2 or 3 gathered, number 8

Preaching or Mutual Exhortation?

Is the "Sermon" Concept Biblical? A Study In Its Greek Origins

     by Kevin Craig

The "sermon" is one of the most fixed and expected elements in modern church services. Most people would not feel that they had experienced "church" unless they heard a sermon. Is it wrong to ask some basic questions? Is the "sermon" concept, as it is fixed in tradition, found in the New Testament? Just where did the idea of having a "sermon" in Christian gatherings originate? My study leads me to conclude that the "sermon" concept comes, not from the N.T., but from Greek culture. If this be so, then there are a number of implications that we must think through.

"Preaching" is a Biblical term more akin to "evangelism," or the announcement of the Good News in Christ. Entrance into the Kingdom by people is the goal of evangelism or "preaching," while the building up of those in the kingdom is better called "teaching" (although in a few N.T. passages this distinction is not hard and fast; cf. Hans-Joachim Wiehler. "Preaching in the Church?" Searching Together, Autumn 1982, pp 35-38).

While the N.T. refers to those specifically gifted as "teachers," the duty to teach/exhort falls upon all believers (Rom. 15:14; Heb. 5:12). Teaching is a very broad term in the N.T. It is connected to singing, to the verbal application of the Word to the specific problems of believers, to exhortation to stand against the pressures of the world, and to rebuking wrong doing.

The ministry of the Word, therefore, is given to the entire congregation, while it is recognized at the same time that Christ gives "teachers" to the body of Christ. It must be underscored that to question the "sermon" concept must not be equated with questioning the need for teaching in the church. The N.T. nowhere equates teaching in the church with one man's sermon and neither should we. The issue at stake is this: is the "sermon" concept tradition or truth?

Our contention is that the "sermon" concept has contributed to the malfunction of the church in a number of ways. Believers feel incapable of handling the Word because the impression is given that only "educated professionals" can undertake such things as counseling. In many ways, the biggest roadblock to a functioning priesthood of believers is the sermon. If its origin is to be found in the world of Greek and Roman philosophy, then it should not surprise us that certain problems surround its practice in the church.

By interacting with some material by Edwin Hatch, we will establish three central points: (1) that Christianity has been adversely influenced by Greco-Roman humanism; (2) that the Greek concept of education placed a heavy emphasis on Rhetoric, the cultivation of literary expression; and (3) that the adaptation of Greek Rhetoric into Christian services resulted in the centrality of the "sermon."

Greek-Christian Syncretism

That Christianity has been in large degree smothered by Greco-Roman humanism cannot be doubted by any student of the Scriptures or church history (cf. George T. Purves, "The Influence of Paganism on Post-Apostolic Christianity," The Presbyterian Review, #36, Oct. 1888, pp. 529-554). We must therefore, be especially sensitive to the presence of non-Biblical thinking in what passes as Christianity. The reformation of the church must be an ongoing commitment.

The word "syncretism" is used by some writers to describe the formation of a religious perspective by picking and choosing from various existing religious beliefs. Greek-Christian syncretism usually describes a Christian who looks at the Bible and says, "This looks nice, too; I'll take some of that." This smorgasbord approach ends up with a very inedible religious diet: the humanists do not like it, and it is non-Biblical.

Of particular interest to us here is the book, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, by Edwin Hatch (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1970). Hatch is one of those humanists who has a love-hate relationship with Christianity, outwardly very sympathetic to some parts, plainly hostile to other parts. It is the kind of Christianity J. Gresham Machen found so abominable in the Presbyterian church [circa 1950, northern Presbyterian denomination]. But while we must maintain a keen eye for Hatch's biases, we can still find much historical truth in his book.

For example, in his introductory lecture he notices the decided shift in Christianity from practical ethics to Greek intellectualism: "It is impossible for any one... to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a...law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers (p.1)."

