The Christian Messenger. (Bonham, Tex.), Vol. 2, No. 3, Ed. 1 Wednesday, January 26, 1876 Page: 1 of 4
four pages : ill. ; page 32 x 22 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
I '
9
lire (Christum Iflcssmacr
VOL. II.
Devoted to tlie ltelifiou of Chri*t-~in Fact* Precept* Promise and Enjoyment.
BONHAM, FANNIN COUNTY, TEXAS : WEDNESDAY, JAN. 26, 1876.
NO. 3.
®|t Christian Messenger
1« PUBLISHED EVERT WEDNESDAY BY
CfcM.
Carlton k T. K. Barnett,
BONHAM, TEXAS.
Terms—perannum, *
six months, -
At the annual session of the Texas
Pr«M Association held in Houston,
May 11, 1876, the following by-law
was unanimously adopted and every
paper represented in the association par^ 0f ^c churches, and of all
directed to keep it standing at
the head of its advertising rates : •
That each paper represented iu
the Tetas F.ditoriahand Press Asso-
ciation shall be required to' publish
its advertising rates and place the
name on file with the Secretary oi
this Association, and should any
jhich paper receive foreign adver-
nsements for less than their rates
here provided to be tiled, then they
shall on proof of the same be expell-
ed from this Association.
It at oi
of AdrertiNlng.
| S moa | 6 raos | 12 mos
1 square -
S squares *
8 squares -
1-4 column
1-2 column
1 column -
86.00
10.00
15.00
25.00
85.00
50.00
810.00
15.00
20.00
35.00
50.00
75.00
r
\ 15.00
20.00
30.00
50.00
75.00
100.00
Dliugera of* Oar Cause.
No. 12.
see all this, and are slow in paying.
Then conics a terrible howl about
first, and then the Bible; and the
churches should bo the teachers.
preachers not being paid. Heaven Let
forbid that I should do anything to
hinder the churches from liberality,
or deserving preachers from being
sustained. The churches are very
largely at fault, and our best and
ablest preachers arc comparatively
fruitless; and they are sour when
ihey would be sweet, uncomfortable
when they s-ould be happy. But
really, one cause of the lailurc on
men
MORE ABOUT PREACHERS AND CHURCHES
There are three reasons why
preachers ought to be sustained—to
live of the gospel; why, indeed,
they ought to be somewhat well
|>aid.
1. They do a glorious work it they
really preach the gospel—by exam-
ple, as well as b)* word.
2. The)’ have a large capital in-
vested in their qualifications tor the
work. This, hhwever, applies to
only a part ot tne preachers. Many
have never spent much money or
lime in studying. Some, indeed,
know very little even of the Bible.
Others liave just picked up^what
they know, without much study or
expense in any way—without hav-
ing more or less capital in the busi-
ness. It has cost him something
and should yield him something.
Lawyete, doctors, and college pro-
fessors understand this. Thoir
qualifications haring cost largely of
money and labor l£nd time, shonld
pay them in the same ration, Fur
these reasons justice requires that
preachers shall be paid.
8. But their necessities require
support. The)- must live, like other
men—and ought to live of their la-
bor. Many of them cannot preach
much or well without such pay.
But he is a poor preacher who
cannot meet with a church in easy
distance, on the Lord’s day, and
Ifivo them a lesson from his morning
and evening readings and his daily
meditations, without
much with his money
making a living; yet how many
preachers are deceiving themselves
by supposing they ought to he large-
ly paid ibr such little Sunday speech-
es. They arc in their fields, their
offices, their stores or school rooms
all the week, and perhaps positively
succeeding better because they are
preachers—and then demand their
pay for a little Sunday work which
k is their duty to do for the Lord's
sake, and for their own souls' sake !
How convenient it is to attend to.
the resulting evils, is in the kind of
preaching I have just been describ-
ing, and the pay demanded for it.
Deserving preachers are those
who are able—(hose who really do
the work of evangelists, and those
whom it costs something to do it.
