it as our most mature conviction that there is not a single valuable idea, rule or practice in one of them, that was not borrowed from the scriptures. There is nothing original in them; “there is nothing new under the sun.”

In reference to Christians, we feel free to offer a thought or two in stronger terms. The church of God seems to us the only institution worthy to engross our talents, zeal, money and influence. Moreover, when we advocate righteousness by the authority of the church, the honor is all to God and His cause; but when we plead for temperance or benevolence by the means of institutions founded in the wisdom of men, we take the honor from our Heavenly Father and give it to sinful men.

Furthermore, if we are not very much mistaken, when church members and particularly preachers embark in these secret institutions, their zeal for God abates, their hearts are captivated by their new relations, and not unfrequently such preachers soon evince a surprising preference for the worldly societies.

We beg leave to suggest the following conclusions:

We are satisfied no Christian man is placed by human wisdom in circumstances so favorable for honoring the Lord and benefiting the world, or becoming better, as the church is capable of doing.
We are satisfied all Christian men connected with these moral societies, do in fact by their connection, detract from the dignity and authority of the church of Christ.
Our observations have led us to conclude that entering into any secret society, even under the profession of the best intentions, is the first step in apostasy from the Christian religion.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

297

We regard it the duty of members of secret organizations upon their conversion to Christ, to avail themselves of the very earliest opportunity to give their decided preferences to the church of the Lord.
It seems to us a question of doubt whether Christian under any pretense whatever, should permit themselves, or whether their brethren should permit them to join any such denominational associations. They may be of some service to the world, but can be of no service to Christianity. Such, at least, are some of our views on the subject, respectfully submitted to the thoughtful.
T. F.

RESPONSIBILITY

The foundation of all excellence in this life is responsibility. Considered even in reference to earthly matters, this is true. No person ever acted worthily, nobly or effectively in things that pertain to this life, without a deep sense of responsibility. No achievement ever yet deserved the name great, that did not have its origin deep in an abiding and earnest conviction of responsibility resting upon the individual.

Nothing so marks the differences amongst men in all stages in life as this single key. Those with some life have no antics, no earnest realization, but is a mere time of pleasure to be squandered in idleness, while with others every day has a reality, every hour its duty, and the lifetime itself is invested with the heroism of deep, lasting responsibility.

All ages are marked by this distinction. In youth it is most clearly apparent. The child upon whose ruin there has been no impression of responsibility, no stamp of usefulness and worth grows to manhood destitute of all care, utterly dependent upon others; reckless and unworthy; while the child upon whose earliest perceptions are made the impress of responsibility to parents, and the conviction that all around are not mere slaves, will soon become self-reliant, conscious of a strength of its own that brooks not the little difficulties that oppose it in life, and early attains to an estate of manliness and uprightness that is worth to it more than the wealth of the Indies.

But especially in Christianity is the effect of responsibility most marked. Multitudes profess to be servants of God, but small indeed is the number of those who ever rise to a consciousness of the real responsibilities of a Christian life. Few indeed ever feel that they are responsible to God for all they do in this life. Few indeed ever regard…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

The obligations of Christian profession as of real, living importance. Few indeed ever reach that position that they cannot for any earthly consideration be led to transgress wilfully the commands of the Almighty. With how large a multitude is the profession a mere feeling, leading at one time probably to what would appear to be most active and efficient service, but oftener permitting us to neglect all the duties and requirements of the Gospel without the least compunction, rendering us the merest dupes of chance, the veriest slaves of the ever-varying phases of passion. Under such influences life is devoid of all purpose, all efficiency whatever for anything worthy or good. The creatures of such influences at best scarcely deserve a rank among the beings whom God intended to honor and glorify His name on earth. He alone is a nobleman in the Kingdom of our Lord who has risen to a proper conception of his responsibilities to his Maker, and acts worthily of that responsibility.

He alone is an honor to his Creator whose mind is filled with the thought that above all the fleeting, perishing concerns of this life, there rests upon him responsibility to the God and Sovereign of the universe. This thought ennobles, elevates man, and raises him to a position the most exalted and God-like on this earth. Deprive him of this thought, and he sinks to the state of the worst servility, a servility to change, to ignorance and to passion. Shall we not then endeavor to impress upon our hearts the great thought of our responsibility, that we may be wise, just and upright before our God?

W. L.

ELDERS, BISHOPS, SALARIES, ETC.

Dear Bros:—In vol. 4, and 7, of the Gospel Advocate I see an essay over the signature of O. D. Williams, together with your reply thereto, about which I wish, by your permission, to make a few remarks, but I do not wish to be understood as endorsing all of the views of Bro. Williams.

In your reply you say “that there is not a syllable in the Bible about making elders,” or “evangelists investing them with the robes of office,” or even the “elder’s office.” And you challenge the brethren to the proof. This I think is easily found. In Acts xiv. 23, we read, “when they (alluding to Barnabas and Paul) had ordained their elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, &c.” Here elders were made by Barnabas and Paul. (They were elders before they were ordained. T. F.) and here Barnabas and Paul invested these elders…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

299

with office. Paul said to Timothy if any man desireth the office of a bishop he desireth a good work. 1st Tim. iii. 1. (The office noticed is called the good work. Bishops are officers, overseers, but elders are old men. T. F.)

Paul said to Titus: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city.” Here Titus was directed to make elders, (You add to the Word. It does not read, make elders. T. F.) and he was an evangelist, (Titus i, 5.) and in verse 6 and 7 Paul shows that elder and bishop are synonymous terms, either means the same thing. (A judge is a lawyer, but not every lawyer is a judge. T. F.) Here then is shown the elders’ office.

You say that the “spirit of God points out elders which is quite different from selecting them by popular vote.” I think that they should be selected by the congregation, (Where is the authority. T. F.) but not by differing different candidates, and voting for each one to ascertain which one gets the majority, for in the church of Christ there is neither majority nor minority, the whole church must meet together as one man.

