Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Observer, Apr. 1, '75.

A. You surprise me exceedingly. You paint with a heavy hand, and, let me hope, with too strong colours. Do not forget charity! B. My brush is dipped, I trust, in the charity that thinketh no evil, but rejoiceth in the truth. My moral is my redemption, and on this point we may exchange thoughts when we meet again. I must now say good-bye. COGITATOR.

"PROGRESS MEN" IN AMERICA.

IN the December E.O., the Editor has a short notice of " Progress men" in the American Churches, and it leads me to consider that he has not a right estimate of the matter he treats of; and certainly the quotation he gives from the Apostolic Times is not likely to give his readers a correct idea of the matter. I have now been here more than three years, and in this State I have moved about considerably among the brethren and churches. I have also visited several churches in Missouri, and have met and conversed with many of the ablest preachers in the west. I have been with churches where the Christian Standard is principally circulated, and amongst those who patronize the Apostolic Times and Review, and the question of "progress" or "anti-progress," as it occurs as matter of difference in the churches, I have had good opportunity of studying, and I have studied it and taken a side. But before I say what side I have taken, I have to say that the word progress no more describes the brethren to whom it is applied than the term Campbellite. It is a nickname, and in my experience is not used by those to whom it is applied, and I am not aware that the "anti-progress" people use that term themselves.

66

وو

The great question on which there is difference among our churches is that of the missionery work. It is a question of church co-operation for the preaching of the Gospel in places where it is not provided for. Brethren of the standing of A. Procter, Issac Errett and others support a plan of co-operation that is substantially like the plan of the English Churches. Every church does what it pleases, and its delegates in annual meeting vote money when they have it, for the support of Evangelists. Persons who will give neither money nor work to this plan call the workers in it progressists and, as a rule, they have no plan and little work of their own in the missionary field. There is really no other difference of importance in the churches, and this difference has been magnified by envy and other imperfections incident to the best of The going out from us of W. C. Dawson and a few others, has as much to do with it as the man in the moon, and no more. The question of a paid pastorate or, as you have it, a "hired" pastorate, does not divide the brethren here. All are agreed that a preacher should be paid. Moses Lard will take pay for work done in this way as readily as W. T. Moore. In my experience there is less given to the preachers among those opposed to the missionary co-operation than among those favouring it. Among all our brethren here there is looseness on the relation of the preacher to the congregation that is not pleasing to me. There are churches that never meet except when a preacher comes that way, or if they get together regularly on the

men.

Observer, Apr. 1, '75.

Lord's day they call it "only a social meeting." Preaching is much more thought of here than teaching, but the reason is teaching is much worse done than preaching. Indeed, in some regions teaching is unknown. The blame for this state of things is equally deserved by preachers and hearers. But those who favour the missionary plan and those who are against it are alike in this matter. When I speak of regions and numbers in these matters I am comparing with England. A much better state of things prevails in the majority of the churches in the Central States of the Mississippi Valley.

The idea of Open Communion permeates our brotherhood in this country. I have met none who do not hold it as an opinion, and there are few churches where, as a practice, it does not sometimes occur. As I ever did I hold it to be wrong, wrong theoretically, and disastrous in its results, and my influence will never favour it, but the editors and readers of the Times and Review are no more free on this subject than the supporters of the Standard or Evangelist-all are alike here. The Baptists of this country are the most sectarian of sectarians, much differing from their congeners in England, and they hold strict communion, and the result with them is steady growth. Open Communion in any community means emasculation, but the brethren here don't see it, and the hatred.of denominations for us makes it less harmful than it might be.

I have seen hints elsewhere than in your article that the independency of the churches is threatened in some quarters, but I have never found one solitary fact to support it in all I know of the history of the churches co-operating for missionary labour.

I will use the rest of this paper to send greetings to my friends at Wigan, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, and Furness Fells.

ROBERT HAY.

REMARKS.

We are always glad for those who understand a subject better than we do to correct any mistake into which we have fallen. We cannot, however, accept correction in the present instance from the good brother who has thought well to object to the few remarks published in our December issue. On the condition of the American Churches we have very little to learn, and the person who, in any material point or general way, corrects us in relation thereto, must be one of wider experience than the writer of the foregoing. We say this because he has spent a considerable part of the three years he has been in America where he had little or no access to brethren and churches, and because since then his range has been somewhat limited; whereas, on the other hand, we meet with instances somewhat like the following:

An Evangelist from America, staying with us, contended that our view of the condition of things in American Churches was not at all sustained by his knowledge of the facts. But having, after a while, returned to his own country and spent some time in moving among the churches, he wrote intimating that he had by wider experience found that the items he was not prepared to admit prevailed according to our understanding of them. His denial when here (made, we were sure, most conscientiously), did not in the slightest change our views, because the

Observer, Apr. 1, '75

sources of our information are too varied to admit of serious error as to the facts. We depend not upon one side for imformation. We have facts from the so-called leading Progressionists and from the most intelligent of those who sound the alarm, and from all classes of brethren, American and British; including nearly everything of importance printed on both sides. We understand the matter thoroughly well; no statement of ours has yet been refuted. When there is a real correction it shall be gladly published as widely as we can circulate it.

