Newspaper Page Text
$a OO IT3H ANNUM,
variably ia Advance.
VOLUME XXXVIII. NO. 3G.
©rigiiral |]aclrg.
The Border I.and.
l<r MBS. MARTIN.
We are walking along the Border land,
Now, with feeble steps and slow;
Not, as whi n together, we, hand in band,
Went, with youth and health, all aglow,
In the time of the long ago.
But the Border-land is sweet and fair
And along its edge do grow,
Flowers odorous, that scent the air
As sweet, as the time we know,
That sweet time of the long ago.
And all along the tie]ving side
Of the. Border-land dolt, flow
A river, upon whose swelling tide.
As our banine nears the haven-Oh,
We'il clasp hands, as ia long ag !
On the other side, on the fairer side,
Where flowers immortal grow,
Old forever more, we shall there abide
While the river of life doth il w.
More tn.m iu long ago!
Oh! sometimes, our hearts tobkssan lfiner,
God's grace, to our faith, doth show,
Some passing glimpse—but, oh! sweet and
clear,
Whereby, our poor hearts do know,
That, Heaven will be still more swiet and
dear,
Than our bli srod In g ago.
Contributions.
Tin* Lord's Prayer.
BY REV. tV. KNOX.
VI. The Kingdom.
The kingdom, for the coming of which
wo are directed to pray, is that which the
Lord Jesus came into the world to estab
lish. It was not then come, or else the
disciples would not luve been instructed
to pray for its coming:—“7/ry Kingdom
come. ”
This kingdom is called hy Matthew very
commonly, the kingdom of heaven, or more
literally the kingdom if the. heavens; but it
is called by Matthew somethin. s, and by Iho
other Evangelists, indeed by the other
N-w Testament writers, invariably, the
“kingdom of GW.” The reason of this may
have been, that as Matthew was writing
for the Jewish Christians, housed, for the
most part, a phrase which would be well
nnderstood by them; and rs the others
were writing largely for converts from
among the Gentiles, they avoided the nse
of a term which would not be so clearly
upprehendid by them. However this
may be, tho two expressions, as it would
he easy to show, were used precisely with
the same meaning. When, for instance,
in mentioning the same incident, or rc-
cording the same parable, Matthew wrote,
‘ the if the heavens,” botix Mark
and Lake said, “the I <f God," —cs
in the parable of the mustard seed, etc.
In speaking of this blessed kingdom, I
propose to give wind I conceive to be its
proper meaning, to < fl'er a few illustrations
of its nature, to inquire what is meant by
its coming, and to unfold what is included
in the duty of praying for it to come.
The kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of
God, —for I shall ind ll'rerdly use either
phrase,—whatever may Ire the variety of
its applications, means simply the spirit
ual Reign of the Lot and Jesus, ortho Religion
of Christ. It is culled a kingdom, perhaps,
in adaptation to human modes of thought.
Like earthly kingdoms it has its Icing, its
laws, and its subjects. But while earthly
costume is borrowed to give a clearer con
ception of it, it is unlike any thing of
earthly mould, —it is spiritual. Its king is
the Lord Jesus Christ, our divine Media
tor, the Saviour of sinners, the world’s
great Bt deemtr. Its laws seek not the
mere regulation of the outward conduct,
but they ere designed to control the
thoughts and detires of the heart, or they
seek to regulate tire conduct by moving
upon the springs of action. Its subjects
are not those who become such by con
straint and remain such contrary to their
inclinations, but they are His willing,
obedient, loving people.
This kingdom is variously represented.
It is called the kingdom if heaven, because,
it may be, of its heavenly origin: it came
from God. It is culled ?he khigib mof the
heavens, denoting, perhaps, that as a sys
tem of Divine Mediation, it a fleets mote
or less all worlds, —all intelligent, respen
sible beings throughout tLe mighty uni
verse, or as indicating its excel! nee —the
last and the best of God’s dispensations
to man. It is called the kingdom of Got/,
as, although peculiarly the system of the
Messiah, yet iu its inception, inaugura
tion, success, and consummation, the Son
is not to be separated frrm the Father.
The Father sent the Son, and the Holy
Spirit proceeded from the Father and the
Son; and to these Three, as to one God,
all worship and praise and glory are due
forever and ever. Amen.—lt is the king
dom of peace, as being a system of recon
ciliation between God and His offending
creature, man. It is the kingdom of right
eousness, —the Divinely appointed means
of showing that. God is just, while He ex
tends pardon to the believer in Jesus. It
is the kingdom of holiness, as being holy in
itself, as requiring holiness in all its sub
jects, and as effecting holiness in all who
submit to its blessed influences—its hal
lowed sway. It is the kingdon of joy, or
blessedness, as imparting joy and happiness
to the hearts of Christ’s obedient people.
It is an everlasting kingdom, —for though
it is to have its blissful consummation, as
a mediatorial system, when the affairs of
this world will be wound up, the kingdom
itself is not to end, but to be delivered
back to the Father, and to continue in
undisturbed and ever increasing glory
while eternity tells out its unnumbered
and innumerable cycles.
This blessed kingdom, according to onr
Lord’s own words, “eometh not with ob
seivation.” The disciples, wilh all the
Jews of that day, were expecting a lent
poral kingdom. They looked hr an ont
ward manifestation,—a display of power
and glory, which would result in breaking
off from their necks the Roman yoke, and
in the setting np of their own nation, as a
mighty dynasty like that of David and
Solomon. They had no conception of a
spiritual kingdom. But the Son of man
came not thus,— attempted nothing like
this. His kingdom was to bo “within,” —
and from within it was to exert its influ
ences outwardly. Ite true nature is per
haps best represented by the leaven which
a “woman took and hid away in three
funtlltmi Christian AdmaU.
measures of meal.” The leaven, as repre
senting the grace of God, considered iu
reference to the meal, is a foreign sub
stance, and acts fust upon the particle or
particles with which it comes in contact,
assimilating it or them to its own likeness.