As to the selecting elders by the church I see no direct proof, but I think it sufficiently sustained by analogy, because the Lord has ordained this principle throughout the world; when the children of Israel were greatly multiplied Moses was unable to try all their matters of dispute, and the people chose other judges, and Moses ordained them to decide all the small cases. Deut. i, and from 6th to 17th verses.

2nd, In the days of apostles when the number of the disciples were multiplied the disciples chose seven men as deacons, and the apostles ordained them to attend to certain duties. Acts vi. 1st to 13th verse.

Again, when the number of churches had also multiplied by the apostles they ordained them elders in every church to oversee them, and then they commended them to the Lord. Acts xiv. 23 and 24. Again, there arose a dispute among the brethren about circumcision, whereupon the apostles, elders, (31:1. T. F.) and all the church of Jerusalem came together to consider of this matter, and after there had been much disputing James made a proposition to which they all agreed. Acts xv. 1 and verse 22 says, “then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church to send chosen men,” &c.

In those cases men were chosen to do the Lord’s business by the congregation, and ordained by the Lord’s ministers, we believe in like manner that the apostolic church chose their elders, and Paul and Barnabas and Titus ordained them. And we notice that everywhere and at all times when the church acted all were

300

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Pleased, they all moved together as did the apostles, the elders, and the whole church at Jerusalem when they came together about circumcision.

In like manner let men be nominated in the church (such as the Holy Spirit points out) for elders who will please the whole church and the evangelist too, and then let them be ordained, as was Paul and Barnabas to preach to the Gentiles.

You have long opposed hireling preachers, and Paul said in his epistle to the Thessalonians, “happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” (Rom. xi, 22). And Nathan said to David, “thou art the man.” (2nd Sam. xii, 7).

You preach through the press for the hire of one dollar per year from each one who subscribes for the Gospel Advocate. This I think all right, and I think it right for a preacher to labor and preach for such hire as the people are willing to give him. Paul was a hireling preacher, and he says to the Corinthian brethren, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do your service.” (2nd Cor. xi, 8). Paul also said to the Corinthians, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” (1st Cor. ix, 14).

Your position as I understand it, is this: the old men in each congregation should be their pastors. That every congregation should have more than one pastor. That the old men of the congregation are the Lord’s only pastors, and that the pastors should not be elected.

Bro. Williams is in this, that old men or young men may be the pastors of a congregation. That a church may have but one pastor. That the old men from the nature of their calling are the only permanent pastors, and that other things being equal, the more suitable ones.

From these premises you can come to the conclusion that Bro. Williams has “abandoned all,” and hence there seems to be no ground of controversy, and that “he has admitted all you make.”

It seems to me that Bro. Williams has not abandoned one single point in his position, and it further seems to me that he has not admitted one single point in your position.

But in order to show more plainly that the whole ground of controversy is still left untouched, I here state in parallel lines the propositions of each party:

Bro. Williams’ Propositions

The old men in each congregation should be their pastors, and that without an old man or he may be retained by a popular vote of the congregation.
That one man assuming the pastorate of a congregation is downright wrong.
That the old men, from the nature of their calling, are the only permanent pastors.

Bro. Young’s Propositions

The pastor of a congregation may be an old man or a young man, but in either case he should be elected by a popular vote of the congregation.
That the practice of placing one man over a congregation was instituted by the apostles.
That the old men of the congregation are the only permanent pastors, and that other things being equal, the more suitable ones.

Hoping for a better understanding of the matters in dispute, I remain fraternally yours.

JAMES YOUNG

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Remarks

This controversy may be settled by studying the meaning of two words, viz: Elder and Bishop. Will Bro. Young and others believe us when we say that the word Elder is a term used in comparison only. It denotes older. Hence Paul says: “Rebuke not an Elder, but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren.” If Elder denotes an officer, so must younger. Are we understood?

The Apostles, Timothy and Titus, ordained old men seniors or elders, but not Bishops. Bishops or overseers are the seniors devoted to the care of the flock. The word Bishop denotes an overlooker, and its meaning is expressive of the work. For example, the word Baptist is expressive of the service performed in baptizing; and Bishop denotes an overlooker, but Elder simply implies a person of age and experience, and never necessarily does it denote an officer.

There are many elders or seniors not competent for overseers, and hence Paul says, “Count the Elders (seniors) that rule well worthy of double honor, especially such as labor in word and teaching.” (I Tim., 5, 17). Regarding the support of brethren who give themselves to the ministry of the word, or overseeing the flock, there is no man living more disposed to encourage the brethren to give them all they deserve and need than ourselves, but the hireling system inherited from the apostasy we dare not countenance.

The brethren do not understand us, one another, themselves, or the Bible on this matter, and therefore more time is needed for studying the Divine oracles. We should encourage consultation and investigation meetings. Many of our preachers and prominent men, for lack of knowledge which could be acquired by associating with the brethren, are a full quarter of a century behind the more enlightened.

Many others, who made a fair start in the race years ago, by substituting the dim timbers of speculation, or their own “old saws,” have lost the light of heaven, and are now wandering through the wilds of human expediency. Bro. Young’s and Bro. Williams’ opinions are just as good as other men’s, but in a religious investigation they are worth less than nothing. Perhaps it is not intended, but there is certainly a want of that respect which endears brethren to each other, in their writings. We have suppressed some of the objectionable features in Bro. Y.’s essay.

T. F.

THE ELDER’S OFFICE

Bro. T. Fanning: I regret the necessity of the controversy with you and Bro. Campbell. That Dr. Richardson had drifted into speculation and metaphysics is very evident, and that he in manner…

802

GOSPEL ADVOCATE

and spirit has been mistaken, and it is to be deeply regretted that Bro. Campbell did not stop him sooner. His clear to my mind that what you have been teaching on the subject in controversy, is the same that Bro. Campbell taught many years ago.