The same is true ol deserving bish-
ops. Their qualifications cost them
something, and their labors will
cost them largely if they go from
house to house, day and night, in
tears, as Paul did. Let them he
paid as well as the preachers.
It is voiy natural for churches
and individuals to think of fraying
somewhat in proportion to the ben-
efits received, without much regard
to aay thing else. Thus, a church
that is very much profited by the
monthly or occasional visits of a
preacher, may think of paying
him accordingly. But if this is
right per so, it is not always or gen-
erally practicable. A doctor is in-
strumental in saving the life of a
patient. The doctor’s labors are to
that man as valuable as his life.
Has the doctor, therefore, the right
to charge the entire future life and
energies of his patient? A preach-
er is instrumental iu saving a soul.
Without him, so far^s we can sec,
that soul would have been lost. Has
the preacher the right, therefore, to
claim that soul as his, and to de-
mand its sorvice ever afterwards,
with all that pertain^ to it ? There
is another owner, and to Ilim wc
must all give account.
Before deserving preachers arc
sustained as preachers, and for their
preaching, this whole subject must
be better understood. How com-
mon for churches who have oven
contracted to pay a preacher, to fail
to c.o so, because they allege, with
some reason, perhaps, that his labor
has not resulted in much good. This
is not a good or sufficient reason :
1. Because the contract, or cove-
nant, is sacred.
2. Because his necessities demand
them understand that
must he competent and deserving,
before they are paid as preachers.
And let them learn that, instead of
deserving honor and pay far ruling,
exactly the opposite is due them.
They need to be ruled, badly.
When this is understood well on
all hands, there will be a far better
chance for deserving preachers to
be sustained.
’ It is sometimes said the churches
arc what the preachers make them.
Without denying that there may be
something in this, it is just as true
that the preachers are what
churches make them.
Churches often fail to encourage
young men, who, with the aid the
church could easily render, would
mnko able evangelists. Then if
they discourage the worthy preach-
ers, by not paying them or other-
wise, they are largely iu the wrong.
And if they allow themselves to be
imposed on and ruled by unworthy
preachers, they nro far, far in the
rear, and ought to hasten up, if
they would hope to hear the Master
say, woll done.
And here I desire to say that fail-
ure on the part of the churches to
pa)' or encourage worthy preachers,
cannot excuse them entirely. If
they cannot preach as much or as
well, let them preach what they can
and as they can, trusting in a gra-
cious providence and hoping for
something better in the future.
Some preachers, alter much expe-
rience and observation, think the
Christ a King on Earth,
In the
into that path,
friends contend
Our Methodist
that the church of
Messenger of December, Christ is simply a continuation, and
1st, No. 46, I find an article from
the pen of Bro. J. Cleffengor, in
reply to an article of mine under
the above caption, in which lie asks
permission to investigate the sub-
ject with me. The Bro. is entitled
to a hearing, and under the circum-
stances, it is due me that I should
reply. It appears that the good
brother does not consider my arti-
cles either “sound or Scriptural.”
1 do not know that I understand
the brother in this, unless it is that
he considers my articles at variance
with both his creed and the Bible.
Bro. C. asks me the question, “What
is a king ?” and answers it himself,
tbe*and says, “He is a chief rtner of a
tribe, city, or kingdom,” and appears
to come to the conclusion that if
Christ had been king of the Jews,
he would have occupied a high
and honorable position among that
great and wealthy people, seeming
to forget that a king's subjects
might rebel against him and become
disloyal. But to prove that Christ
could not have been king of the
Jews, the brother introduces at this
point a little negative testimony
that is really laughable indeed, lie
quotes the language of the Savior
in which he says, “The foxes have
holes and the birds of the air have
nests, but the Son of Man hath not
where to lay his head.” I suppose
then, of course, that it the Savior
had affirmed what he denied, that is,
if he had said, the foxes have holes
and the birds of ihe air have nests,
and the Son of Man hath where to
lay his head, the brother would
have said that Christ was king of
the Jews. This looks to me like it
would come nearer proving the con
dition of a king whose subjects were
disloyil. The brother finds fault
with me in my arrangement of the
subject, in that I defined Christ corn-
churches are not well prepared to *nK forth from the grave with all
power in his kingdom, to be the
interfering complished,
making or
was
business oil
monthly at
churches in
the week and preach
four places—for four
easy reach—when we
pay.