This particle, or these particles, being
leavened, act npon others, nntil the whole
is transformed. The voluntary principle,
however, can not be thus enunciated, or
elso, no doubt, we should find it set forth
in the parable, as we find in actual experi
ence, tome of the particles resisting the
leavening process; and not being assimi
lated themselves, they are incapable of
assimilating others. There is a deep
lesson here, which the Church, individ
ually and generally, should thoroughly
study.
There is another figure employed by onr
blessed Lord in the parable of the seed
sown into the earth, and springing forth
of itself, which also beautifully exhibits
tin; nature of tins kingdom. The seed is
sown und covered up—hidden away,—and
that to an inexperienc and eye would seem
to be the last of it; but in due time, —to
use the ordinary way of speaking—it comes
up, we know not how. We soe a tiny
blade as its first visible development,—
then the car, the stalk with its flowering
head,and finally, “the fall corn in the ear,”
—the thoroughly matured grain, in readi
ness for the harvest. Thus, the seed of a
spiritual life is sown in the mind or heart,
as representing the inner man. Here it is
hidden away; but by and by, it is behold
in its earliest stretching forth toward the
light; and is gradually developed, until
its matured fruitage appears in the entire
consecration of an individual life to God,
or of vuet numbers who, as the matured
gruin, are made ready for the garner of
God.
The external developments of this king
dom, its mighty growth in comparison
with the smallness of its beginning, its
great success, find their best illustration
in the p.. ratio of “(lie grain of mustard
seed.” Though the least of all seed, yet
it grows, day by day, and week by week,
spreading its branches wider and still
wider, becoming the greatest of all herbs,
—a tree, a mighty tree in which are to be
found both rest and shelter.
The disciples were directed to pray for
the coming of this kingdem. 7hy kingdom
come. It was not, therefore, then estab.
lished. Thousands of years before it had
been dimly set forth in type and pro
phecy. Kings desired to see it, and pro
phets had reached forward with earnest
longing to behold it, but the one and the
other had died without tho sight. Angels
stooped down from their lofty abode, de
siring to uncover its mighty mysteries;
but oven angelic vision was not adequate
to (lie task. But even now, that the long
looked for One had errno, and entered
upon His own proper mission, this blessed
kingdom, in tho demonstration of its fu!
nesa and power, had not come.
Its gracious influences, its saving power,
had been long and often felt. Abel, ami
Enoch, and Noah, and Abraham, and a
host of others, of whom tho author of tho
Epistle to tho Hebrews said “the time
would fail to speak,” constituting “a great
cloud of w itnesses,” all were prospectively
the sharers of its blessings, for they were
saved by the same faith as that by which
we arc saved; Their’s however was faith in
tho Coming One, ours in One who has
already come. As the Holy Ghost is said
not to have been given nntil after the
Saviour was glorified, although He had
been long in the world in nis influences,
and in the symbol of fire, descending and
consuming tho offered sacrifice, as an evi
dence of the acceptance of “him who did
the service,” because, perhaps, in His
proper personality He was not known; so
this kingdom was not yet set up, although
its saving efficacy had long been manifest
ed, because the King Himself had not
ceme, and, by His sufferings and death,
nis resurrection and ascension into her.
ven, won His title, as “King of kings, and
Lord of lords,” —the right to lute and
govern iu His kingdom, as “the King im
mortal. ’ Hence, during tbe whole of His
humiliation, and to the time when He
stood npon Olivet’s mount, ready to go
op to nis Father, this kingdom is spoken
of as one still to come.
Iu some important respects, this king
dom is still a coming one, and we may well
pray, “Thy kingdom come.” Oar own
Louts, as Christians, may not be entirely
subdued. Our wills may not be in com
plete harmony with our Heavenly Father’s
will. We may not have become holy in
heart anil life, and prepared to enter into
the high and holy habitation of heaven.
Many around us are yet in their sins, and
exposed to the wrath of God. They are
not the subjects of this kingdom. They
neglect the great salvation. They still
refuse, notwithstanding all the light they
have, all the efforts made to save them, to
come to Christ that they may have life.
The world is still in darkness. Luge
numbers of theso for whom the Saviour
died have not even heard of the name of
Jesus. Over their loDg night of woe, there
flashes not a single ray of Gospel light.
To pray for this kingdom to come, is to
pray that we ourselves should be fully
subjected to its sway,—that we may, as
vitalized particles, become capable of af
fecting others, assimilating them to the
same blessed likeness. To pray for this
kingdom to come, is to pray that those
around us may be brought under the be
nign and saving influences of the Gospel.
To pray for this kingdom to come, i3 to
pray that the world of mankind may be
enlightened and brought to the knowl
edge of the truth, —that “the kingdoms
of this world may become the kingdoms
of onr Lord Jesus Christ,”—that the Gos
pel may advance in its onward progress
from land to land,
“Till o’er onr ransomed nature
The Lamb for sinners slain, —
Redeemer, King, Creator,
Returns in bliss to reign.”
Now, as it would be useless for u-, to
pray for what we do not seek to promote,
it Is implied that we use the means of
securing onr own salvation; that wo dili
gently labor to bring those around ns in
contact with the leavening power of the
grace of God;—and that wo aid with our
talents, onr money, our various resources,
in the Christ-like work of sending the gLd
tidings of salvation to the ends of the
earth, until tto v s unexplored countries
and the remotest mini of the sea, may In ui
the joyful sound.— t,r lhy Kingdom come”
PUBLISHED BY J. W. BURKE S COMPANY, FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH.
MACON, GEORGIA, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1875.
Exclusive Apostolical Succes
sion—No. V.
BY A DEACON.