I must say with respect to the matter and spirit manifested in the Gospel Advocate, I have been much pleased, but in saying this I would not have any one to suppose that I endorse all that you or others might teach, and indeed I find objections to your remarks, found in the July number, regarding the Elder’s office. You say, “When, however, we tell Bro. Williams there is not a syllable in the Bible about making Elders, or Evangelists investing them with the robes of office, or even the Tiller’s office, we hope he will not consider our remark mischievous; if there is such scripture doubtless he or others can point it out; if there is neither such an office nor robes of office, all he or others have said upon the matter must be extremely idle. The word Elder denotes older, and is attained alone by one man living longer than another, experience, time and labor, and Evangelists do not make them.

I was thinking experience, time and labor only gave them the qualifications, and their ordination made them officers. (In this you are wrong. T. F.) Now, Bro. F., I would not have you to understand that I approve of Bro. W.’s views, and I trust the Love extract does not express yours fully, or that I do not understand you, perhaps it is both. (This is our teaching, T. F.) Do I understand you to say that there is no such an office as Elder? (Yes. T. F.) And that all the old men in the congregation, who are qualified, should take the oversight, by virtue of age, and need no appointment or ordination? If this be your meaning! I must differ with you, and proceed to give some of my reasons. (This is right. T. F.)

The word Presbyter, or Elder, is taken from the Jewish institution, and signifies rather the venerable prudence and wisdom of old age, than age itself. All Elders are old men, but all old men are not Elders. (Mistake. T. F.) The word therefore became appropriated to designate station or office (Give an example. T. F.), both in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. A few references I think, will satisfy most persons on this point.

“And they that had laid hold on Jesus, led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the Scribes and the Elders (Senators, T. F.) were assembled. Now the chief priests and elders and the council sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” Here elders are classed with the chief priests, scribes and council, and conveys to my mind something more than merely old age.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

(It implies what is expected of the aged. T. F.) Again it is said that Paul and Barnabas passing through certain regions of the country, “ordained elders in every church.” Acts, 14:23. Now if these were elders before, by virtue of their age and fitness, how could the apostles ordain them elders? (They set apart seniors to the work. T. F.) Or why the use of ordination at all? (Ordination consecrated them to the work. T. F.) It looks to me like their ordination made them elders. (Ordaining old men does not make old men. T. F.)

Again, when the Judaizers were seeking to build circumcision on the Gentile disciples, “Paul, Barnabas, and others were sent up to Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders (Experienced and wise men. T. F.), about this question.” Acts, 15:2. “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and the apostles and elders.” Verse 4. “And apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.” Verse 6.

Again after the decision at Jerusalem, they wrote letters after this manner: “The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting.” Verse 23. Now would not a common sense conclusion be, that these elders were something more than merely old men? If they were not, why should they be mentioned separate from the brethren of the church? To have mentioned the apostles and church would have included all. But to suppose that the elders were officers, then we can see the propriety of the style of Luke in placing the apostles first, then the elders, and then the church.

Again, “Paul from Melitus sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church, and said to them, take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers.” Here the elders are called overseers (The Spirit pointed them out as such without ordination. T. F.), and placed in contrast with the flock, as superintendents and feeders of the flock, and this position they received by an appointment from the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit made them overseers or elders. (The Spirit directed old men of wisdom unto their proper work, but did not make them seniors. T. F.)

If I were asked how the Holy Spirit made them overseers, I would say, just like all the officers in the church were made, for whatever the apostles did, guided by the Holy Spirit, was done by the Spirit itself.

Again, Paul says to Titus, “For this purpose I left you in Crete, to set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” Titus, 1:5. And in describing the qualifications of elders he calls them bishops, which I suppose all will admit expresses office, and if the qualifications and duties are the same, then I conclude they are two names for the same.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Office
(They are applicable to the same person, but one denotes qualifications and the other work or office. T. F.), and Dr. Mosheim says, “The rulers of the church were called either presbyters or bishops; titles which in the New Testament are undoubtedly applied to the same order of men.” Vol. 1, p. 30. (No one disputes this. T. F.)

Seeing therefore that elders were ordained (Older persons set apart. T. F.) in every church, and called overseers or bishops, and spoken of as a separate class, I infer there is an eldership or presbytery in every church that is in order, and that they occupy this office by virtue of ordination. (The brethren will have to re-examine this subject. T. F.)

Again we ask, how are elders or bishops made or installed into office? (Bro. G. has already argued this question, but we will hear him again. T. F.) In examining this subject I find no difference between elders, bishops, and deacons, so far as installing into office is concerned; in this respect we may compare them to some of our civil officers (This is what blinds the eyes. T. F.), the Judge, the Sheriff, or the Magistrate, are all sworn into office, though their qualifications and duties are different, their manner or form of installing into office is the same.

We find some examples and some churches ordained. We then infer all were ordained, and we also find in some of the churches they selected or dictated those that were to be ordained, and we suppose all were so selected before ordination. To suppose a different practice in some cases, and not inform the rest of it, would leave us without being thoroughly furnished unto all good work.

But let us look at a few things, as reported in the oracles of Truth. “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers.” (Were they installed in the work by ordination? T. F.), Barnabas, and Simon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” Acts 13.

Here we see Paul and Barnabas, though undoubtedly ministered before, were not sent off to labor in another field without the consent and ordination of the church, for it is said, “when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” So they were sent by the church as well as by the Spirit.

Although Paul and Barnabas occupied different offices, (Where is the authority? T. F.) their appointment and ordination was…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

805

the name. Their ordination was not to create them ministers, but to give them the sanction and authority of the church. (But you have said ordination makes officers. T. F.) Also in the church at Jerusalem, though in the presence of the apostles and by their direction, the church had first to select, or elect, the seven deacons, and then the apostles ordained them. If then we find the ordination of evangelists, elders, and deacons the same, as the church at Jerusalem, the mother and model church, directed by the apostles, to make their own selection for one grade of officers, may we not conclude that this was the practice in all churches, and for all grades of officers?

S. B. GILES.

We hope to give the subject of offices a thorough examination, and therefore we are disposed to publish all that can be brought to bear upon the matter. It is certainly at present involved in great confusion, and the brethren seem to us to contradict themselves and the Bible at every step.

