Prophetic Department. TO THE REFORMED CLERGYMAN. Respected Sir, I CONGRATULATE you upon the completion of the first part of your plan in the examination of the fulfilled prophecies, and beg leave to say that I have been much pleased and edified with the many very interesting facts and reflections which you have presented. I must confess, however, that I am particularly gratified with the uncertainty of your conclusions when you come to speak upon those prophecies which are not yet accomplished, as, for example, those referring to the period at which the sanctuary shall begin to be cleansed. I believe, sir, you are right here; though to be sure inclination is a great help to belief, and, as you have no doubt discovered from the communications I had formerly the honor to address to you, I am disposed to believe that in interpreting the unfulfilled prophecies men are certain only in uncertainty, and consistent only in inconsistency. You will at least admit that it must be from an inclination the other way, if any literalist interpreter should assert that the late loud blast of the sturdy Layman's horn has laid your well-built arguments as flat as the walls of Jericho. If, indeed, the predictions relating to the future are ever to be clearly understood, it will be I doubt not in the way you have devised; by first exploring the fulfilled prophecies and deducing therefrom just rules of interpretation. It may be that from them a grammar of the prophetic language can be compiled. At all events, so judicious an attempt merits approbation and success. 'Thus the rower looks in a direction precisely opposite to the point at which he wishes to arrive. But as this is a simile somewhat hackneyed, I would say that your course reminds me of the following incident:-The slaves of an ancient city having revolted against their masters and obtained possession of the place, came to an agreement that he amongst them who should first discover the rising of the sun in the morning should become the Governor of the city. Upon the appointed day, when all were assembled before the dawn, one of them, instructed by his mister whom from affection he had concealed and preserved from death, was observed to look towards the West, while the others fixed their eyes upon the East in eager expectation. The consequence was that he saw the shining of the sun upon the lofty mountains in the West long before the disc of the luminary appeared above the eastern horizon, and was accordingly adjudged to have gained the prize. It is possible, sir, that in addressing your attention to the past, instead of dwelling confi dently and exclusively upon the future, like the literalists and the Layman, who, by the bye, is more dogmatical than any clergyman I know, you may be the first to see "the dawn of Joy's eternal day," and hail the rise of "Life's unsetting sun." For my part, the conviction that the manner in which the prophetic writings have been descanted upon of late years is highly censurable, and calculated to impair their credit, as well as lead away the attention from facts to idle speculations, has induced me to interpose the opinions that men have pushed their inquiries too far in this department, inspired by curiosity or the love of novelty rather than of truth; that it was never intended for men to know the times and seasons which the Father has reserved in his own power, and that the unfulfilled prophecies can never be clearly understood until the events foretold shall have actually occurred. My only object at present, sir, is, in the midst of so many conflicting views, to present again these sentiments as a remora in the way of too hasty conclusions. In proportion as I hold it important that Christians should possess a firm faith and a lively hope in the coming of our Lord, and should dwell upon the FACT with longing and delightful anticipation, in the same degree do I deprecate those fanciful conjectures and visionary theories respecting the time and manner of his coming, or the antecedent events, which lead to enthusiasm by creating false hopes, or weaken faith by disappointment; which confuse the mind rather than inform the judgment, and please the fancy rather than improve the heart. Yours with much respect, D. A. SENATORIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. 417 SENATORIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. I Now pass to your remarks on the private teaching of the Elders: and here I premise that the scripture phrase 'from house to house' by no means indicates private teaching; for in the absence of houses appropriated to public services, the only alternative was to use the houses of the disciples, and the passage of Acts v. 42. bears strong evidence in itself that the services were public; and like those of Paul, (Acts xx. 22.) consisted not in teaching disciples, but in proclaiming the glad tidings to sinners, to do which I regard as obligatory on every disciple wherever he can find a hearer: 'For the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and let him that heareth, say, Come.' That the Master's teaching from 'house to house' was not private is evident, for he told the High Priest, (John xviii 20) 'I spoke openly to the world; I always taught in the Synagogues and in the Temple whither the Jews constantly resort I said nothing in secret.' And in his charge on sending out the Seventy, he says expressly. (Luke x. 18.) 