There can be no doubt that much of the early church disputes over the deity of Jesus Christ were shrouded in Greek philosophy, and the question of the reign of Christ and the application of His law to the collapsing Roman Empire was ignored. Questions pertaining to the inner workings of the Trinity, which are not explicitly answered in Scripture, occupied many hours and many pages (cf. Jon Zens, "The Covenant of Grace & the Trinity," Studies in Theology & Ethics, 1981, pp. 28-31; and "The Influence of Alien Philosophies, Essays on the Work of the Spirit in the Gospel Age," 1982, pp. 2-5). Thus we can find truth in Hatch's remarks: there was too great an emphasis on a philosophical-intellectual comprehension of the Trinity and too little emphasis on His Word.

This shift can also be discerned when one compares the N.T. statements about Christ to the later formulations regarding His human and divine "natures." The N.T. focuses on the Messiah's function in history, not on more abstract, speculative comments about the metaphysical nature of Christ. Oscar Cullmann observes: "When it is asked in the N.T. "Who is Christ?," the question never means exclusively, or even primarily, "What is His nature?," but first of all, "What is his function?"...Thus there is a difference between the way in which the first Christians and the later Church understood the Christological problem....the discussion of "natures" is none the less ultimately a Greek, not a Jewish or biblical problem (The Christology of the N.T., SCM Press, 1963, pp. 3-4)."

We must not, therefore, be naive. Alien Greek thought-forms and practices were at work in the post-apostolic age. Concerning the contrast between the ethical emphases of the Bible with the philosophic emphases of the Hellenized church fathers, we must agree with Hatch: "It must be pointed out...that the question why an ethical sermon stood in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the Christianity of the fourth century, is a problem which claims investigation. It claims investigation, but it has not yet been investigated....In investigating this problem, the first point that is obvious to an inquirer is, that the change in the center of gravity from conduct to belief is coincident with the transference of Christianity from a Semitic to a Greek soil. The presumption is that it was the result of Greek influence (p2)."

The Philosophers & "The Sermon"

Not only were Christian "doctrines" adulterated by Greek philosophy, as we have seen, but the practices of the Christian life and the worship of the church became paganized. This was not only because, as our language suggests, a dichotomy arose between "doctrine" and practice," but because even "practice" itself became detached from Christ's law.

This is most noticeable in the development of formal "worship" which is defined not as "service" (which involves every believer's life being a "liturgy" seven days a week; Rom.12:2), but as an infrequent and ritualized program of religious acts centering around a philosophical discourse called a "sermon."

The original Christian gatherings which celebrated the Lord's death and resurrection and focused on multilateral exhortation and edification (cf. Heb. 10:24-25), came to be replaced by meetings which focused on the bishop and a unilateral "sermon."

These sermons were not just a setting forth of Greek-influenced theology. They were in fact external copies of the rhetorical manner of the most popular Greek philosophers of the day. It is not just what was said in the sermon, it is that the entire presentation and format was carried over from paganism. The "sermon," unfortunately, became one of the practices most destructive to the priesthood of all believers. It would have been so even if the content of the sermons had not been syncretistic &endash; a combination of Biblical and Greek notions.

As we know, Paul was not interested in Greek "wisdom" or Greek Rhetoric, which emphasized persuasive words (1 Cor.1:22; 2:1-5). Paul resisted any use of words that would exalt the speaker and not the Lord. But this perspective was lost in the later church fathers. They were immersed in Greek patterns of speech, and it was in this context that the "sermon" emerged in Christian services.

Education: Rome & The West

To help us further understand the Greek origin of the sermon, Hatch gives some detail about the features of the post-apostolic age: "The most general summary of those features is, that the Greek world of the second and third centuries was, in a sense which...has tended to prevail since then, an educated world (p.25)."

But the Greek notion of education was terribly abstract and irrelevant. The philosophical trends toward intellectualism that had begun five centuries earlier were quite evident in the post-apostolic Greco-Roman world: "It had become no longer enough for men to till the ground, or to pursue their several handicrafts....The word sophos (wisdom), which in earlier times had been applied to one who was skilled in any of the arts of life, who could string a bow or tune a lyre or even trim a hedge, had come to be applied, if not exclusively, yet at least chiefly, to one who was shrewd or knew the thoughts and sayings of the ancients (p.26)."