T. F.

THE HOLY SPIRIT

Jesus says, “I indeed have baptized you with water, but He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” (Mark, I, 8.) Peter said to the Pentecostians, “Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts, 2, 38.) Paul said to his brethren, “Ye have received the spirit of adoption.” (Rom. 8, 15.) And Jesus said of the promised Comforter that he should reprove the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment.” (John, 16, 8.)

Thus we find in the Scriptures the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit, the reception of the Spirit, and the operation (or reproving) of the Spirit. We therefore propose to write an article under each of these heads, one of which you may publish in the Gospel Advocate until they are all published, if you can do so without crowding from your pages more useful matter.

THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST

Paul informs us there is “one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism.” (Eph. 4, 5.) That this one baptism is for the remission of sins I believe is admitted by all. All admit that the One Body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, Faith, Baptism, and God and Father of all spoken of in this connection by the Apostle to his Ephesian brethren are essential to the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

remission of sins, spiritual growth and final happiness of intelligent men and women in a land of Bibles. But those who would discourage the worth of water baptism, always insist that this is Holy Ghost baptism. If we can dispel this delusion we will have done much to settle the controversy with regard to the design of baptism.

First then we desire to ask those who advocate this theory, and believe themselves to have received this one baptism in Holy Ghost baptism, why they still submit to be baptized with water in any form? Surely if they have been baptized with the Holy Ghost that is one baptism, and if they then submit to that another in water, then Paul ought to have said, one Lord, one Faith and TWO Baptisms. But says the objector, “Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Ghost, and was subsequently baptized with water, in obedience to the command of Peter, which proves that we may have two baptisms.”

If so, will you be so good as to assist Paul out of the difficulty in which he placed himself by saying there is one baptism? If you will say with us that the baptism of Holy Ghost was a kind of special design at the house of Cornelius, such a case has not occurred from that time to the present, as far as revelation goes, and allow that when Paul said “there is one baptism,” he alluded to the baptism to which the taught of all nations were to submit (Matt. 28:19), and that was made obligatory on every creature who believed the Gospel and would be saved (Mark 16:16), that was for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that saved the people (1 Peter 3:21), and to which all must submit or never enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5), then we can see perfect harmony in the Scriptures.

It really seems to me that those who insist that persons now must be baptized with the Holy Ghost because Cornelius was baptized with it, ought to give the evidence of the two as he did. “For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God” (Acts 10:46). And the same evidence was given by these who received it on Pentecost: “And they began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Now as the same cause produces the same effect, which attended by the same circumstances, on all occasions, and both occasions of which we have an account of persons being baptized with the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures, that cause enabled them to speak with tongues to which they had before been strangers. A person who claims to have been baptized with it now can say we think such persons are mistaken, and that there is not a person now upon this earth who has been the

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

307

Subject of It

But suppose we enquire of those who insist that persons must now be baptized with the Holy Ghost for the office of H in the Gospel plan of salvation. What say you, friends? What do you want with it? Says one, I want it to break up the depravity of the heart. The heart totally depraved, wholly corrupt, the opposite of all good, insomuch that he thinks not a good thought, or does anything pleasing to God or acceptable in His sight, until this depravity is taken away by the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Suppose this is so. Who is to administer it? You will answer God alone has power to do this. Then if it is never done, and we can do nothing until it is done, who is to blame for it? Will the divine justice sentence the sinner to punishment in endless hell for not obeying the Gospel, when he could not until he would baptize him with the Holy Ghost, and thus enable him to do it? Was this its office in the cases of which we have an account in the Bible? The disciples were those who received it on Pentecost. Had they been three years with the Lord, and sent to proclaim the approach of the Kingdom “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” (Mat. 10, 5 to 7) and finally to “preach the Gospel to every creature,” (Mark 16, 16) and their hearts totally depraved, wholly disposed to evil, opposite to all good until baptized with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost?

But says one, the three thousand converts of that day were baptized with it. Truly this is quite a discovery, and we would like to see the proof of it. If we have read our Bible correctly, “Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, the number of names together were about a hundred and twenty.” (Acts, I, 15.) “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come they were all with one accord in one place.” (2, 1) “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance.” (verse 4.)

Who were with one accord in one place? The disciples. Who were all filled with the Holy Ghost? The disciples. Not a word about anyone else being with them. But “when this was noised abroad the multitude came together.” (verse 6) Then it was not until after the baptism of the disciples with the Holy Ghost that the multitude came together from among whom the three thousand were converted. Not a word in the narrative about their having been baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Next Examination: The Case of Cornelius

Please notice his character before he was baptized with the Holy Ghost. “A devout man and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.” (Acts, 10, 2.) And was

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

his heart totally depraved, wholly corrupt the opposite of all good? Really it seems he had good thoughts and did good deeds before he was baptized with spirit or water. Then the baptism of the Holy Ghost was not intended to make him devout, charitable or prayerful, for he was all this before. Peter tells us the heart is purified by faith [Acts 15, 9], and by obeying the truth (I Pet. 1, 23); then the doctrine that teaches the necessity of Holy Ghost baptism for the purification of the heart is all a delusion.

But says one, “I want it as evidence of my acceptance with God.” Then, we ask, had the disciples who received it on Pentecost no evidence of their acceptance during their personal intercourse with the Saviour? And did it give evidence to Cornelius of his acceptance before he obeyed the Gospel? Now we propose to show that persons were pardoned and had reliable evidence of the fact under the gospel dispensation, who were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Let us try.

“Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.” [Acts 8, 5.] “When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” [verse 12.] Now are they saved? Do the advocates of Holy Ghost baptism command men and women to be baptized that they regard as unsaved, when they have been baptized? Nay verily! So far from it, they (if their theory be true) have them saved before they are baptized. Then according to their own theory, these persons were saved.

