Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities: National Digital Newspaper Program. Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this newspaper do not necessarily represent those of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Newspaper Page Text
/X LIBRARY)
z— —* I** “ f=Z3 — (Q /
iRXh
VOL uni TH HEE
HU MV ER TWENTY -NINE
EDITORIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
This abbreviated issue is the first of three or four editions of similar size, made necessary by pending preparations
for the removal of the publication office of this paper to Fort Worth, Texas.
We are going to spread out—yes, spread clear out to Texas. There will be two offices —Atlanta, Georgia, and Fort
Worth, Texas, with the publishing office in the great Texas metropolis.
Our loyal readers need not be told, we imagine, the supreme “why” of this step, which is both a move and a move
ment. The editor wants to fight the liquor traffic in that vast empire at closer range with tongue and pen than his
Georgia residence will allow. Countless friends in Texas have been urging this removal for nearly a year, and duty, as
well as business expediency, directs the removal.
Its necessity is apparent. The saloon interests inveigh against the campaigning of an outsider. The most effective
work must be by a citizen of the soil.
Remember well and tell your neighbors everywhere that The Golden Age will be brighter and better than ever.
It will pulse with the undulating beauty and bigness of the Texas plains and glow with the fever and fervor of the
Texas battle. Everybody everywhere will be wanting to keep up every week with the mightiest moral conflict ever
seen on the American continent.
Watch for further announcements.
THE SUCCESSION OT SUTTERING
Tabernacle Sermon by Reb. Len G. Broughton, D. D.
“Now I rejoice in my suffering for your sake and
fill up on my part that which is lacking of the af
flictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake,
which is the church.’’ —Col. 1: 24.
HERE are some churches and some de
nominations that never give anybody
any rest until they agree with them
that they are the actual successors of
the apostolic church since the days of
the apostles. There are individual ec
clesiastics in all churches, so far as
I know, that would have us believe also
that they themselves are in the apos-
T
tolic line of succession, and that nobody else has a
right to administer the ordinances of the church ex
cept those upon whose heads their hands have been
laid. There are those who would have us look with
such a regard upon the ordinances of the church.
They would have us believe that an ordinance of
rhe church is lacking in value unless it has been
administered by one who is in this line of apostolic
succession-Take, for example, the ordinance of bap
tism. They say that it is not valid unless it is ad
ministered by one who was himself baptized by one,,
ATLANTA, GA., SE rLMBER 3, 1908.
Steuographically reported for The Golden Age. —Copyright applied for
who was baptized.by one back to Paul without a
line broken in the succession.
There are those who would have us believe that
same thing with respect to communion: That no
body has a right to administer the communion, typ
ifying the broken body and the shed blood of Jesus
Christ, except thase who have been officially set
apart by the church, which is itself in line with the
succession of the apostles.
t may say that it is hard for me to see how any
man can hold to such teaching who has knowledge
enough even to read church history. And it is
harder still for me to understand how anybody,
knowing-the teaching of the apostles with respect
to these matters, can hold such a view, for all
through the Scriptures we are taught that the sa
credness of nothing is to be determined by the man
who administers it or touches it; that since the day
Jesus Christ hung upon the cross and the veil of the
temple was rent in twain, we have no further need •
for priests, other than our Great High Priest.
But there is a line of apostolic succession that
we do believe in and which we advocate and that is
the succession of suffering spoken of in the text.
.Look at the text; there are naturally two divisions
ot it: The first has to do with the apostles’ atti
tude toward suffering. The second has to do with
the nature of the apostles’ suffering.
As to, the first clause of this text, that which
has to do with the attitude of the Apostle toward
suffering, I would only have you hear his words:
“I rejoice in my suffering for your sake.” How
opposite the Apostle Paul is from the average man
or woman that you know. The average man is try
ing his dead level best to keep from suffering, and
if in the providence of God it is his lot to suffer,
he makes himself so miserable as to make everybody
else around him still more miserable because he has
to suffer. The average man while suffering—it
makes no difference whether he is a Christian or
not, for we are all alike in this respect —when he
finds that he cannot throw it off, begins to frown
and growl and grunt, so that everybody in his com
munity is made to feel miserable because of his
misery. Now the Apostle Paul says. “I rejoice in
my suffering. I invite it. When it comes 1 ac
cept it. T rejoice in it.” Why? Because he did not
have any feeling? No! He had just as sensi
tive feeling as we have. He was sensitive to the
same impressions to which we are sensitive. But the
TWO DOLLARS A YEAR,
TIVE CENTS A COPY.