The great volume of Greek philosophic writing was bathed in abstraction: "It was natural also that the study of letters should be reflected upon speech. For the love of speech had become to a large proportion of Greeks a second nature. They were a nation of talkers. They were almost the slaves of cultivated expression....Like children playing at "make-believe," when real speeches in real assemblies became impossible, the Greeks revived the old practice of public speaking by addressing fictitious assemblies and arguing in fictitious courts....The mass of men in the Greek world tended to lay stress on that acquaintance with the literature of bygone generations, and that habit of cultivated speech, which has ever since been commonly spoken of as education (pp. 26-27)."

For our purposes here, the most notable parallel between Greek education and modern education is in the seminary. There we find the study of the theologians (and sometimes the Bible) and the art of "sermon" preparation. This parallels the two main elements of Greek education: Grammar and Rhetoric.

"The main subject-matter of this literary education was the poets. They were read, not only for their literary, but also for their moral value. They were read as we read the Bible. They were committed to memory. The minds of men were saturated with them. A quotation from Homer or from a tragic poet was apposite on all occasions and in every kind of society....Grammar was succeeded by Rhetoric &endash; the study of literature by the study of literary expression and quasi-forensic argument....

...A student's education in Rhetoric was finished when he had the power to talk offhand on any subject that might be proposed. But whether he recited a prepared speech or spoke offhand, he was expected to show the same artificiality of structure and the same pedantry of diction (pp. 30-32)."

Hence, there was in Greek education a heavy emphasis on "speaking.": "Teaching had come to be a recognized and lucrative profession. This is shown not so much by the instances of individual teachers, who might be regarded as exceptional, as by the fact of the recognition of teachers by the State and by municipalities....A "sermonette" from one of these professional philosophers after dinner was...much in fashion....They were petted by great ladies. They became "domestic chaplains" (pp. 37,38,40).

Contemporary preachers will obviously take exception to being compared to these philosophers. To be sure, preachers who emphasize Biblical doctrines are less involved with the Rhetoric and more interested in the truth. But if what has come to be the central aspect of Christian meetings &endash; the sermon &endash; has Greek, not Biblical, origins, must we not seriously evaluate the possibility that there might be a better way of teaching in the church? Contemporary articulations of Berean Bible Study (which anti-group Bible study folk would call "group grope") are plentiful, but because the authors of such works are not part of "our camp" we tend to overlook them. But they are there, and the case for the involvement of all the saints in the study of the Word is irrefutable.

Sermons & Sophists

As the church was institutionalized under Roman emperors following Constantine and the syncretistic church fathers who preceded him, such practices as household communion and household churches vanished. They were replaced by institutional bishops &endash; a separate caste of "priests" &endash; who dispensed Christian truth and grace. These same Greek-influenced officials replaced Berean Bible Study with their lectures, known as sermons. They copied the sermonic style of the Greek philosopher-lecturers: "The (Greek) sophists could easily preach sermons of their own upon Homeric texts. It was from Homer that moralists drew their ideal: it was his verses that were quoted, like verses of the Bible with us, to enforce moral truths (p.54)."

Hatch gives several examples of Christian writers who followed "not a Hebrew but a Greek method" (p.69): "The earliest methods of Christian exegesis were continuations of the methods which were common at the time to both Greek and Graeco-Judean writers. They were employed on the same subject matter. Just as the Greek philosophers had found their philosophy in Homer, so Christian writers found in him Christian philosophy (p.69)."

The rubber exegesis the Greek sophists used on Homer was likewise used by syncretistic Christians on the Bible. "Philo virtually makes the Old Testament teach that which Greek philosophy, based on autonomous human experience, had taught" (C. Van Til, Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 73).