But they had better evidence than this theory. Jesus had said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” [Mark 16, 16.] Luke says they did believe and were baptized. Then if Jesus told the truth when he made this declaration, they were then saved, and had his word as evidence of the fact.

“Were they baptized with the Holy Ghost?” Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” [Acts 8, 14 to 16.]

Then if the Samaritans could believe the gospel and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and have his word that they were saved without the baptism of the Holy Ghost, why may we not do the same thing?

But says one, “I want the feelings of my heart as evidence of my salvation. I would not give such evidence for all the Bibles in the world.” As we frequently hear such expressions as this, let us look at…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

309

It for a moment. We generally give credit to the testimony of a witness in court in proportion to the purity of his character. If one is presented who we are told, by his own friends, is deceitful, wholly corrupt, entirely disposed to evil, the opposite of all good, that he has gone forth from infamy speaking lies; insomuch that he cannot think a good thought, candid reader can you place great confidence in his testimony?

Yet such, you tell us, is the character of the human heart, the feelings of which are your evidence of remission, upon which you say you would rather rely than upon the positive declarations of the Lord Jesus Christ, contained in the Bible. Look, kind reader, upon your witness in all the corruption of character you have yourself heaped upon him. Then look at the Lamb of God, in whose mouth guile was never found, and surely you will blush when you think of making such an expression again.

But as Paul tells us there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, one God, etc., we have only to show that baptism in or with water is enjoined upon “all nations,” and “every creature” who believes the gospel, in order to show that there is now no such thing as Holy Ghost baptism. Jesus says, “Go ye therefore teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.” [Matt. 28, 19.] Now here is a baptism to which the taught of all nations are to submit, for it would have been uncommonly inept to have commanded the apostles to baptize them, without implying an obligation on their part to submit to it, hence this is the baptism, and there is no other. There is no escape from this position.

Then did the Saviour allude to water baptism? Does anyone doubt it? If so, from whence comes their authority to baptize with water in the names here set forth, that is, in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Again, as Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, and no human being ever had power to administer it, and as the disciples were commanded to administer this one, it is certain that it was not Holy Ghost baptism. This was to be administered in the name of the Holy Ghost; and as it is not probable the baptism of the Holy Ghost would have been administered in his own name, it is not probable that this was that kind of baptism.

We have seen that there was an implied command here to the taught of all nations to submit to this baptism, and in keeping with this commission we find the Apostles commanding persons to be baptized. [Acts 2, 38; 10, 48.]

The baptism of the Holy Ghost was never a command to any one, but a promise; therefore it is not the baptism to which the taught are commanded to submit.

To the proof; “And

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait the promise of the Father, which saith he, ye have heard of me.

What promise? “For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” [Acts 1:4, 5]

Paul in the 6th of Romans, speaks of himself and Roman brethren having been buried with Christ by baptism into death, etc., and finally tells them, “Ye have obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin.” [Rom. 6:16, 18]

When were they made free from sin? When they obeyed the form of doctrine. What was he talking about? About a baptism that was obedience, in attendance upon which they were then made free from sin.

Was that Holy Ghost baptism? No, there is no obedience in that. It was a promise. Promises may be enjoyed but cannot be obeyed. Water baptism is a command, and therefore may be obeyed, and was therefore the baptism to which the Romans submitted in doing of which they were then made free from sin.

In our next, we will consider the gifts of the spirit.

Respectfully,
T. W. BRENTS
Lewisburg, Sept. 17th, 1858.

WATCHFULNESS

“Let us watch and be sober.”

We trust it will not be thought impertinent in one so inexperienced, to admonish the brethren, especially the younger portion of them, that there is much required of us as disciples of Christ, to retain what we have already gained in our attempt to restore the primitive state of things; no one should doubt.

To hold fast what we have already gained is as important as to strive for further advance. Caution and care are most needful in positions of danger and peril. It would have been better for the race if our parents had been content to hold fast what they enjoyed, than to have indulged in any extravagant expectations.

It is extremely dangerous for us to suffer ourselves to become excited on any subject, and especially upon the subject of religion. It is sure to destroy the very element in the Christian character of growing strong by suffering; the heroic disposition of waiting and serving in positions of danger and trial to which we may be called. Unshaken confidence in God should be entertained in times of sorrow and disappointment.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

and without this we will become an easy prey to the enemy. Persons under the influence of a heated imagination exhaust themselves in a kind of vague sentimentality; their moral faculties are left in a feverish state, and the heart rendered harder and less susceptible of impression by religious truth. Have we not seen that the mind unduly excited becomes strangely indifferent to the duties and enjoyments of the present in expectations of the future?

It produces a discontented, speculative disposition, which is now manifesting itself to an alarming extent in many of our brethren. This spirit has created a false piety, a deceptive morality, which neglects the duties and responsibilities of this world in its aspirations for the future. It drives into ecstasies at the thought of heaven, but violates the everyday duties of earth. It talks enrapturously about uniting mankind in one great religious family, but would poison all the springs of life to effect it. It cherishes the hope of a millennium, but discards the only means of its accomplishment.

This pharisaic righteousness must not be confounded with that pure religion which teaches that “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this world.” While the hope of immortality is the most sublime, cheering and soul-subduing, we should remember that attention to the duties of this life is the only means of its enjoyment. To abound in good works is to seek for glory, honor and immortality, and this is the condition on which eternal life will be bestowed.

If we are commanded to pray and labor for future good, we are also exhorted to watch and guard against present evil. A restless, speculative spirit may have led some of our preaching brethren to reach after the unattainable, to grasp at what has no existence. The Gospel may have become too old-fashioned for “this fast age.” They have become dissatisfied with the slow progress they are making in preaching the word as given by inspiration, and are attempting to explore new fields, to discover new truths, and to unravel the deepest mysteries.

Though it is our duty to make all the progress we can in the knowledge of the truth, we had better stand still unless we move in the right direction. Young men may possibly enter the ministry as a mere profession to get a living, and hence such are continually seeking an opportunity to distinguish themselves in order to secure the best salary. In the effort to please, they abandon the simplicity of the Gospel, and attempt to redeem the world without it—to regenerate man and renovate society without reformation—and to bring about the millennium by philosophy and science.