“Avoid foolish questions and genealogies.”—
Titus iii: 9.
To prepare the twelve apostles for tho
great work of their missionary field— all
nations; and all tho disciples for their
ministry, according to their different
“gifts” and “proportion of faith,” where
ever Providence might call them to labor;
they were all endowed with power—the
power of the Holy Spirit ; and to ensure
the success of their labors, thoy were en
abled, in the name of Christ, by the divine
power communicated, to perform a vast
nnmberof wonderful works, attesting the
divinity of the doctrines of tho gospel.
According to the Great Commission,
they were to teach all men “ to observe all
things whatsoever Jesus had commanded
tht-rn." and baptizs converts : “ Go ye in
to i.d a world, nud preach the gospel to
ev! i v creature. Ho that believeth and is
baptized, shall be saved ; but he that
believeth not, shall be damned. And
these signs shall follow them that believe:
In my name shall they east out devils ;
they shall speak with new tongues ; they
shall take up serpents ; and if they drink
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ;
they shall lay hands on the sick, and they
shall recover.”—Markxvi:ls, 18.
None of the?e public and extraordinary
“signs,” in proof of the truth of the gos
pel, w n perpetual; and, therefore, no
one could succeed to or transmit this
“power” of the Spirit of God. It was
exclusive to and terminated with tho first
apostles and believers. It would be blas
phemou * for even tho exclusive succession
Papists, l i lay claim to the possession
of this miraculous gift, and the ability
to transmit sneh transcendent spiritual
power.
Then what do tha more moderate
claimants, !o unbroken porsonal descent
for their bishops from the apos’lei, come
into possession of, if their claim be ever
so good ? Why, to no more than, if so
much as, tho bare visible organization of
an apostolic church. They inherit no
more than, if so much as, the personal
grace to preach the gospel, baptize peni
tents, declare the remission of sins to be
lievers, consecrate and administer the
Lord's Hnpper, and ordain others to the
same service. The efficacy of the admin
istration of no one of these ordinances
depends on the minister officiating, but
on tho personal presence therein and
blessing of Christ, by the Holy Ghost, and
on the concurrent moral fitness and faith
of the recipient. Oar Lord has expressly
promised i is presence and blessing where
obedience and faith concur: “If two of
jou .shall agree on earth as touching any
thing that thoy shall ask, it shall bo done
for them < f my Father which is in heaven.
For where t<vo or three are gathered to
gether in my name, there am I in the
midst of them.”—Matt, xviii :!!), 20.
Tee efficacy of no ordinance of Christ’s
Body resi les iu the offijeof any ministe
rial order, hut iu “Goil who gives the
increase :" * Holding the head, from
whicli all th'* body, by joints and bands
having m-u iohment ministered, and knit
together, mere.iseth with the increase of
God.”—Ool. ii : 11).
We may n>w proceed to consider
whether the claim for the exclusive spirit
ual d< so <ut of bishops, (as a distinct order
from no 1 superior to elders), through an
unbroken line from the apostles, is sup
ported by the early history of tho Church.
It will bo shown that bishops and pres
byters were names nsod in common and
interchangeably for the same order of min
isters ; and, therefore, that if the bishops
of tho Established and the P. E. Churches
are personal enccessors to the apostles,
they are so, not by virtue of their valid
ordination as bishops, but as presbyters.
“ If. is evident, from a comparison of
certain passages of Scripture, that the
terms Presbyter and Bishop are often used
in the Bible to designate the same class of
officers ” —Chapin. Iu this place, “ Paul
aud Timotheas, the servants of Jesus
Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus
which are at Philippi, with the nisnors
ami deacons ’’—Phil, i; 1. “ The Greek
ami Latin fathers do with one consent de
clare that the apostle here calls their
Presbyters (Elders) their Bishops,”—
Whitby. One clear proof text, that
elders and bishops were originally the
same in order and authority, is sufficient.
(Bat the same interpretation must be
given to Acts xx: 28; 1 Tim. iii : 1,5; Titus
i:7; which see.) Bishop Taylor says:
“All men grant that (in Scripture) the
names arc confounded,” much to his grief,
no doubt. “It is granted by Episco
palians, high and low, that the namas are
common.” —Powell.
Oj consulting the texts, it will be found
'.h it the officers in the original churches
were generally addressed or spoken of
in the plural number, as “Deacons,”
“ Bishops,” or Presbyters—“ Elders ;”
indicating certainly that there were many
such officers in each congregation or sep
arate chnrch at the same time ; and that
the interchange of the names, “ bishops”
or “ presbyters,” reduced these officers to
a common rank — to one order. Facts
these, which utterly destroy the claim of
the high church advocates, that their
Church is in form apostolical. But a
further departure from the apostolic or
ganization, stands out in bold relief, in
the clothing modern bishops with gov
ernment over presbyters. The numer
ous New Testament bishops in each
church, were overseers—rulers —of the
flock —the laity. Suoh is the force of the
statement of Paul to the bishops at Ephe
sus : “Take heed, therefore, unto your
selves, and to all the flock over which the
Holy Ghost has made you overseers, to feed
the Ch urch of God, which he has purchased
with his own blood. —Acts xx : 28.
Bat the party of exclusive spiritual de
scendants from tho apostles, seem to
maintain that their bishops are successors
to those they indirectly assume to have
an intermediate order of the ministry,
between the apostles and the presbyters,
whom they have named Presbyter-Bish
ops, by which name they seem to desig
nate persons who were expectant succes
sors to the twelve apostles’ office or order,
after the death of the incumbents; (for
instance, Epaphroditus, Baruabap, Timo
thy, Titns, and others) who are alleged to
have b.-'e'i supplier lo Pr'sbyters or E!
ders. But, unfortunately for such wild
visionaries on the noncssontial question
of succession, the only clear case of ordi
nation recorded of any one of these
apostles in wafting, shows that his minis
terial office or order was conferred by the
Presbytery—Ruling Elders. Many shifts
and turns are resorted to by the advocates
of exclusive superior episcopacy, to go]
around this plain, unvarnished, and eon
elusive case against the pretences of their
unscriptural scheme. The ease is that of
Timothy. Say% Paul to this laborious
missionary: “ Neglect not tho gift that
is in thee, which was given thee by
prophecy, with tho laying on the hands of
tho presbytery.”— l Tim. iv :14.