But of special note to us is the manner in which these sermons were delivered. The modern sermon surely has its origin in the Greek lecturers. Of the manner of the ordinary discourse there are many indications. It was given sometimes in a private house, sometimes in a theater, sometimes in a regular lecture-room. The professor sometimes entered already robed in his "pulpit-gown" and sometimes put it on in the presence of his audience. He mounted the steps to his professional chair, and took his seat upon its ample cushion. He sometimes began with a preface, sometimes he proceeded at once to his discourse (p.94). They made both money and reputation. The more eminent of them were among the most distinguished men of the time. They were the pets of society, and sometimes its masters. They were employed on affairs of state at home and on embassies abroad. They were sometimes placed on the free list of the city, and lived at the public expense (pp. 97-98).

The environment of the Greek "sermon" has no parallels with the Biblical record. In the O.T., the Hebrew prophets acted as the messengers of the covenant, bringing a covenant lawsuit against people who had broken the covenant stipulations. Here, to "prophesy" is to set forth the requirements of God's law and to apply them to the specific disobedience of the covenant servants: "In passing from Greek life to Christianity, I will ask you, in the first instance, to note the broad distinction which exists between what in the primitive churches was known as "prophesying," and that which in subsequent times came to be known as "prophesying," and that which in subsequent times came to be known as "preaching." (Prophets) were not church officers appointed to discharge certain functions. They did not practice beforehand how or what they should say....Their language was often, from the point of view of the rhetorical schools, a barbarous patois (illiterate or local speech). They were ignorant of the rules both of style and dialectic. They paid no heed to refinements of expression. The greatest "preacher" of them all (Paul) claimed to have come among his converts, in a city in which Rhetoric flourished, not with the persuasiveness of human logic, but with the demonstration which was afforded by spiritual power."

"In the course of the second century, this original spontaneity of utterance died almost entirely away. It may almost be said to have died a violent death. The dominant parties in the Church set their faces against it. In the place of prophesying came preaching. And preaching is the result of the gradual combination of different elements....We consequently find that with the growth of organization there grew up also, not only a fusion of (these elements), but also the gradual restriction of the liberty of addressing the community to the official class (pp. 105- 108). This constituted the essence of the homily: its form came from the sophists. For it was natural that when addresses, whether expository or hortatory, came to prevail in the Christian communities, they should be affected by the similar addresses which filled a large place in contemporary Greek life....The form of the (Christian and Greek) discourses intended to be the same: if you examine side by side a discourse of Himerius or Themistius of Libanius, and one of Basil, Chrysostom or Ambrose, you will find a similar artificiality of structure, and a similar elaboration of phraseology. They were delivered under analogous circumstances. The preacher sat in his official chair...the audience crowded in front of him, and frequently interrupted him with shouts of acclamation (pp. 108-109)."

"I will add only one more instance of the way in which the habits of the sophists flowed into the Christian churches. Christian preachers, like the sophists, were sometimes peripatetic (itinerant); they went from place to place, delivering their orations and making money by delivering them (p.112)."

One tragic side-effect of the presence of Rhetoric in the church was to put the bishop in a different class than the "ordinary" Christian. George Dennison points out in his admirable book, The Lives of Children (1969): "What is the social action of jargon? I have said that true communication is communion and change. Jargon is not innocent. The man who speaks it, who prates in front of us...means to hold us at a distance; he means to preserve his specialty - his little piece of an essentially indivisible whole &endash; precisely as a specialty. He does not mean to draw near to us, or to empower us, but to stand over us and manipulate us. He wished, in short, to remain an Expert. The philosopher, by contrast, wishes all men to be philosophers. His speech creates equality. He means to draw near to us and to empower us to think and do for ourselves." (pp. 278-279)

Most believers do not feel that they are "competent to counsel" (Rom. 15:14), or (to use Dennison's words) competent to communicate, commune with, and change. But true communication is not polished rhetoric following the forms of the Greek orators. True communication does not seek to maintain distance and position; it is the product of what we might call "Christian egalitarianism." Not a lowering of people to the lowest common denominator, but the raising of all believers to the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph. 4:13). The true communicator is not afraid to have his student equal &endash; or even surpass &endash; his teacher. Christians should not feel that the Bible requires them to imitate the sophist philosophers. They can fulfill the Biblical requirements to "teach" and to "preach" by empowering others to godly obedience through Biblical communication.