3. We are very poor judges, gen-
erally, when real good is aeeom
plishod, and there is a negative, as
well as positive good ; a sowing, ns
well as a reaping time. The num-
bers brought into the church must
net be taken as the rule here.
4. But if little or no good was ac-
pospibly the preacher
not at fault. Persons or cir-
cumstances may have hindered. It
is fortunate that none of us aro re-
sponsible for results in such cases.
Duty is ours. With it we may he
content. Results belong to Cod.
But what is better calculated to
disgust sensible people, and hinder
their paying preachers, than to see
them assuming airs and authority
uot properly belonging to them ?
think of a young preacher's
ruling old men in the church—old
of \v isdoin, piety and good
and information ; often men
whom the church has apjiointed to
rule—only because lie can make a
men
sense
ruler! Many, indeed, arc sadly
locking in all that pertains to rul-
ing, and yet itnagino that they must
rule all around them just because
they
can go by starting Sunday morning,:*P**ch ^e a preacher, and noth-
or Saturday evening, have good liv-
ing, a soft bed, have horse fed, etc.,
and return Sunday night or Monday
early, really refreshed, and better
prepared for the week’s work, espe-
cially if we are paid for this service
and sacrifice 1 Wonderful pastors
these! How lot the sheep will
grow on them! They have the
care of four churches; they get pay
for labor that costs them little or
nothing, and have as good oppori u-
nities for money making during the
week os if they wore not preachers
—if not oven better.
Now, the churches occasional I v
encourage the most deserving
preachers; that if they preach and
leach faithfully, reproving sin, de-
nouncing vice, ami urging the prop-
er measure of piety and good works,
the churches will be offendod, and
will not sustain them. There is
probably some ground for this fear.
Thus : If a church desires an organ,
and the preacher opposes it, he will
not likely share largely in their lib-
erality, however well ho may preach
the gospel. And if a church is
proud, dresses fine, wears “ gold,
pearls and costly array,” Jives high,
faring sumptuously every day, and
a preacher opposes this course, pre-
senting just what Peter, Paul and
and Jesus say on the subject, and
earnestly, as becomes him—is he
likely to be sustained liberally by
them ? If a church neglects family
worship, the weekly meetings and
worship, and doing little or nothing
to convert thoso around them, or to
sound out the word of the Lord,
and a proachor urges thoir plainly
marked duties here, will he be
smiled on much ? Will he be large-
ly fed on chicken-pie, dressed in
costly doth, and made to ride in a
fine carriage at the expense of the
church ?
second coming
Christ to man.
Have we not churches that would
turn away in disgust from such
preachers as we read of in the New
Testament? Would they not he
far too plain—too little like the
world—to please the massos ? Pe-
ter, no doubt, often preached in his
fisher’s coat! How would this do
now ? There is reason, I think,
clear and abundant, tor concluding
lhat Paul never wore a fine coat af-
ter lie became a Christian. Could
he pass now amongst us in Uis plain
garb ?