Nor does R. Hay touch any one point of our December comment. He tells us that the brethren called "Progressionists" do not take that designation. It was not supposed, nor did our article imply, that they do. He informs us that it is used to designate those who "contend for a certain plan of co-operation in opposition to others who hold that the churches should evangelize without any such plan as they favour." But on this point he either gives us only part of his knowledge, or his information is not sufficiently ample. The term did not arise out of the Louisville plan in particular and it has a much wider application. We know when and where it originated and what it covers. In the article R. H. sets himself to correct there is no mention of this cooperation plan. The evils toward or into which certain "Progress Men" have made their way are said to include-" unrestricted communion; a hired pastor in addition to a merely nominal eldership; a recognition of sects, by concerting with them and speaking of them as the other denominations'; interference with the independency of churches; and other deviations from apostolic order." Now, so far is R. H from showing that in thus putting it we need correction, that he strikingly confirms the heavier items of the indictment and, indeed, puts in a shade rather darker than we are prepared to accept. He deems our reference to interference with the independence of churches not called for, as he has never found one fact to support it in all he knows of the history of the churches co-operating for missionary labour. But there are brethren in America who would reply, that his assertion only proves his restricted acquaintance with those facts. But, be that as it may, our specification had no reference to the missionary co-operation. We wrote what we know. The independency of churches (as we understand it to be exhibited in the New Testament) is threatened by theories held by some of the so-called Progressionists, the hired pastor being a preliminary to further departure.

The

R. H. says, "The question of a paid pastorate, or, as you have it, a hired pastorate, does not divide the brethren here. All are agreed that a preacher should be paid." We are sorry that our brother so soon falls into confounding things (on this question) that differ. What has the paying of a preacher to do with the hiring of a pastor. confounding is of Ashdod, or of the Progressionists if you please. It may be true that all American brethren agree that a preacher should be paid, but it is not true that they are thus agreed on the totally different thing of a class of men (many of them young and inexperienced), waiting in the market to be hired as church officers, and that in addition to the eldership; appropriating, too, a title to themselves and excluding the eldership from it, which title, if still applicable, belongs to the

Observer, Apr. 1. '75.

B.

Pastor of the Christian Church,

elders of the church. Occasionally we enrich our collection of curiosities by adding the card of one of these friends; in fashion thus--" Rev. A. Street, etc. But perhaps R. H. has not gone far enough yet to meet with this kind of thing. If he has, and has "taken a side," we hope it is, and ever will be, in direct opposition to all this progress out of apostolic Christianity. As to the term Progression we suggest that it be abandoned and that Retrogression be substituted; and applied faithfully and lovingly to all who are for moving off the apostolic lines, that is to say, to all such who profess to have returned to New Testament Christianity.

R. H. insists that the Progressionists and those who cry out against them are pretty much alike. If so, so much the worse; but our position is not affected thereby. We go against admitted acts, which we hold to be departures from apostolic Christianity, without respect to this party or that. We quote well-known brethren in America who complain of such departures not as indicating that we take sides with those we thus quote, but as affording proof that the evils exist. If they who thus complain are in some less degree tainted with the same evils, or in certain instances become identified therewith, that is no reason why we should not cry aloud against all deviation from New Testament principles.

ED.

NOTES FOR THE SUNDAY SCHOOL.

INTERNATIONAL SERIES OF LESSONS.

April 4. ISRAEL'S PROMISE.-Joshua xxiv. 19-23. The conclusion of a vast solemnity-give outline of lesson for last Sunday. The people fervently promise to serve God, v. 18. "Ye cannot," v. 19. They were not then in a state to serve God acceptably, having still among them "strange gods," v. 23; possibly images or teraphim, such as the gods of Laban, Gen. xxxi. The Lord holy and jealous, not forgiving the sins of those who forsake Him and serve strange gods, v. 19, 20. Not the evil passion we call jealousy, but righteous to vindicate the divine glory. The people more deliberately choose to serve God, and are thereupon called to put away their images or gods, v. 23, which no doubt, though not recorded, was then done. God will punish departure from Him, as instanced by the case of Achan and others; but forgiving the truly repentant. Ps. ciii. 8-14. "Joshua made a covenant," v. 25renewed the covenant of Sinai, as Moses had done. Deut. xxxi. "Statute and Ordinance." See Ex. xv. 25. "Book of the Law."-The Pentateuch, which probably Joshua completed, to which the Book of Joshua serves as an appendix. The stone witness, v. 27, to keep in their minds the pledge then made.

