It is an evidence of the divine origin of Christianity that it proposes a state of society not only in advance of the present age, but of any thing the world has ever seen. Society in its present improved condition is far behind it. * *

It is a happy condition to be under the influence of good principles. These give a noble triumph to the soul. But when a man is conquered by passion he feels himself enslaved and humbled. He becomes mean in his own eyes and contemptible in the estimation of others. "Of that by which a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage."

People are wont to admire a speaker who uses high flowing words above their comprehension. They think the stream is deep because they cannot see the bottom, and do not consider that it is owing to its muddiness.

The popular sects affect to disparage the forms and institutions by which the gospel is received. The reason is that they are all unpossessed of them, and unable to receive them without changing their entire religious polity. This they are predetermined not to do, and consequently, like the fox and the grapes in the fable, pretend to despise as useless and "non-essential" what their circumstances prevent them from adopting. R. R.

�སས

For the Millennial Harbinger.

THE CLAIMS OF EVANGELISTS.—No, 1.

Brother Campbell,

I LEARN from the first number of the Harbinger for this year, that you intend the current volume to advocate more the practical part of Christianity than that which is merely theoretical. I am glad of this. Men are wont to theorize more than to practise. A man who is too indolent to labor for the support of his family, will sit in his arm-chair or lie upon his broad back, and, putting his wits to work, will invent a thousand ways to become rich without manual labor. He will put his mind to the ruck before he will put his big hands to the axe helve.

The notion that men will be saved by grace alone, without obeying all things commanded by Jesus Christ, is admirably suited to the taste of such professing Christians as are too lazy

to work, and too penurious to give a portion of their worldly substance to enjoy it. Others again contribute liberally for every purpose but for the salvation of their souls. They are more desirous of obtaining a reputation for liberality, for mere worldly objects, than they are of securing their eternal wellbeing Such, some of them-for the purpose of easing their conscience, and silencing its loud complainings, deny that the gospel makes any call upon their liberality. If they are called on to aid in sustaining Evangelists, they say there is no necessity for such an office, and assert that the Scriptures no where authorize it. When it is shown that such an office is, in the nature of things, indispensable, and that the Scriptures do authorize it, they contend that there is no law in the word of God requiring the churches of Jesus Christ to sustain Evangelists, and that it is unreasonable there should be; that it requires no longer time for an Evangelist to preach than it does for them to hear; and that if they are so stupid as to be under the necessity of studying their discourses, they can do it through the week while following their daily avocations. Such are the avowed sentiments of many ycleped Reformers.

Though but little interested in this matter myself, it is my intention in this essay to prove the following propositions:First, That there is an indispensable scripture necessity for the office and work of Evangelists at the present day, and that there should be at least one Evangelist constantly employed in every congregation. Secondly, That such Evangelists should give themselves wholly to the labors of their office. Thirdly, That they have scripture legal claims on the congregations for pecuniary support.

I intend that my remarks in support of the above positions shall be "short, pithy, and pungent."

1. There is an indispensable necessity for Evangelists.

Evangelist, from Euangelistes, signifies a publisher of good news-one who brings glad tidings. Preaching is the first part of an Evangelist's duty-his first work; but it is by no means the whole of his duty. The work of Evangelists may be learned from the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus, who were Evangelists. They were, besides preaching the gospel, to organize churches; to set in order, and ordain officers in the congregations, &c. The offices of Bishop and Evangelist are not incompatible; so far from it, they were, in the days of the Apostles, often united in the same person, as is apparent from 1 Tim. v. 17., as well as other places.

I should not, however, omit to state that some very knowing folks gravely tell us that the office of Evangelist has, since the close of the first century, been extinct-(1.) Because it is unne

cessary; (2.) Because there have been no Apostles since that time to send them forth. This is truly a wonderful discovery; and if it were not for one thing the first argument would have great weight, I confess-and that is, it is not true; it is as insubstantial as the baseless fabric of a vision. Is there not as much necessity for Evangelists now as there ever was? Is the world christianized? Do all men believe in Jesus Christ? Are his enemies all subdued? Are there not vain talkers whose mouthe must be stopped? Are there no churches that need to be set in order? Are there no officers to ordain? The assertion that Evangelists are unnecessary, is too preposterous to require farther refutation and exposure.

The second objection against now-a-days Evangelists would be conclusive and irrefutable, if it could only be proved that none but the Apostles in person have scripture authority to select, ordain, and send them forth. I assert that no man can prove that the Apostles alone in person had the right to send out Evangelists. Will any try it? If the position is untenable, the argument based upon it is worth nothing.

Again: It is said that the office of Evangelist was only to continue until the saints should "come to the unity of the faith," etc. Has that time yet arrived? Is the church of Christ one? Is it not rather scattered in fragments all over the world-in Babylon, the wilderness, and all? Has the church yet "come to the unity of the faith-to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ?" Surely no one will say so. Then the labors of Evangelists are needed, and the office will continue until this desirable and glorious period shall have arrived.