The signification of the word “ presby
tery ” had been long settled by apostolic
usage, and by the inspiration of tho Holy
-Spirit, There ovmld be no mistake an in 1
its full import in this case. The lugging
in of a declaration of the apostle, made
long afterward, and clearly referable to a
personal act of his, cannot break the force
of tbe matorial and conclusive fact above
stated. In 2 Tim. i: 6, Paul says,
“Wherefore I put thee in remembrance
that thou stir up the gift of God, which is
in thee, by the putting on of my hands."
Exclusive successors to Timothy—the
Presbyter-Bishop—maintain that the so
lemnities referred to in the Ist and 2d
Epistles, are one and the same act; and
that Timothy was ordained by the laying
on of the hands of Panl, with the concur
rence of the presbytery! This puerile
assumption certainly eviooes that they are
driven into a wild hunt for refuge from
the destructive effect of this plain, direct,
and inspired narration of a material fact
in Church history. llow absurd it wonld
bo to assume that Timothy was ordained
by the laying on the hands of the Presby
tery, with the concurrence of Paul ! Yet
one assumption is as well supported by
the narrative as the other. Iu tha first
cas >, tha Apostle does not say that he was
present, nor in tho second instance does
he say that the presbytery were present.
Then to say that the two oases are but
one, is to forge Scripture history. If the
Scripture be trne, Timothy was ordained
“ with the laying on the hands of the
presbytery ;” and by that ceremony was
inducted into the ancient and honorable
order and office of a presbyter in the
Church cf God.
The advocates of exclusive personal
spiritual descent for their bishops, as a
different and ruling order, above the rank
of presbyters, “fill their volumes with
tirades about Timothy, Titus, and Epa
phroditus, as prototypes of modern bish
ops. Bat as Timothy, Titus and Epa
phroditns, were not of the twelve, no
argument can bo deduced from anything
in their case in favor of the apostleship of
modern bishops. From the exclusive
nature of tbe twelve apostles’ office [or
order j none bofiidet, themselves could pea
sess it during their lives ; consequently,
nothing possessed by any other ministers
during the apostles' lives belonged to this
exclusive office.”—Powell.
Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, and the
rest of tho ministry, did not succeed to,
but possessed in common, all the power
and authority they had, by immediate
gift of the Spirit, the measure of which
to each being “ the proportion of faith.”
Thoy had none of the exclusive gifts and
prerogatives of tho apostles—they suc
ceeded to none, and'transmitted none of
them. Indeed, on the exclusive Episco
pal scheme, thoy were only bishops—
(presbyters, elders;) and the highest
churchmen steadfastly maintain that no
one “can be made a bishop who has not
previously received what they call the in
delible character of tbe priesthood, in his
ordination to the office of a presbyter. A
bishop, who had never been a presbyter,
is considered incapable of administering
the sacraments, and of conferring or
ders.”—Powell—Fieid.
Therefore, they ought the more readily
and quietly to admit, with Dodwell, that
“the office [order | of the apostles perished
with the apostles ; in which office there
never was any succession to any of them,
except to Judas, the traitor 1”
Forgiveness of Injuries.
Iu tho Advocate a few months ago, I
saw an interesting disenssion upon the
subject of forgiveness. The doctrine main
tained by one party is, that all injuries
should be forgiven by the person injured,
whether the offender repents or not. The
other side maintain that forgiveness is
only a duly when repentance “precedes.
In other words, the question stands: Is
the forgiveness of injuries a conditional
or unconditional obligation?
There can bo no question as to one of
these classes of offences. When the of
fender repents, all are agreed that he must
be forgiven. But, if he does not, and will
not, repent—what then ? Shall I forgive
my enemy, if he utterly refuse to express
his regret, or to acknowledge the wrong
committed against me? I answer yes, I
must forgive him —my own soul’s relation
to my Judge necessitates this action on my
part. But, may we not err, sometimes, in
reference to the character of forgiveness?
What is it, to forgive?
The original word has fifteen renderings
in onr English version. “Suffer the little
children to come nnto me," is literally
“forgive the little children.” Peter had
“forgiven all” when he left all to follow
Christ. They “forgave” their nets, when
they forsook them. The Pharisees had
“forgiven” the weightier matters of the
law, when they omitted them. “Forgive
the dead” to bury their dead, is our Sa
viour’s command to the hesitating dis
ciple—“lit" them, permit them to bury
their dead. So we find the words, “let
alone,” “sent away,” “yielded up,” “let
go," and others, differing in form, but all
including the radical idea of the Greek
term. This radical ideu is a release, separa
tion, absolution. Not to burden the reader
with questions of etymology, I may ex
press the meaning in the exclusive phrase,
a sending away.
Now there are two distinct acts involved
in this Christian duty of forgiveness. One
of these is conditional—the other is un
conditional. I send away tho offense, the
sin, from him, when he repents, for then
he enables me to pardon him. Pardon is
the act of a superior—whether iu moral
station, or in civil life, tho inferior cannot
pardon the superior, nor is this act possi
ble among equals. If my brother tres
pass against rue, he b< eon rr, to that ex
tent, my inferior, iu morals. When ho
feels and acknowledges the fact, he reoog-
nizes my power and right to pardon him.
Then, when he repents, I pardon him,
forgive the trespass he has committed.