The present condition of religious society is the result of

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Much that is vain and deceitful. Hence the hatred of law, the devotion to wild schemes and self-will, the love of adventure, and the consequent want of faith in the Gospel. Satan is on a grave excursion as a minister of light, preaching a new gospel and a new order of things. He has enlisted in his mission dreamers, vision-seekers, modern spiritualists, philosophers, poets, romance writers, politicians, and ministers, and the very elect are liable to be deceived by them.

These are men who are in love with themselves, men of corrupt minds who war after the flesh. Many of them are cloaking themselves under the sanctity of religion, while they inculcate the most corrupt and infidel speculations. These speculations should be exposed, it matters not from whom or whence they emanate. And the brethren should hold up the hands of those who battle against falsehood, remembering that ours is no personal warfare, but one of principle, a combat between truth and error, in which the interests of not only the present, but unborn generations are at stake.

It becomes all who know the truth to be very prompt and decisive in its defense. It is far better for us to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints than to explore new regions, make new conquests, or invent new plans for the improvement of the race. Hence Paul’s final exhortation to the Ephesians is, “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might.” “Put on the whole armor of God that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places,” etc.

Our position in the religious world is one of danger and deep anxiety. We need men of strong faith and much humility—men who will die at the post of duty—who have clear heads and brave hearts, to stand as watchmen on Zion’s walls. If Christians will do their whole duty the enemy will soon fly, and we will see hosts continually crowding to the banner of the cross.

T. GOODALL

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE YOUNG—No. II

I have before me, gentle reader, a book published by the American Bible Society, which contains some very remarkable announcements, to which I wish to call your attention. I desire to say to you that the propositions contained in this book are received by a very large and

The writer of the above is a student of Franklin College, from Illinois.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

trustworthy portion of our countrymen, and that good and true men, for eighteen hundred years have believed and defended them, even to the stake and faggot.

The most prominent of these propositions are, that—

a thousand years after the heavens and the earth were created, a Child was born of humble and godly parents, in a city of Asia called Bethlehem, under circumstances the most unnatural; that he came into our world to devise some means for men, women and children to be pleasant, healthful and happy in this present life, and to possess eternal joys in an existence beyond death.

The good people who believe this book, also teach that this person whom an angel from the Most High God, named Jesus, lived on the earth about thirty-three years, performing many wonderful works; healing the sick in mind and body; raising the dead; calming the fierce winds and the billowy sea; and that He finally died a shameful and a very painful death on a cross; was buried, but rose again the third day and ascended into heaven, where universal authority was given Him.

It is further taught that God, the kind Father, so ordered these things, kind reader, that you and I, when we go forth to our daily labor, to the plow or the workshop, to the counting-house or the school room, may have cheerful, patient and happy hearts, that we may lift up our voices in sweet confidence in the protection of Heaven through the silent watches of the night when we lie down to rest; that we may ask in perfect trust, for our daily bread, and for all things necessary for our bodies and souls; that we may be contented while we live in the world, whether it be in prosperity or adversity, and that our souls when this mortal coil is shuffled off; may be filled with a beautiful and an everlasting song, accompanied by the peaceful murmurs of the river of life in the garden of God.

All this in the eyes of human wisdom and philosophy, is passing strange and most unreasonable. Let us, at this still hour of the night and in the fear of God, examine the matter. There is safety in it, else the better portion of our race would not be always persuading the rest to accept it. There is good in it, else all the good men in the world would not be always entreating, directly or indirectly, the bad ones to embrace it.

I have said that to our eyes the plan of God for the salvation of our race is most unreasonable. Allow me to suggest that it could not appear otherwise. It is just as it should be. We could have no respect for it if we could dream of it in our own philosophy. The ways of God are not as our ways.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

The child regards the alphabet as a very unreasonable arrangement, no doubt, but moved by an implicit trust in its instructor, it does not refuse to learn. So must we do if we would enter the kingdom. We may, we will be able when this mortal shall put on immortality, to see the fitness, to understand the divine philosophy of the scheme of redemption. But we must wait with faith for that. I know there are a great many clever people in the world who would have arranged all these matters differently, or not at all; but fortunately for us and for all men, they have not been permitted to exercise their wisdom or philanthropy in this particular.

We are taught in the book before us, that faith is the foundation of God’s plan for the salvation of the world. No one disputes this, and it occurs to me that the philosophy of this arrangement is evident from the simple consideration that it is an impossibility for us to know the propositions to be true which we are required to believe. For instance, the foundation rock of the Kingdom of God is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I would ask how it is possible for us to know this? You cannot conceive of stronger evidence of the truth of this statement than has already been given. The proposition cannot be mathematically demonstrated, and positive knowledge is the result only of such demonstration. We cannot know that there is a place of eternal rest for the children of God, without experiencing such a state of existence, and I hope that no one who reads this will ever know that there is a hell, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Hence I do not think it a good indication to hear persons say, “How do I know that there is Heaven or Hell? How do I know that I will be forever lost if I do not submit to the authority of Jesus Christ?” It is to be hoped that you may never know it.

ELD. C. K. D.

A RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION

Between the Rev. A. K. Tribble, Missionary Baptist, of Jasper, Dickens Co., Geo., and Elder A. Allison, minister of the Church of Christ, Mary Co., Geo.

The following are the propositions to be discussed at New Liberty meeting house, west end of Pickens Co., Geo., to begin on Monday after the fourth Lord’s day in November next, and to continue four days at least:

The Baptist Church is the only legal Christian organization on earth.
Rev. A. K. Tribble affirms, and Elder A. Allison denies.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

315

21. The Church or Kingdom of Christ was organized on earth by Him after His resurrection from the dead. Elder A. Allison affirms, and Rev. A. K. Tribble denies.

22. The saints will persevere, and none of them can finally fall from the grace of God and be lost. Rev. A. K. Tribble affirms, and Elder A. Allison denies.