For myself I prefer, if the Lord
will, when I go amongst siu.li, . I4 . ,
, . ... , cy? it does look to me .v
, churc-hoi, to fccltUtmylmngdoo.! ^ou|d be uwlw. ,o quote Scripture
ing extra, and has little experience,' not depend on them. So I may not as testimony to anyone would deny
and no known tact or prudence as a “aught extenuate, or aught sot down ! that Christ came to the Jews as their
or appearing of
This has nothing
to do with the question in controver-
sy ; that is, as to whether Christ
was king ot the Jews or not. But
any thing to find fault. To present
nothing, and find fault with every
thing, appears to ho the spirit of
tho age. The brother’s position, as
he defines himself, is that Christ
has appeared to man but once. Paul
upon this subject says : “ So Christ
was once ottered to bear the sins of
many, and unto them that look for
him shall he appear the second time
without sin unto salvation.” Paul
here speaks of ChrwfFs appearing
the second time for a special pur-
pose ; but do you suppose, my dear
brother, that Paul intended to con-
vey the idea in this, that Christ had
appeared to man hut once up to the
time that he wrotc^to the Hebrews.
Did not Christ appear to man first
in the flesh? secondly from the
grave? Did he not appear to Paul
in person ? and is he not to appear
again ? Now, Bro. C., will you
point me to the chapter and verse
in all the Book of God that sustains
you in your position—that Christ
has appeared to man hut once—and
you will oblige me.
The next thing that I shall no-
tice is, Christ’s coming as king of
the Jews in literal fulfillment of
prophecy. Zochariah said : “Rejoice
greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout,
O daughter of Jerusalem: behold
thy king cometh unto thee; he is just,
and nearing salvation: lowly and
riding upon ;.n ass; and upon a colt
the foal of an ass.” Zech ix.:9. The
question now arises, was this proph-
ecy literally fulfilled by Christ be-
fore his death? Wc will see. The
Savior said to his disciples: “Go
into tho village over against you,
and straightway ye shall find an ass
tied, and a colt with her, loose them
and bring them unto me. All this
was done that it might ho fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet
saying: Tell ye daughter of Zion,
behold thy king cometh unto thee,
meek, and sitting upon an ass, and
a colt the foal of an ass. Mat. xxi.
2, 4, 5. Will the brother deny this
being a literal fulflllmcntof propbe-
j cy ? It does look to me liko it
exegesis ns
said of
was
more
are preachers! Is any thing ; <|i*agre cable, and generally, so far
absurd ? Such men demand j*s this world is concerned, an un
to he waited upon, consulted, flat- profitable business. It is sometimes
tered—and paid! And when the a necessity, however, for herein lie
in malice.” I King, in tho literal fulfillment of
_ , , . the qirophecy quoted.
But here again, when my space is SoWf to my brother's
full, I am not satisfied with myself, j applied to Luke. It
Pointing out errors is an uncomely, j him, “ He
be called son
the Ixird God shall give unto him
the throne of his father David.”—
an enlargement of the church from
the covenant that God made with
Abraham through the kingdom of
David. My brother quotes the 33d
verse referred to to prove that
Christ was to reign on the throne
of David forever; and that the
kingdom 'of David had no end.
My brother, I suppose, is aware of
the fact that the word ‘forever/ fre-
quently, only has reference to the
age or dispensation in which it was
spoken. That the kingdom of Christ
is to be forever applied to this dis-
pensation, I admit; but that the
personal reign of Christ on the
throne of David over the house of
Jacob, being extended into tho gos-
pel dispensation, I deny. If the
brother’s interpretation of the text
referred to, be correct—after Christ
rose from the grave, the government
of the house of David was commit-
ted into his hand; the key of the
house of David was put upon his
shoulder, and He then became a fa-
ther to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
with authority to reign over the
house of Jacob forever. And if this
does not establish all that our Meth-
odist friends have ever contended
for, there is no establishing it by an
interpretation of Scripture. Now,
as to whether the reign of Christ
over the house of David was to last
forever or not, using the word for-
ever in an unlimited sense, I ask
you, my brother, to read from the
22d chapter ot Isaiah—from 21st
verse to the end of the chapter.
Now, we come to something
new under the sun. Peter said that
“ David was a prophet,” and know-
ing that God had sworn with an
oath to him that, of the fruit of his
loins according to the flesh, he would
raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
He seeing this before, spoke of the
resurrection of Christ. Peter said
that, “ This Jesus hath God raised
up, whereof we are wll witnesses.”