Summary and Conclusions

1. The Greek sophists were abstract in their moralizing. The stronger ground of objection to them was their unreality. They had lost touch with life. They had made philosophy itself seem unreal.... It is not necessary to suppose that they were all charlatans. There was then, as now, the irrepressible young man of good morals who wished to air his opinions. But the tendency to moralize had become divorced from practice. They preached, not because they were in grim earnest about the reformation of the world, but because preaching was a respectable profession, and the listening to sermons a fashionable diversion (pp 100-101).

2. The Greek approach to education affected Christianity. This is the feature of Greek life into which Christianity came to which I first invite your attention. There was a complex system of education, the main elements in which were the knowledge of literature, the cultivation of literary expression, and a general acquaintance with the rules of argument. This education was widely diffused, and had a great hold upon society....Its effect in the second century of our era had been to create a certain habit of mind. When Christianity came into contact with the society in which that habit of mind existed....it was itself profoundly modified by the habit of mind of those who accepted it. It was impossible for Greeks, educated as they were with an education which penetrated their whole nature, to receive or to retain Christianity in its primitive simplicity. Their own life had become complex and artificial: it had its fixed ideas and its permanent categories. It necessarily gave to Christianity something of its own form....The world of the time was a world ...whose schools, instead of being the laboratories of the knowledge of the future, were forges in which the chains of the present were fashioned from the knowledge of the past. And if, on the one hand, it incorporated Christianity with the larger humanity from which it had at first been isolated, yet, on the other hand, by crushing uncultivated earnestness, and by laying more stress on the expression of ideas than upon the ideas themselves, it tended to stem the very forces which had given to Christianity its place, and to change the rushing torrent of the river of God into a broad but feeble stream (pp. 98-99).

3. The "sermon" was the result of syncretism &endash; the fusion of the Biblical necessity of teaching with the unbiblical Greek notion of Rhetoric: "Such are some of the indications of the influence of Greek Rhetoric upon the early churches. It created the Christian sermon. It added to the functions of church officers a function which is neither that of the exercise of discipline, nor of administration of the funds, nor of taking the lead in public worship, nor of the simple tradition of received truths, but that of either such an exegesis of the sacred books as the Sophists gave of Homer, or such elaborated discourses as they also gave upon the speculative and ethical aspects of religion. The result was more far-reaching than the creation of either an institution or a function....No sooner is any new impulse given either to philosophy or to religion than there arises a class of men who copy the form without the substance, and try to make the echo of the past sound like the voice of the present. So it has been with Christianity. It came into the educated world in the simple dress of a Prophet of Righteousness. It won that world by the stern reality of its life, by the subtle bonds of its brotherhood, by its divine message of consolation and of hope. Around it thronged the race of eloquent talkers who persuaded it to change its dress and to assimilate its language to their own. It seemed thereby to win a speedier and completer victory. But it purchased conquest at the price of reality. With that its progress stopped. There has been an element of sophistry in it ever since; and so far as in any age that element has been dominant, so far has the progress of Christianity been arrested. Its progress is arrested now, because many of its preachers live in an unreal world. The truths they set forth are truths of utterance rather than truths of their lives. But if Christianity is to be again the power that it was in its earliest ages, it must renounce its costly purchase. A class of rhetorical chemists would be thought of only to be ridiculed: a class rhetorical religionists is only less anomalous because we are accustomed to it. The hope of Christianity is, that the class which was artificially created may ultimately disappear, and that the sophistical element in Christian preaching will melt, as a transient mist, before the preaching of the prophets of the ages to come, who, like the prophets of the ages that are long gone by, will speak only "as the Spirit gives them utterance" (pp. 113- 115).