In a word, then, when forgiveness assumes
the form of pardon, it is conditional, and
can only be pronounced, as our righteous
Judge pronounces it, when the offender
repents, and confesses his transgression.
But there is another sending away— the
forgiveness which is unconditional. I
forgive my brother, when I send away,
out of my heart, and ont of my memory,
the offense he has committed. This lam
bound to do, whether he repents or not.
Otherwise, the nnforgiven injury is con
stantly clamoring for revenge. It is a
secret fire that burns in my soul, and if I
do not quench it, my peace of mind is
destroyed, and my sonl is separated from
God,’my Heavenly Father. He who does
ot forget, does not truly forgive, his
brother’s trespasses. This blessed temper
is the frnit of Divine grace, and only the
true child of God can possess it. There
fore, brethren, pardon the penitent, for
give the sinner. This is tbe fulfilling of
the law of love. W. P. Harrison.
Atlanta, August 26 th, 1875.
“Holiness,” The Profession.
Bear Brother Kennedy: The position as
sumed in my first article,was, that among
the comparatively few who have professed
and do profess this experience of sanctifi
cation, there is a large per cent, who from
idiosyncrasies, weaknesses, or vices, fail
to exemplify it. This proposition has not
been assailed, but only confirmed by the
articles written in the opposition. Brother
Pritchard in his late article, in noticing
the illustrations given in my last, fully
confirms the opinion. He says, “If these
charges are correct, these brethren shonld
not have made a profession of sanctifioa
tion.” I have a right therefore to regard
the position undisputed, and may legiti
mately conclude, that there should be
great cantion in the profession of sancti
fication.
In the reply to brother Pritchard and
brother Carlisle, I took position squarely
on the Bible, and demanded any example
to be adduced from that book. There I
now stand, and challenge the proof of
prophet, evangelist, apostle, or private
member in apostolic times, who professed
the experience of sanctification as a bless
ing distinct from justification and regen
eration. Brother Pritchard I take as fully
establishing my position. Regarded as
the best Scriptnriat in the South Carolina
Conference, he has exhausted his ability,
and somewhat amusingly exerted his inge
nuity in presenting two cases—David and
St. Paul. I will not say that in these
brother P. has perverted the
Scriptures, but I will say, that he has ut
terly failed to furnish any example of a
profession of sanctification distinct from
justification and regeneration, and will
cheerfully submit to a decision from your
intelligent readers.
Brother P. says, *‘ I am at a loss to
know what brother Mood means to teaoh
by saying that ‘ Christ the Anointed was
sanctified.’” Iu reply I will say that
brother P. in a subsequent sentence gives
my meaning fully when he says, “Jesus
not only possessed and practiced holiness,
but professed it ;” and this is the only ex
ample which tho Bible affords of such a
profession. If Christ had designed his
followers to make this profession, surely
Peter with his holy fever, John with his
heart overflowing with love, or Paul with
his frequent narration of religions expe
rience, wonld have made the profession !
Is not their united silence significant ?
It is undisputed that Mr. Wesley did
not profess it. Brother P. asks, ‘ How
do I know that Mr. Y/esley did not, sub
sequently to the occasion alluded to, pro
fess it.’ I answer, bicause tbe contention
on this subject which shook the societies
from centro to circumference would have
developed such a profession. Two of Mr.
Wesley’s preachers, one a prominent man,
seceded, carrying many members with
them; the chief ground iu tho dispute
being that Mr. Wesley was incapable of
teaching sanctification when he did not
profess to experience it. The biography
of no man in ancient or modern times has
been more minutely written than Mr. Wes
ley’s; the profession of sanctification on
his part was a matter of public agitation,
which in a controversy he declaimed. Is
it not clearly inferable, that if at any sub
sequent time lie had professed it, he and
his followers would have made it public ?
Dr. Dodd, one of Mr. Wesleys oppo
nents, made direct accusation, when he
replied, “ Sir, havo me excused. I have
told all the world, lam not perfect. I tell
you flat, I have not attained the character
I draw. Will you pin it npon me in spite
of my teeth?” Nor did he to the latest
day of his life make any public or private
profession, so far as is known from the
minute details of his eventful life.
I will now add to Mr, Wesley, Heilding,
and Asbnry, a largo majority of the bish
ops dead and living than whom no
Church can show more devoted and holy
men—together with an overwhelming ma
jority of the best working, iLflaential.and
successful of the ministry and member
ship of the Church. Indeed, take the
bone and sinew of Methodism from Mr.
Wesley’s time to the present, and with a
few exceptions they did not profess this
second blessing.
Brother P. says, “lean conceive how
one possessing and practicing holiness,
but not professing it, may retard the pro
gress of holiness in others.” I reply that
holiness of life and heart,experienced and
practiced, c m never retard this work in
others; and brothirP. can rest assured
that this is a vain conception. A life and
character like this might retard a mere
technicality, a conception which makes
sanctification so distinct from regenera
tion that one antagonizes the other, but
not the holiness of the Now Testament,
which has its foundation in justification.
Holiness in heart developed in life, with
out a verbal probation, has been the
means used by the heroes of the Bible
and of Methodism to spread Scriptural
holiness over all lands.
There is nothing in Mr. Wesley’s day
more inconsistent and humiliating than
the historical development of this doc
trine. At one period it spread with such
wonderful rapidity over England as to
number its professors by thousands, and
in the space of a few years the lapse was
so great as to embrace a large majority
both among tho preachers and the laity,
leaving only a small remnant steadfast.
In 17G2 Mr. Wesley declares that the
professors of this state of grace were
numbered by thousands. In 17C4 Mr.
Wesley says he thought he knew five hun
dred witnesses of it. In 1705 he found
about two-thirds had ceased to profess it.