'Go not from house to house.' The example of the Master, therefore, is directly opposed to the course you advocate.Let us now turn again to Paul at Acts xx.: he is taking leave of the Elders of the congre gation at Ephesus, and briefly reminds them of the assiduity and fidelity with which both publicly and privately he had proclaimed the gospel, 'reformation to God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,' his sufferings, &c.; but he recounts those things not for example, but to establish the fact (see 26th verse) 'that he is [I am] clear from the blood of all men,' and to impress on them, as he does in the succeeding verses, the price at which the congregation had been bought: the part he intends for example is distinctly stated in the 33d, 34th, and 35th verses. Again when we find him warning them against wolves, and saying at verse 30, 'Yes, from among your own selves men shall arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them,' it seems impossible to understand him as recommending private teaching; the way of all others the most easy for 'wolves in sheep's clothing' to draw away disciples after them. But when we add the fact that Paul has branded this private teaching as a prominent feature of the Apostacy, 2 Tim. iii. 6.—“Of these indeed are they who go into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins,' &c. it seems to me not merely not enjoined, but expressly forbidden; even admitting your principle that example is equivalent to precept. But I utterly deny that the authority exercised by the Master and his Apostles affords precedent or example for Elders or any other subjects of the kingdom. Such an assumption is equivalent to the apostolic succession, if not something more. The gifts to the congregation ceased when the Master's will was fully made known, and with the gifts ceased the authority with which the holders of them acted. But Elders are no where enumerated among the gifts: their duties are distinctly marked out, and it is hardly possible that Paul, when dilating on that special subject, would have failed to enjoin any duty incumbent on them. The force of example, it appears to me, should reach thus far and no farther:-Whatever Elders (proper) did according to scripture is an example for Elders in the present day; and whatever disciples did is an example for the disciples in the present day; but for every thing else we must find precept. The submission of our Master to his Father's will, and the fidelity of the Apostles to the Master's behests are the great examples held out to us, and which we cannot too closely imitate. But you say that "we that daily labor in the word and teaching know that much of the little good we do is done in social conversation,' &c. The wildest errorist has said as much, and with entire sincerity, in justification of the wildest errors. It shows your opinion and experience; but not supported by the word of God and constituting an excep. tion to all history. You have intimated that I wish to neutralize or avoid the obvious meaning of the Apostle's precepts, and 'manacle and fetter the Elders with bye-laws,' &c. In reply I will only beg your readers to peruse conscientiously all we have written on the subject and then judge for themselves. The fate of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram touches not me; they perished because they strove to jostle from their pre eminence Jehovah's commis. sioned messengers, Moses and Aaron; let those who would usurp the authority of the Apostles of Jesus take the warning to themselves. When I shall see a person who is the father to a commanity as Paul was to the Corinthians, (his discourse not being with per suasive words of human wisdom, but with the demonstration of the Spirit and of power,') I will acknowledge his right to plant himself on the same ground with the Apostles; but until then I shall feel bound to call no man Father on earth. It appears to me that every experiment has been tried with the religion of Jesus, save the most obvious one-that of letting it speak unadulterated by the wisdom of man. I did hope, nor do I yet despair, that, aided by your powerful influence, example, and talent, this glorious experiment would be made on a large scale; in encouragement I have thought I could almost hear the Spirit exclaiming. 'Prove me now herewith, if I will not open you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.' But I waver when I see influential brethren enjoining upon the disciples as a matter of conscience to endow an institution for which no type or command can be found in law or gospel, to make it their heir, (where are the poor, the widow, and the fatherless, the objects named by Divine Wisdom?) and still worse-if they (the disciples) have not the money, to send their notes-Paul says, 'Owe no man any thing.' Another proclaimer publishes a sermon for the illustration of divine truth, and dedicates it to man whose breath is in his nostrils: Paul says, 'And whatever you do work it from the soul as to the Lord and not to men.' A congregation in the West has invented a new bond of union, unknown to any of the Apostles, and requires a pledge besides the confession of Jesus, in order to admission into their communion: Peter does say 'that his divine power has gifted to us all things necessary to life and godliness:' James declares, "He who speaks against his brother and condemns his brother, speaks against the law and condemns the law:' and