The "sermon" as it has come down to us via tradition, has roots that are very suspect. The N.T. knows nothing of the necessity of a "sermon" as we conceive of it. And yet most of us feel uneasy about dismissing it for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it is ingrained in our practice.

Are we selective in our agenda for reformation? We are often ready to disown the effects of "paganism" in some of our practices. But what will we do when we see clearly the influence of alien forces upon something we have valued dearly for years?

What about our confession, sola scriptura? We want to "go by the Bible." But the Bible will not sustain the "sermon" concept. Just think of all the practices that rest upon the centrality of the sermon. If the sermon is not the necessity that tradition has dictated, then we face the reevaluation of a whole lot of what we do.

We need teaching in the church. Some, not all, are going to be recognized as "teachers" in the assembly. Teaching gifts are given by Christ to the church so that the parts may mature (Eph. 4:11-12). But there can be no justification for dependence upon a class of professional orators. All are to study, to exhort, and to teach. Bible study should be more of a congregational undertaking.

Most people probably feel as though a tremendous void results if teaching in the church does not focus on a sermon. Perhaps this helps us to see how entrapped we are in tradition. We have become almost helplessly dependent upon it. But if teaching in the church is not dependent upon the traditional sermonic form, we can be assured that the Spirit will guide us into forms that will fulfill the mind of Christ for the building up of the body. (Eph. 4:11-16).

Mutual Exhortation Debated in 1740 by James A Haldane

In various passages of Scripture we find the duty of mutual exhortation either referred to, or expressly enjoined.

In the epistle to the Romans, the apostle writes, "I myself am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able to admonish one another. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you," Rom. 15: 14. 15. This epistle is addressed, not to the elders, but to the saints at Rome, to whom it was to be read when assembled together. Col. 4:16.

It is alleged, that this passage seems to refer to the exercise of miraculous gifts, but no proof is adduced to show that this is actually the case. It is said indeed, that "it will seem very improbable, if we compare the language of the 14th verse with that of 1 Cor. 1.4.7. where gifts are certainly spoken of." But there is a very slight resemblance between the passages. In the latter, the apostle probably refers to miraculous gift, whereby the testimony of Christ was confirmed in the brethren at Corinth. In the former passage, he merely speaks of their being filled with all goodness, able also to admonish each other. Doubtless here is a gift, but such a gift as is common to the churches in our days. Surely then it is a fair conclusion from this passage, that where the members of a church are able to admonish each other, they should not neglect it.

The above explanation of the passage not proving satisfactory, Mr. Aikman observes, that "all such addresses evidently refer to the discharge of peculiar duties, are, by their very language, limited to the persons upon whom the duties are binding." True; but this is just the question, and we affirm that the peculiar duty of exhortation is binding on the brethren who are qualified for it; and in proof of this, we refer to this passage where the saints are addressed as a collective body, and where the apostle saith, "I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish ONE ANOTHER." Does not the apostle here sanction the mutual exhortations of the brethren? Can words more strongly imply, that those 'who are able, ought to admonish each other in the church?'

Having reminded the church at Thessalonica of the happiness of their brethren who had fallen asleep in Christ, the apostle concludes, "Wherefore comfort, or exhort, one another, with these words," I Thess. 4:18. In the same epistle, he says, "Wherefore comfort, or exhort yourselves together, and edify one another, as also ye do." This is evidently addressed to the whole church; for it is added," And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake, and be at peace among yourselves," 1 Thess. 5:11,13. That the brethren are here expressly commanded to exhort and edify one another, and that their practice in doing so is referred to, is evident. Some have alleged that these passages exclusively refer to the private conversations of the brethren, when they certainly ought also to promote each other's edification to the utmost of their power. But this is a mistake. In order to understand these and various other precepts, we must observe, that the epistles are not addressed to individuals, but to collective bodies, and consequently such precepts must be understood as applicable to them in every situation, especially when assembled together.