23. A believer in Christ must enjoy the forgiveness of sins before he is a subject for baptism. Rev. A. K. Tribble affirms, and Elder A. Allison denies.

Each disputant is to prepare his arguments, etc., antecedent to the debate, in order that the same may be published in book form for the edification of those who may desire to read it.

The vicinity in which the discussion is to be held is thickly settled, and no doubt but the people will take pleasure in rendering the visitors comfortable who may desire to hear the investigation of the above questions.

The Tennessee Baptist is requested to publish the above notice.

A. ALLISON, A. K. TRIBBLE.

Remarks

We rarely publish such notices as the above, but it is so singular a paper that we wish our readers to see what partyism will prompt men to do. The idea of a professed believer of the New Testament being willing to attempt to prove that any Baptist sect is the church of Christ, that men are pardoned by faith before submitting to Christ in baptism, or that even good men like Paul, are not now “to keep under their bodies lest they be cast away,” exhibits a rashness and desperation which nothing short of a relentless party zeal could possibly excite.

T. F.

LIVE FOR GOOD

Thousands of men breathe, move, and live—pass off the stage of life—and are heard of no more. Why? They did not do a particle of good in this world; and none were blessed by them, none could point to them as the instruments of their redemption; not a word they spoke could be recalled, and so they perished; their light went out in darkness, and they were not remembered more than the insects of yesterday.

Live for something.
Do good, and leave behind you a monument of virtue that the storm of time can never destroy. Write your name in…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

kindness, love and mercy, on the hearts of thousands you come in contact with, year by year, and you will never be forgotten. No; your name, your deeds, will be as legible on the hearts you leave behind, as the stars on the brow of the evening. Good deeds will shine as brightly on the earth as the stars of heaven. — Dr. Chalmet.

We very earnestly invite the attention of our readers to the subject of Bro. O.’s essay. Within a few years past an alarming latitudinarianism has threatened the cause of Christ. It has appeared under imposing titles, such as “Charity,” “Liberal Views,” “Progress,” etc.

“OPEN” COMMUNION

BRO. FAYNING AND LIVINGSTON

I beg leave to say a few things in relation to “open” communion, as it is called by the sects. And I do so the more willingly, because I conceive that many good brethren have gone into error upon the subject, an error affecting us seriously as a people, lessening our influence in a great degree, and exhibiting a great inconsistency between our principles and practice. This is much to be regretted.

But, it is perhaps asked, in what consists this inconsistency? I think the answer is obvious when we look only for a moment at the question as it relates to our principles and practices.

We, as a people, believe and teach that the sinner must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to a change of heart, repent of his sins, reform his life, in order to a change of conduct, and be immersed in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in order to a change of state—that when he does these he has the remission of his sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and is a new creature in Christ Jesus, entitled to all the privileges of a child of God.

If this teaching is supported by the Scriptures of truth, it follows that all those who are not immersed, are not in Christ, are not in his kingdom and are not children of the kingdom, and consequently are not entitled to any of the privileges of the kingdom.

Now as but few Methodists and Presbyterians have been immersed, they belong to this class, and have no right to the table of the Lord. And as often as we invite them to the table of communion, we say in actions that our principles and practice are not both scriptural, because inconsistent, the practice being opposed to the principles.

I know some one will say we do not invite them as Methodists and Presbyterians; but this does not mend the matter. Often they are seen in the congregation and known to be what they are, and the invitation is given in such a manner as to cause them to…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

317

Believe that we desire them to partake with us of the emblems of the Lord’s body and blood. They are told the table is the Lord’s, and to examine themselves and so eat.

The elements is often presented to them by the deacons, and hence the idea is everywhere prevalent that we are “open” communionists, and will continue so until we take a firm and scriptural stand in relation to the Lord’s supper. While I am opposed to “close” communion in the Baptist sense, I am equally opposed to “open” communion in the pseudo-Baptist sense. Every one must see that our principles are either right or wrong. If right, then all who have been sprinkled for baptism are out of the kingdom of Christ, notwithstanding their sincerity, and have no right to the table of the Lord.

We are told to eat the loaf and drink the wine discerning the Lord’s body and blood. If we do not thus eat the loaf and drink the wine, we pervert the ordinance and are guilty of sin. In being immersed we commemorate the burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Pseudo-Baptists cannot thus discern the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ in immersion. If they cannot, it follows that they cannot discern the body and blood of the Lord in the loaf and wine. Do they not therefore sin in partaking with us of these emblems? And are we not partakers with them in their sin if we invite them? And do we not acknowledge their sprinkling as valid baptism? And do we not in effect say that immersion is of no value? The table of the Lord is “open” to all who will come to it as the Lord Jesus has directed, and is “closed” against all others.

At a future time I may pursue these thoughts further.
Yours in the love of the truth,
A. W. O.

ENOLOGY

We hear a great deal of German Theology in this section of the country, under another name however. The thing exists without the true name. And sir, this is one of our most formidable enemies. But for this doctrine there would be but little difficulty in getting men to obey the Gospel in its native simplicity. This nobler delusion is the grand reason that God cannot be taken at His word. Here is the great secret which prevents the universal success of the glorious Gospel of the Son of God. If men could just be persuaded to believe what God has commanded, trusting Him for all the rest, the work of conversion…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

would be easy. But while ever this notion of anollw·, and a higher power and authority is thought to be necessary, we will have our difficulties. I mean something.

I held a little meeting last week in Barton, Miss., my old home, and four very intelligent ladies made the good confession, and were immersed. I think, from the signs of the times, some of our Baptist friends, ere it is long, will become advocates for baptism by immersion. What is it, that men will not do, when hard pressed to keep up appearances?

MATT. HACKWORTH.

REPORT FROM MARSHALL COUNTY, TENN.