Paul charges, 'Let no one judge you in meat or in drink,' &c. Yet in the face of all this, they require a pledge no where intimated in the divine law, and thus condemn the law; repudiate the doctrine of Peter; for if they believed that all things necessary had been gifted, they would not have tacked on this little help of their own; disallow the injunction of Paul and violate Christian love, for they exclude their brother from the very institutions appointed by heavenly Wisdom to mould his character into the likeness of his Master, to cleanse him from the evil against which they appear so anxious to guard. Why not at once declare that they will fellowship no man who is not perfect in every moral virtue and Christian grace? One more sign! It is that you, my dear sir, the advocate of a pure speech, of Bible language, talk of the senatorial government of the church,' (why not the Papal?) the Senate of Ephesus! (why not the church of Rome?) and in your anxiety to assert the senatorial power, seem to forget the Master's injunction, 'Nay, let the greatest among you be as the least, and he who governs as he who serves.' On your theory this injunction is an inexplicable paradox; but it is entirely clear when we note the care with which the Holy Spirit binds the rulers by the same laws with the disciples. and thus he who governs is literally as he who serves. In view of these things may I not say that here are some symptoms of being 'wiser than Paul, more ingenious than Peter, (or James,) and more prudent than the Founder of the Christian Institution'? I am aware that it may be said that, according to this view, there are many things now held as obligatory, that can no longer be enjoined on the disciples: this is, however, no answer to my argument; and to all such evasions I simply reply, that if it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to the Apostles' not to enjoin them, let no man presume to be wiser than they: and let every Christian rest assured that if he will only continue in the practice of all things which they have commanded, he will receive an abundant entrance into the eternal kingdom. Unaccustomed as I am to writing, it is possible that the earnestness with which I plead for the truth, as I understand it, may appear sometimes not entirely respectful to yourself; rest assured, sir, that nothing can be more foreign to my wishes and feelings than to evince the slightest disrespect towards you. I do not know, either personally or by report, on the face of this earth a human being to whom this generation is, in my opinion, so much indebted as to yourself. Ofthe crown, that I hope awaits you, I would not dim the lustre of a single gem; that it may shine resplendent amidst the brightest that our glorious King will confer on the great day, is my sincere desire; but if you were Paul himself, you would constitute yourself a transgressor if you build again those things which you destroyed; and if he found it necessary to keep his body in subjection, it appears to me that no Christian should feel wounded or offended at being thought liable to err. Hoping, therefore, that you will receive in the spirit in which it is offered this frank defence of my views on this most important of all subjects and interests, I remain with Christian regard and love, your brother, R. L. Baltimore, May 5th, 1838. REPLY TO R. L. My dear Sir-Your effort to disprove on scripture grounds the practicability, utility, and apostolicity of occasionally teaching the Christian religion around the social hearth, in private families, and from house to house, only awakens our attention to clearer proofs and stronger evidence in favor of it. Your introduction of the Master's sayings and doings as opposed to it, while it proves you have not thought much upon the subject, nor closely examined the scriptures, has led me to new sources of evidence and argument: for really this has always been with me so indisputable a point as never to have occasioned a doubt on the subject; and therefore, until I saw you seriously setting about to oppose it, I had never thought of proving it. "From house to house" with you means holding public meetings in private houses. But why this, when the temple, the synagogues, and and the proseuchæ, or houses of prayer, were open to the Apostles in every city, village, and hamlet in Judea! You admit of preaching Christ in private families when in may be necessary or convenient, and think that it was preaching and not teaching to which Paul aliudes, Acts xx. 20. But it is teaching and not preaching, both in Greek and English, which is spoken of in that verse; and it is associated with what was profitable to the elders of the church, whether announcing facts or explaining them. Please examine again Acts xx. 20. "I kept back nothing that was profitable to you (elders,) announcing to you, and teaching you publicly and from house to house." By the way, your application of the phrase "from house to house," is amply shown to be incorrect here, by being contrasted with publicly!! You are as unfortunate in quoting the words of Jesus: "I spoke openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, whither the Jews constantly resort: I said nothing in secret." This is a happy illustration of how many errors may be committed by misquoting and misapplying scripture. Jesus did not mean to say that he only taught openly, but that he taught nothing in secret that he did |