NOTE. The resolve to serve God, however earnestly made, should result from due déliberation. Resolutions too often pass off with the excitement. We cannot serve God with a divided heart. All idols must be put away. We worship not images, but are often tempted to neglect God's commands for worldly pleasure and profit, which becomes as idolatry to us. God will surely punish unpardoned sin. Pardon can be had only by those who truly repent. Those who thus repent forsake their evils and reform. Israel had Statutes and Ordinances and the Book to remind ther of their covenant and duty, so have those who now give themselves to God.

QUESTIONS.-1. Why could not Israel serve God? 2. Did the people still determine to serve God? 3. Whom will God punish for sin, and whom will He pardon? 4. What does repentance produce? 5. What was done to remind Israel of their promise to serve God? 6. What Book have we to guide us? 7. What Ordinances have we reminding us of the Lord Jesus and what He has done for us?

Observer, Apr. 1, '75.

Give outline of the

April 11. THE PROMISE BROKEN.-Judges ii. 1-16. covenant recorded in the lesson of last Sunday. "An Angel of the Lord," v. 1. Properly" The " Angel. The prophets speaking for God say: Thus saith the Lord," but THE angel speaks as God: "I made you to go up out of Egypt," etc. "Ye have not obeyed my voice," v. 2. So the covenant was broken. "Wherefore I

also said" v. 3, rather "I have now said" it on account of their sin. God would not drive out their enemies, but left them as a thorn and a snare. They name the place Bochim, which means weepers. "All that generation," v. 10, the people who were men at the time of the conquest. "Gathered unto their fathers," and phrases nearly identical in other texts are equivalent to dead and buried. "Knew not the Lord," arising from their neglect of His word and ordinances, and therefore sinful ignorance. "Did evil in the sight of the Lord." This phrase in the historical books denotes falling into idolatry. It is found seven times in Judges as descriptive of the seven apostacies of Israel. Baalim," the plural of Baal, and refers to the images of Baal, which they set up to worship, as does Ashtaroth, v. 13, to those of the Goddess Astarte. "The anger of the Lord" surely overtakes the persistently disobedient, v. 14-16. "The Lord raised up Judges," who were deliverers. The era of the Judges lasted some 450 years. Acts xiii. 20.

66

NOTE.-Israel often when punishment came upon them, wept, resolved to reform, and offered sacrifice, but almost as often their resolutions failed. God often lets wrong doers find punishment in the very wrongs they commit. When He does not the recompense is only laid up for another time; punishment that follows sin in this life is no guarantee that God will not further punish in eternity.

QUESTIONS.-1. Did the people keep the solemn covenant they made with God? 2. Did the next generation know the Lord? 3. Was their not knowing Him a sin? 4. Why was it a sin? 5. Have we the means of knowing God and Jesus? 6. How can we know the Lord and His will towards us? 7. Shall we be guilty if we neglect to obtain this knowledge? 8. What will be the result of that neglect ?

"An Angel,"

All this

April 18. THE CALL OF GIDEON.-Judges vi. 11-19, 36-40. v. 11. "The Angel," as noted last lesson. "To hide it from the Midianites." They were so oppressed and robbed that they had to conceal their wheat. came from their own sin. "Gideon" a poor farmer's son called of God to deliver Israel. His humility, v. 15. His enquiry as to the miracles he had heard that God wrought for Israel in former times, v. 13. "The Lord looked upon him," most likely with some special outbeaming of divine radiance, giving him to understand that he was listening to the command of God. The gracious look conferred strength; "Go in this thy might." God's strength had become his might. "Have I not sent thee?" "Shew me a sign that thou talkest with me." He thus secures evidence that he was not merely in a dream, v. 18-21. The second sign, v. 36, not indicating want of faith in God's power, but want of assurance that he really had God's command.

NOTE.-God generally selects feeble instruments for His great works. Gideon's boldness in destroying his father's altar. Faith the source of his strength. Heb. xi. 32. God's imparted strength is enough to render successful His weakest instruments. We have enemies to overcome and evils to conquer. There is divine power for our help. We must seek it in God's way.

QUESTIONS.-1. Why did Gideon thrash his corn_in_secret? 2. Why was this distress permitted? 3. What did the angel of the Lord say to Gideon ? 4. What did Gideon say in reply? 5. What signs did he ask of God? 6. Why did he ask them? 7. What was the source of Gideon's strength?

8. Will faith in God make

us strong to overcome evil? 9. How must we seek God's help?

April 25. GIDEON'S ARMY.-Judges vii. 1-8, 16-23. "Jerubbaal," a name given to Gideon, c. vi. 32. "The people too many," v. 2. God designs to show that He and not the people, saved Israel. "Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return." The greater part do so and leave only 10,000. They are too many. The water test, v. 4-6. Only 300 remain, who took the trumpets, pitchers, and lamps (rather firebrands) of the people who had left, so that every man had one of each. Their enemies are estimated at 135,000. The three companies of 100 each, compass the camp, each man with his firebrand concealed in his pitcher, so as to approach in darkness. Suddenly they blew their trumpets, brake their pitchers, so

« ForrigeFortsæt »