Dear Brethren: — Bro. Ransom Jones and myself have been preaching together some for the last few weeks. We commenced a meeting under very unfavorable circumstances, at Cedar Creek, on the fourth Sunday in July. We preached seven days, two or three of the first of which we did not ask the people to obey the gospel. After we thought we had sufficiently instructed them in the way of the Lord, we invited and exhorted them to obedience, and had the good pleasure to bury (as well as now remembered) sixteen in the waters of Baptism. The brethren and sisters were encouraged and made to rejoice in the Lord. The first Sunday in August and the succeeding days we spent at Smyrna, where we baptized four more persons in the vineyard of the Lord. I preached one discourse the second Sunday in August.

At Smyrna, I found the congregation there in much disorder. They have some good material there, however, and they have appointed a day near at hand to set in order things wanting, and to strengthen the things that remain. A storm awaits them, after which we expect to have the dawn of a clear day.

At this time I commenced a meeting on Saturday before the first Sunday in August, which we continued fourteen days. The result was thirty-six additions to the congregation here, and several others were immersed who put in their membership at other places. The precise total at this meeting I do not know, but it cannot fall short of forty.

On the second Saturday of this meeting I preached at Philippi. They were immersed Bro. Ransom continued the meeting there. I was told rather discouragingly that they immersed eight others. At Liberty we commenced Saturday before the first Sunday in September, and continued until Thursday. On account of my ill health Bro. Jones was chief speaker. I need not tell you after your long acquaintance with him,

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Report from Tennessee

that the work was well done. Five were immersed, and two others came forward who were not prepared with change of raiment. The brethren meet there every Sunday, so last Sunday they not only had the good pleasure of planting the two applicants alluded to, but of hearing four others confess their faith in the Son of God, in all eleven at Liberty.

At Wilson’s Hill we began a meeting last Saturday, and it is still in progress. My ill health has compelled me to be at home for the last few days. There were five additions up to Tuesday, with a fair prospect for others.

So you will see there has been in this vicinity some eighty-five additions. Our opposers have united in all their strength to put us down, but the weapons of our warfare have proven mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds. I never saw larger and more attentive congregations than we have had in general.

Frui~ed be the will of the Lord. To God be all the glory.

Your brother in Christ,
T. W. BRENT
Lewisburg, Tenn., Sept. 1858.

Report from Texas

Bro. Pannixg: Two days since I returned from a tour of twenty-two days. I attended meetings at Austin, San Marcos, and Lockhart. Twenty-three persons were immersed, and several united. And since I wrote to you of the meeting at Lampasas Springs, we held a camp meeting about twelve miles east of my house, which resulted in some thirty-three or four additions. Thus, in a short time, I have witnessed near one hundred additional and my attention was not absolutely otherwise.

It seems probable that hundreds more might speedily obey the gospel, or if others could be had to labor in this ripe and wide need of useful laborers. The Lord sent more laborers into the harvest.

U. KENDRICK
Dell Co., Texas, Sept. 12, 1858.

Report from Dyer Co., Tenn.

Bro. Dr. B. W. Lauderdale, writes encouragingly of the church near Newbern. He says: “There are some seventy members. They meet every Lord’s day and wait upon the Lord in hymns, prayers, reading exhortations, and breaking the loaf. They are not ashamed to keep…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

House for the Lord
And though they aid in supporting an evangelist—Bro. Holmes—they are not at all dependent upon him for conducting the public worship. They have covenanted with each other that they will among themselves keep the institutions of the Lord’s house. Several of the young brethren are not as able to read and pray in public, and even show sinners who meet with them, the way of life. I do not believe there is a congregation in the State more faithful to duty. There is scarcely one in the neighborhood who believes the Truth that is not obedient to the faith. Parents have the joy to see their children turn to the Lord as soon as they grow to the years of discretion.
B. W. L.

Dear Bros:
Upwards of twenty persons have recently made the good confession, and nearly all of them have been immersed, not far from this place. Our fall meetings will soon commence, and prospects are very favorable for good. We cannot do very much holding protracted meetings here in the winter or during crop time. Crops are generally good and beef is plenty, and of the finest quality. Holding protracted meetings with these as good for the body, without much sauce or condiments, is better than all the controversies I have seen amongst brethren. I wish I could say, with effect, “Peace! be still,” to the troubled waters. What a comfort it is that there is “a judgment to come.” We shall never get our rights here. Suppose we let all strife die for want of food (it will scarcely die except by starvation), and await the action of the final Judge. I think you would lose nothing by this course.
Affectionately,
C. KENDRICK.
Salado, Bell County, Texas, July 8, 1853.

Luke Muirhead, Ala., Sept. 8th, 1858.
Bro. FAXING: I arrived at home last evening from Stony Point (Old Cypress), Lauderdale County, Ala., where I preached three days, including last Lord’s day. The result was three additions to the cause of our blessed Lord, and prospects good.
Your devoted brother in Christ,
J. H. DUNN.

P.S. I concluded not to mail the above communication until after my return from Moulton, Ala., at which place I preached last Lord’s day and had three additions to the congregation, one by letter, and two whom I had formerly immersed. The brethren in Moulton are doing pretty well—beginning to look.
Sept. 11th, 1858.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

CHURCH OFFICERS.-No. 1.

290

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 291

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 203

7. The Fourth Word Translated Office in Ephesians

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

295

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

297

RESPONSIBILITY

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

ELDERS, BISHOPS, SALARIES, ETC.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

299

300

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Bro. Williams’ Propositions

Bro. Young’s Propositions

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Remarks

THE ELDER’S OFFICE

802

GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

805

THE HOLY SPIRIT

THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Subject of It

Next Examination: The Case of Cornelius

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

309

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

WATCHFULNESS

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

SUGGESTIONS FOR THE YOUNG—No. II

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

A RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

315

Remarks

LIVE FOR GOOD

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“OPEN” COMMUNION

BRO. FAYNING AND LIVINGSTON

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

ENOLOGY

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

REPORT FROM MARSHALL COUNTY, TENN.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Report from Tennessee

Report from Texas

Report from Dyer Co., Tenn.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Leave a Comment Cancel reply