"But," says the objector, "an Evangelist was a preacher of the gospel-to preach is to publish;-to publish is to make known something which has, previously to its publication, been concealed. The gospel has been published, and is contained in the scriptures of truth. No farther publication of it is necessary. It is as plain as it can be made-so plain that all can understand it, and it is unnecessary that any one should try to make it plainer." So far the objector.

While I admit-(and I do it with joy)—that there are "shoals in the Bible where a lamb can wade," I am at the same time compelled to believe that "there are depths where an elephant must swim:" and if there was not another evidence to be found on earth of the groundlessness of the above objection to Evangelists, there is evidence in the objection sufficient to confute itself. Look at it. First: It asserts that the scriptures are so plain that all can understand them. One of the plainest things in the Book is, that it is the will of God that the gospel shall be preached till the conclusion of this state. This palpable and

important fact our objector seems not to understand. He needs to be taught one of the plainest things in the book. Is it not then necessary that the ignorant be instructed by preaching when the age requires it?

I admit that to preach is to publish-to make known that which was not known before by the party taught. Have all mankind been taught even the first principles of the doctrine of Christ? Do all who have heard understand? Do all men believe and obey the gospel? If not, then Evangelists are necessary to impart instruction. They are to preach the gospel of Christ, which is (1.) the great instrument of salvation: vide Ps. xix. 7, 8.; cxix. 25, 50, 130.; Jer. xxiii. 29.; Rom. i. 16.— (2.) The gospel is the means of faith and regeneration: Rom. x. 17.; Eph. i. 13.; Acts ii. 41.; viii. 14.; xi. i.; Heb. iv. 12.; James i. 18.; 1 Pet. i. 22.; John viii. 32.; xvii 22. (3.) Preaching is the principle means by which the gospel becomes the means of faith and salvation. Rom. x. 13-15.

My argument, then, is as follows: Evangelists are necessary to preach the gospel. Preaching is necessary now-a-days

1. Because all men-nay, all nations have not heard the gospel. "And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how can they hear without a preacher?" Rom. x. 14. Then Evangelists are necessary to take the gospel to such as have never heard it.

2. Many, very many cannot read in our country where we have the gospel; and it is necessary that it be preached to them that they may believe it and be saved-for "how can they hear without a preacher?"

3. Thousands of those who hear the gospel and can read it, do not understand it. “How can I [understand the gospel] unless some man should guide me?" Acts viii. 31. Some do not understand the gospel on account of the traditions they have been taught. Evangelists are necessary to separate the truth from those traditions, and dissipate the clouds of error that have settled upon their heads and hover about their hearts. Others again cannot by searching find the truth, and distinguish it from the spurious errors which have been incorporated with it by the craftiness of men; but when it is separated from human traditions and held up to them in its original purity, they can perceive and embrace it. Evangelists are necessary to do this for the people which they cannot do for themselves.

4. Many who have the scriptures, who can read and understand them, nevertheless do not read them. Evangelists are necessary to preach to such. Am I told that it is the duty of such to read and obey the scriptures; and that they are culpable for not doing it, even if they should never hear a preacher? Very

true. So it was the duty of our first parents to refuse to eat the forbidden fruit; but they did not. It is the duty of all men to avoid every species of sin; but they will not. It is your duty, Mr. Objector, to cease your opposition to Evangelists; but I much fear you will not. Had mankind never sinned, there would have been no necessity for the preaching of the gospel to them. Men have sinned, and the gospel is addressed to them as such. The gospel hunts up enemies where they are, it seeks them where they are in their lurking places, and addresses them as they are-not as they should be. For were they as they should be, there could be no necessity for the gospel's being addressed to them.

5. Preaching is calculated to attract the attention of sinnersto awake them up from their sinful slumbers, and to bring them back to God, against whom they have sinned. There is something peculiarly fascinating and persuasive in truth when thus presented. The human voice, countenance, etc. give it an ener gy and a power that it would not otherwise have. The gospel is the sword of the Spirit; and when wielded by a dexterous hand and a strong arm, it does much execution. Look at the mighty conquests which truth has gained within a few years past. Has it not all been accomplished by the agency of Evangelists? More than five hundred persons, 1 perceive fron: the periodicals, have been conquered by this mighty two-edged sword in Kentucky within a few months past; yet we are not told of one rebel whom the Sword has conquered of itself. But when wielded by the Evangelists Johnson, Burnet, Hall, Gano, Raines, and others, it has done wonders. Hence,

6. God has ordained preaching as the great means of making his truth effectual to the salvation of all who believe it. Rom. i. 16.; 1 Cor. i. 21.

It were as reasonable to expect the lever of Archimides to uplift the world without an application of its power to the earth, as to expect the gospel to convert mankind without its being preached.

I have no time to polish. In fact truth is "adorned the most when unadorned." I am mainly for facts at present. I will give you arguments when necessary. If any one should in his heart be opposed to the sentiments I may advance in this essay, I do hope he will have the candor to speak it out like an honest man. I am for truth.

I will take up my second proposition in my next.

JUSTUS.