In 1768 he writes his brother Charles, “ I
am at my wits end in regard to two things,
the Church and Christian perfection.” In
1770 he declares that of those “who pro
fessed to obtain sanctification hardly one
in thirty retain it.” Of the hundreds in
London, he doubted, he said, “ whether
twenty are now as holy and happy as thoy
were.” In 1772 ho again writes, “ T find
almost all our preachers in every circuit
have done with Christian perfection.” In
1785 he writes, “Sovcral persons have en
joyed this blessing without interruption
for many years.” A sad history indeed!
The history of sanctification since the
days of Mr. Wesley until now, presents
the same humiliating spectacle of convul
sive excitements in which numbers profess
it, a largo majority of whom failing to
exemplify and adorn it, causes a reaction,
which blights all prospects of success un
til that generation dies out and anew one
comes on the stage of action.
Take any modern Methodist communi
ty for three decades together, and consult
the history of those who in this period
have professed to be sanctified, and
how many maintain any profession of it
fora third of the time? and among those
who do, how many make their profession
an ornament and a blessing ? With snoh
historical facts, can we be too cantious
how we profess this high attainment, or
encourage others to make it ?
Yours, ete., Henry M. Mood.
Sanctification.
Mr. Editor: It was the intention of tho
writer, in tho communication to which
your correspondent “Enquirer,” in the
Advocate of tho 18th nit., refers, to an
nounce his belief that no one could re
ceive regenerating grace without first
surrendering himself ns a whole free-will
offering to God; and that no one could
thus present himself without being
wholly accepted in the Beloved. In other
words, that entire consecration necessati
ly must precede conversion ; and, hence,
to be a Christian at all, one is obliged to
be a “perfect Christian,” morally, washed
from every stain, and cleansed from all
unrighteousness ; must “ be able to com
prehend with all saints what is the
breadth, and length, and depth, and
height; and know tho love of Christ,
which passeth knowledge, and be filled
with all the fulness of God.”—Eph. iii:
18, 19.
Tho Biblo is our only guide in matters
of religion, and a oaroful and prayerful
study of that holy book, tho writer is
persuaded, will convince any ono that it
gives out no “ uncertain sound ” on the
question of practical Christianity, not
withstanding the variety of conflic’ing
opinions entertained iu tho Christian
world, especially on the subject of sancti
fication, which, of all othors, is tho most
important, because involving man’s cap
tivity to ami acceptance with God, through
Christ.
Tho apostle Paul plainly declares that
“to be carnally-minded is death; but
to be spiritually-minded is life and peace,
because tho carnal mind is enmity against
God ; for it is not subject to the law of
God, neithor indeed can be. So then
they that are in the flesh cannot please
God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in
the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God
dwell in yon. Now if any man have not
the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.”—
Bom. viii: C, 9, This being true, they
that are in this mind, either in whole or
in part, cannot servo or please God, but
are in bondage to another master. In re
generation, therefore, this mind is neces
sarily destroyed, the heart cleansed, and
the newly made saint introduced into the
Kingdom of God —the law of God now
being tho law, and the only law, of his
new-born life, and he a recognized heir
of God and joint heir with onr Lord Jesus
Christ. He needs no other blessing to
prepare him either to live or die ; for he
has received the spirit of adoption where
by he cries, Abba, Father. Tho Spirit
itself bearetb witness that he is a child of
God. He could be no more.
“ And as we received Christ Jesus the
Lord, so we ate to walk in Him—rooted
and built up in Him, and established in
the faith, as we have been taught, abound
ing thetein wiih thanksgiving.”—Col.
ii: G, 7, We received Christ Jesus the
Lord only when we had abandoned and
given ourselves -wholly to Him ; and thus
we are to walk in Him, if we are to walk
at all. Entire consecration was necesea
rily a prerequisite to our becoming Chris
tians, and it is equally essential to our
continuing Christians. Aid entire conse
cration and entire holiness are insaperably
conjoined, whether at the pi riod of re
generation or afterwards.
It is not a question of grace, however
much of that the merciful Lord may have
bestowed upon us, in order to bring us to
Christ—indeed, we may be recognized as
Christians by both saint and sinners, and
the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, at
times, may be almost overwhelming ; it
is simply, whether we are the Lord's, sonl
and body—nothing other than this. God
will accept nothing less. However few or
small our idols, even those our fathers
and mothers served “ on the otherside of
the flood,” or those of the fashionable
world in which we dwell— bey must all
be given up—the last out . f them laid
upon the altar, and ours ivee with them,
before the holy and je.i/'os G id will ac
cept us at all, and whoa at a.i, He accepts
us altogether,
A sinner may have, and does have
much, very much of the grace of the
Spirit of God ; but no Christian can be
a sinner without forfeiting his right to
that title. H.nce, entire consecration to
God is the only slate recognized in the Bible
as that if a Christian; and the Discipline
of onr Church is thoroughly Scriptnral in
enjoining upon all its members that they
“renounce the devil and all his works,
the vain pomp and glory of tho world,
with all covetous desires cl the same, and
the carnal desires of the flesh, so that
they will not follow or be led by them.”
While this representation of the sub
ject of practical godliness is certainly cor
rect, lio one should fail to accept tho
grace he may already have, because it
does not elevate him to the Bible standard
of a son of God. He shonld, however,
without delay, seek tho blessing of sanc
tifleation, which is the only state and con
dition where a mutual reconciliation be
tween himself and God can be consum
mated and ratified by the impressed seal
of tho likeness of God stamped npon his
heart.
Thus muoh, for the present, written at
the instance of your correspondent “ En
quirer,” and hope he is able to see the
position of the writer more clearly.
Affectionately, Quinney.
Is There no Help?