David testified thai God would raise
up Christ from the dead. Peter
testified that God had raised him
from the dead. Now, my brother
takes the position that Christ was
laised from the dead to be seated
on the throne of David, and that
the raising up of Christ from the
dead was a literal fulfillment of the
oath that God made with David—
that lie would raise up Christ to sit
on his throne. Now, my brother,
you may claim some originality for
yourself in this, for I do not sup-
pose that there is a man on all the
earth, besides yourself, that has
evee interpreted the raising up of
Christ from the dead, to be ot the
fruits of David’s loins, according to
the flesh. You beat Peter teaching
that prophecy ! My brother, Peter
never thought of that. What » har-
monizer of Scripture you are!
Christ was not raised from the dead
and seated on the throne of David.
Peter says, “ that he was by the
right hand of God exalted, and hav-
ing received of Father (not the
throne of David) the premise of'
the Holy Spirit.
My brother denies that the Sav-
ior ever admitted that he was a
king. We have shown that Christ
rode into Jerusalem upon a colt,
that the prophecy might he fulfilled,
that said of him, “ Behold, thy king
cometh imto thee! ” He says that
Christ was not born into tho world
“ to be a king, but to bear witness
to the truth.” What truth ? Bro.,
will you tell ? You say that the
Savior said, “ If I were a king then
would my servants fight.” 1 de-
mand of you, my brother, the chap-
ter and verse for this ? Do you ex-
pect to prove mejjto
by perverting and
Scripture in this way ? Pilate said
to the Savior, “am I a Jew? Thine
own nation, what hast thou done ? ”
The Savior answered and said, “ My
kingdom is not of this world.”
Bro. C. says, he had no kingdom,
“If my kingdom was of this world,
then would my servants fight that I
should not be deliver’d to theJews.”
The Savior further says, “Butnow
is my kingdom not from hence.”
But Bro. C. says he did not have
any kingdom at that time. The
Sawor having acknowledged to Pi-
late that he had a kingdom, Pilate
asked him, “Art thou a king then ? ”
The Savior answered and said,
“Thou sayest that I am a king, as
much as to say that is the truth, to
this end was I horn, and for this
man
“ unsound
manufacturing
cafnc I into the world.” A
shall he great and shall could consistently read tho his-
ot the Highest,and tory of the flood to prove that God
never destroyed any man by water,
as to read the text in question to
prove that Christ was not a king,
. . * .. , rt , * i , . I , c. .and did not huvo a kingdom, and
churches fail to do all for them, they our dangers—dangers of failing, the houre of Jacob forever, and of j virtually acknowledged himsclfto'
cry out dreadfully. In this way thei dangers of falling, dangers of miss- Ins kingdom there shall be no end.” he a king. The Savior, in his ex- j
Luke 1.: 32. But inv brother says,
“ Read on ; and he shall reign over
churches are disgusted, and fail to
| av deserving preachers.
Now, it seems to me that all such
preachers need to learn themselves
ing the final rest. The Lord help
us all to be wise as serpents and
harmless as doves. C. K.
Bryan, Texas, Dec. 20, 1^75.
—Luke I.: 33. My brother appears
to be uneasy for fear that I aro
treading towards sectarianism. We
planation to Pilate, having convoyed
the idea that he was king of peace,
and that his servants would not
will examino this matter and see j fight, it did not interfere with
which one of us it is that is beating late at all; therefore he found
fault with him. Where did Pilate
^et the idea that Christ was king of
the Jews ? He asked the Savior
the question. The Savior did not
deny but virtually acknowledged it.