Afi*. Editor: In the September number
of the Sunday school ltfnonzine. the editor
has an article on the subject of our Sun
day-school libraries. He is for “ anew
departure.” One paragraph maybe quot
ed that indicates the line he is on :
“Our platform on the subject of Sunday
sohool libraries, we propose to laydown
very plainly and briefly : 1, It must con
tain no irreligious books. 2. Retain all
the best religious books and elevate the
standard by which snoh books are judged.
3. Build ‘dykes’ against the devouring
floods of goodey trash ’ that threaten to
overwhelm us. 4. Admit only the best
story-book3. 5. Add to our list other
books, biographies, histories, essays,
books of travel, etc.”
In the larger Sunday-school libraries he
wonld like to see even “Plutarch’s
Lives,” and other standards of the old
time. He says truly : “ There are hun
dreds of modern biographies of the
world’s leaders that deserve a place in onr
libraries.”
Mr. Elitor, allow me space for an ex
hortation. Why wo shonld confine our
selves to so narrow a range as has generally
marked the limits within which we may
select Sunday-school books, is hard to
imagine. Nearly fifty years ago they be
gan by publishing books for only Sunday
reading, as if there were notPsix other
days in which the children may read the
books of what ought to be the circulating
library of the Church. If I understand
him aright, one,.reason the editor of the
Magazine liberty in the selec
tion of Sunday-school hooks, is found in
the scarcity of good books among the
mass of our people. He says : “Iu the
cities [he should have said iu some of the
cities] we have public libraries ; in nearly
all villages, small towns, and country
settlements, the Sunday-school has the
only thing that is like a public library ;
but what miserable things most of them
are 1” Yea, verily !
Ferhaps it is not too much to say that
one-half—rather more than less—of onr
Sunday-school library books aro namby
pamby storms, or dry-as-dust nonde
scripts. Tho first do no good, waste
precious time, and induce bad habits ;
tho second-class children will not read,
and if they would, or could, thoy are, for
the most part, utterly indigestible. There
is in all this rubbish, a great wasto of type,
ink, paper, muslin, binding, labor, money
and time. The more wo think nnd know
about this whole matter, the more wo are
amazed. Wo make bold to say that hun
dreds on hundreds of so-called Sunday
school books are made simply to sell, and
that they are utterly unfit to bny. Gilt
lettering, fancy binding, cream tinted
paper, cheap pictures—how they flash,
bewilder, and deceivo ! If tho books in
the Alexandrian library were like these,
immortal honor to the mau who kindled
tho fire that consumed them. O, for a
first-class conflagration that would sweep
the great mass of them —stock on the
shelves, and stereotype plates in the
vaults —ont of existence I Nero fiddled
while Rome was burning, and he ought
to have been flung into the fire for his cruel
crimes ; bat, for our part, any man is
welcome to fiddle, and shout, too, when
the conflagration we long to see is at its
maximum of bhza and smoke. “ That
will be joyful.” “And the cry is, ‘Still
they come.’ ” It is a fountain that never
runs itself out, a volcano that night and
day belches out mud and ashes. The
mere catalogues of these books would
make large volumes. We are bewildered,
and so we believe aro many of our best
Sunday-school people. Moreover, we are
out of all patience, and we “do well to
be angry.” It is enough “to make a wise
man mad.” A score or more of publish
ing houses, great and small, go on, some
of them night and day, manufacturing
books simply to sell, and we are silly
enough to bny whatever they tell ns to
buy.
The making and sc-Iling of books to tho
Sunday schools haß become a grand spec
ulation. Many are riding into fortune on
the great Sunday-school tidal wave that is
one of the most remarkable of all the re
ligious and social phenomena of onr times.
We Sunday-school people are, most of U3,
credulous and gullible to the last degree.
Catalogues take us in, book notices take
us in, merchants take us in, nnd pedlars
take us in. The trade has developed
many “tricks”—“vain,” it mny be, but
successful —“peculiar,” most certainly,
but profitable.
We intend to expose some of them, and
if any crockery is smashed, let those who
love, mend it. Here is one : Many houses
have books that have been tried and found
wanting. They have been condemned ;
children have tried and refused them.
But tho publisher has money locked up in
the plates. Whatcinbe done about it?
Get out “anew edition,” that is, change
the year of 1839 to 1875, devise anew
cover, put on more gilt, (euphemism for
brass), take a hundred such books, throw
them into sets, neatly put up in paste
board boxes that are of no possible uso,
and that somebody his to pay for, name
the whole tei “Library No. ,” after
some well known and really good book,
and under its convoy tug the whole mass
of drift safely into port. Thousands on
thousands of useless bocks, dead books,
and in many cases hurtful books, are an
nually sold because the Superintendent’s
eye Is caught by tho pretty name of the
one book that is worthy, thus, “Bose
Bank Library, 6 vols. Price, $5.00.” He
thinks of Rose Bank, knows nothing of
the unnamed five, and sends his order.
The loss of his §5 is a small affair, bnt it
is no email affair to till np our book shelves
with good-for-nothing volumes because
oe of the set is named “ ltose Bank."
Now take breath, there’s moro to come.
Mokdec.u.
F. M. KENNEDY, D. D., Editor
J. IV ISURKE, Assistant Editor
WHOLE NUMBER 1960
Hr. Narsli and Lord Roden.
Mr. Editor: I found the following—a
waif, bnt touching, impressive, instruct
ive—and agreeing with tho view of “W.
0. E.” at the close, I send it for the Advo
cate, il yon approve.
H. A. G. Walker.
Orangeburg, S. C.
Rev. Dr. Marsh, of Eagland once re
peated the following lines to Lord Roden,
telling him that his old schoolmaster, Dr.
Valpey, composed them as his profession
of faith. Lord Roden requested Dr.
Marsh to write them, and he fastened the
paper over the mantel in his study:
“In peace let me resign my breath,
And Thy salvation see;
My sins deserve eternal death,
But Jesus died for me.”
Some time after, General Taylor, ono of
the heroes of Waterloo, came to visit Lord
Roden; auU though ho had felt no inter
est in religion, he kept his eyes naod on
this verse. At length Lord Roden ven
tured to say:
“Why, General, you will soon know
that verse by heart.”
With emphasis and feeling the General
replied: “I know it now by heart."
He became entirely changed; and two
years afterward, died repeating the lines
which had led him to Christ.
Lord Roden repeated these facts at
neighbor’s where a young offioerfrom the
Crimea was visiting. Some months after,
as this offiaer lay on his death-bed,he sent
an nrgent request to Lord Roden to visit
him. As he entered the room the dying
man reached ont his hand, repeating these
simple lines, adding: “They have been
God’s message of peace to my sonl.”
Many years after Dr. Marsh was paying
a visit to an old and valued friend. Tho
two friends were comparing years, when
Mr. Maitland said: “lam not yonr equal
in years; but I wish I were in wisdom and
goodness.” Dr. Mursh pointed him to
Christ, and quoted Dr. Valpey’s lines ;
and at Mr. Maitland’s request wrote the
verse for him. As he received it he said:
“I shall wear it near my heart.” It was
found there after his death.
We have copied these lines so signally
blessed, hoping that other eyes resting
npon them may be led to adopt them as
their own. W. C. E.
The foregoing reminded me of the
verse of that wonderful hymn-writer,
Charles Wesley, said to be his iast, dicta
tad on his death bod, and written by his
wife—lo37ia our hymn-book:
“ In age and feebleness extreme,
Who shall a helpless worm redeem?
Jesus, my only hope thou art,
Strength of my failing flesh and heart 1
O, might I catch a smile from thee,
And drop into eternity!”
Pastoral Support.
The last speech made by Dr. Gatbrio
in an eclesiastical meeting, if wo remem
ber correctly, was npou the subject of
ministerial snpport. Ho plead with the
people of the Scottish Free Church to
take the matter into the most serious
consideration, toiling them that the pros
perity of the cause of the Master depend
ed on it. What he said then is still true,
not only in Sootland, but in this country
and everywhere. If we expect young
men of talent to go into the ministry we
.must make provision for their support,
'nii'd if wo expect thoso already at woik to
succeed and to keep up the oredit of the
Church through their own growth and
their singleness of devotion to the eanse,
wo must lift them above the necessity of
higgling and haggling over money and
the way to get it, and pnt them in a con
dition to buy libraries and snrround
themselves with all that is necessary in
the prosecution of their calling.
The late Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church passed an act requiring every
minister to preach on the subject of min
isterial support, that “laying aside all
false delicacy, they enlighten the people
ou this or any other branch of Christian
duty, pleading not for themselves, but
for Ihe Master.” This is right, and we
trust every pastor will see to it that he
obey bis instructions. There is a delicacy
on the part of pastors in adverting to a
subject that has so near a relation to their
own temporal interests, and we do not
wonder they feel it; yet it is a false delioa
cy after all. Tho people need instruction
on this subject as on any other, and they
have no way of getting it except from the
pastors who are over them for that pur
pose. The pastors, too, as they are re
quired to preach the whole gospel, have
no right to abate any part of it through
the fear that people may miseonstrno
their meaning and intention. It is for
them to preach the entire truth and leave
the resnlt with God. Besides, contribnt
ing to the church-fund is not is not sim
ply paying a minister. A congregation
wishes to exist, and it can only do so
through the services of one who shall
have the oversight of it and act as its lead
er and teacher. It st ands also as part of tho
Church at large, representing a certain set
of principles which it wishes to maintain
because .t thinks them necessary, or at
least useful, aud it is bound to contribute
to these. Ii is the cause and Church it is
to support, and not the man. He as pas
tor is only a part of the machinery which
God has appointed and made essential in
building np and conserving His interests,
and they who as Christians give money
are not to think they are giving it to any
person, but to the kingdom, to be ex
pended in its advancement. We would
wish that in our Church, without the
passage of an act, the pastors would, each
and all, preach on this subject, doing it
fully, strongly, sincerely, and in a kindly
way, and that they would feel, and the
people feel with them, that it is all done
as a duty demanded of God. — United Pres
byterian.
Lost Beneath the Cross.
The cross of Jesus has been lifted up bo
that ail may behold it. Christ was not
crucified within the walls of a jail, bnt in
plain view of all the multitude. The re
cord of His life and death is an open page
before ns, so that he who perishes amid
this gospel light has no one to criminate
but himself. I have read of those who
are lost in snow storms, that often their
bodies are found at the gate of their own
dwelling. Although Christ has made an
all sufficient atonement, so that all who
will look to the cross of Christ may be
saved, I fear that beneath the very cross
itself shall be found thousands upon
thousands of the unredeemed and forever
lost, because they will not so much as lock
away from their sins unto Him, who,
from the cross, is looking npon them.
Many have planted beneath and trim
med i=round the cross bo many fruitless
earthly hopes, that it is impossible to see
the bleeding body of Him that hangs
upon the cross crucified, that they may
receive into their hearts that blessed and
sure hope of immortality, which tho
world can neither give nor take away.
Many have builded about the crofssncli
a high wall of sectarian animosity, that
neither no they themselves touch the hem
of the healing garment of King Jesus,
nor do they pel mit others to do so. For
shame, for shame! Tear down thoso
walls of division, and let the victim on
the cross be seen as tho victor over (loath
and sin, to all who will look npon Him.
Reader, be careful to make your salvation
sure, that at last you may not |be found
under the flowing stream of redeeming
blood, benoath the cross of tho loving
Son of God, lost! lost! lost!
TnE knowledge of God is gained as a
knowledge of man is gainol, by living
mack with Him. If wo only come across
a roan occasionally and in publio, and
see nothing of him in bis private nnd
domestic file, wa cum. at, bo said to know
him.