To show bow Filate understood
the matter we have but to read the
title that he put on the cross.—“ Je-
sus of Nazareth tie King of the
Jews.” The chief priests of the
Jews requested Pilate not to write
that he is king of the Jews, but that
he said that, “He was king of the
Jews." We have an acknowledg-
ment here from the Jews that Christ
said he was kingof the Jews. The
reign of Christ as the king of the
Jew's was on earth and among men,
but his kingdom was mot of this
world. God never had a kingdom
that was of this world. I wonder
if ray brother would think it some-
thing new, were I to tell him that
God lumself was the first king that
Israd ever had and that his Son was
the last one. My brother asks,
“ Who ever heard of the reign of
Christ over the Jews, or his reign
being taken from him?” What I
have been trying to show all the
time is, that the kingdom, as it ex-
isted during the life of the Savior,
was taken by violence—in the kill-
ing of the Son of God—and because
they did this God said, “The king-
dom of God shall ho taken from
you.” For testimony at this point
1 refer you again to Mat. xxii.: 83,
and on through the chapter. As to
the word taken from ‘ him,” os pub-
lished, I retained a copy of my
manuscript, which reads as follows:
“ The reign of Christ among the
Jews before his death was called
the kingdom of God, and was taken
from them at his death.” Perhaps
I was not sufficiently careful in tne
shape of my letters that caused the
mistake. I ask leave to make the
correction here.
That Christ was king of the Jews
in some sense is evident, but Bro.
C. thinks that Christ could not have
been king of the Jews in any sense
of the word, from the fact that
Christ wuuld not let the Jews make
him a king. Now, that would have
been a beautiful thing for the Son of
God, commissioned by his Father
from on high, to have ignored that
authority, and to have allowed or
few wicked Jews to have made him
king. A little boy ten years old
would have been smarter than that.
Bro. C. says, “ That no hypothesis
upon this subject can be accepted
that does not harmonize all parti
of the Scripture.” In answer to
this I will say, that no hypothesis '
ought to he accepted that creates a
necessity for harmonizing the Scrip-
ture. If wo rightly decide the word
of God it harmonizes with itselfy
and you argl I, my brother, have no
harmonizing to do. The brother
gets himself in a beautiful dilemma
by giving me an example of how he
harmonizes Scripture. He reads,
“The kingdom of God is come un-
to you. ” He says, “ It hod come
in principles, but not as an existing
insitnation—come in its elementary
principles. ” The Savior said, “the
kingdom of God is come.” Now,
this is true or false. The brother
says the kingdom had not come, but
the principles had come! Now, who
are wc to believe? By taking the
same liberty with Tom Paine that
the brothei takes here with the
Savior, we could harmonize his wri-
tings with the Bible.
Now, Brother Cleffenger, I am
through with your article. I intro-
duced this subject to get up an in
vestigation of it Tho division of
Scripture that I am trying to make
is correct; what I am presenting is
the truth; I have raised no istme
with my brethren ; I am dimply
meeting an issue long sought by
them from a different standpoint
Bro. C., you have entered into an
investigation of the subject with
me ins good spirit, a great deal of
earnestness, a«.d seemingly with a
great deal of confidence. I now
want to put your confidence to the
test. Will you come oui and say
that the Savior was seafed on the
throne of David after his resurrec-
tion, and undertake to tell the lime
when and where ? I will venture
the opinion that you will not do it.
I will wait and see.
Affectionately,
Elijah Elqan.
--m • m-
Rev. Dr. John Chambers who
lately celebrated the semi-centennial
of his pastorate over one of the
Presbj terian churches of Philadel-
phia, was able to say in his anniver-
sary sermon that “in all theoe fifty
years there had never been an un-
kind word spoken in the meetings of
the session, and every vote ever
taken had been a unanimous one.
The trustees have always peen har-
monious., The church had never
asked for a contribution outside of its
own membershiq, bad never bad a
fair, concert or festival, and bad hailt
their present fine building entirely
bv their own effort?.”
i
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Burnett, Thomas R. & Carlton, Charles. The Christian Messenger. (Bonham, Tex.), Vol. 2, No. 3, Ed. 1 Wednesday, January 26, 1876, newspaper, January 26, 1876; Bonham, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth974267/m1/1/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Bonham Public Library.