In all the passages then in which the brethren are addressed as a body, and commanded to exercise their gifts for mutual edification, we have an injunction for them to exhort each other when assembled together. If, on the other hand, it could be shown, that the exhortation of the brethren refers merely to private conversations, the same arguments would prove, that the admonition of the elders is also to be thus understood; for no positive example can be adduced from Scripture of the public teaching of an uninspired elder. God indeed bestowed miraculous gifts both on elders and other members of some churches; but if this be no reason why men may not labor in the word and doctrine, although destitute of these gifts, it can never prove that the brethren ought not now to exhort.

As to 1 Thess. 4:18. it has been said, that it "seems immediately to refer to what Paul had just been saying about those who sleep in Jesus. Having given the most consolatory information concerning them, he adds, " Wherefore, comfort (or exhort) one another with these WORDS." We are then asked, Is this the institution of an ordinance? If the remarks which have been already made on the apostolic mode of teaching be attended to, perhaps this question may not appear convincing.

The other passage, 1 Thess. 5:11. is considered as little more than a repetition of the former. Ye are told, "This practice does not appear to be the giving of public exhortation by the brethren at large. Like the former, it was what the women were called to no less than the men, and public exhortation seems to be alluded to in the very next verse, as the distinct employment of those gifted brethren who then conducted all the exercises of public worship. This is a strong assertion, but it requires proof. It never has, and never can be shown, that brethren possessed of miraculous gifts conducted all the exercises of public worship. If this were the case, how is it that miraculous gifts were not declared to Timothy and Titus to be an essential requirement for those who were to shepherd in the churches, and lead the exercises of public worship? And what warrant have we for conducting the exercises of public worship, while destitute of these miraculous gifts?

Nothing appears more plain than that in I Thess. 5:11,12 the brethren are first commanded to comfort and edify one another, as they really did, and then to respect those who are over them; which is a plain proof that public exhortation was not confined to the elders. To set aside this argument, which seems conclusive, a supposition is made "The General of an army in passing along the lines, addresses one of the regiments. "I trust, he says, that this regiment will acquire immortal honor in the field of battle, and that it will be especially distinguished by strict discipline and attention to the orders of its officers." But are the cases parallel? To be so, the General should say, "Soldiers, support each other, and encourage each other, as I see you are doing; and be particularly attentive to the orders of your officers." Should this speech be reported to a person who was a stranger to the art of war, he would naturally conclude, that the officers were not the only persons who were to be actively engaged, and at the same time he would see, that they were to receive particular respect so when we read the apostle's injunction to the Thessalonians, we are clearly taught, that the brethren should at once exhort each other in the church, and highly esteem their elders.

But though the illustration is defective, it deserves consideration. It is a full admission, that the brethren are addressed in their collective, and not in their individual capacity; and consequently our brother gives up the idea of the passage referring to their private conversations.

This passage is peculiarly difficult on the plan of those who deny mutual exhortation; but Mr. Aikman attempts to explain it by giving a translation, which although differing in words, perfectly accords in meaning with our own, and then observing, that "taking the passage as it stands in our translation, it will never prove, in opposition to the plain account 1 Cor. 14 of the manner in which the public exercises of the churches, were conducted, that men destitute of spiritual gifts then engaged in the work of public teaching." Enough, I hope, has been said on I Cor. 14 to prove, that those who could speak to edification and exhortation and comfort, might speak in the church, however they came by the gifts; and therefore, there is no shadow of opposition here. It is strange, that any one would suppose that 1 Cor. 14 which, as they contend, refers to miraculous gifts, a subject with which we are wholly unacquainted, is more plain than such passages as 1 Thess. 4:18: 5:13 and Heb. 10:24, 25.

It is also thought, that when the apostle addresses the church as exhorting or teaching, he judged it altogether unnecessary to refer to those members of the body on whom this office was binding, seeing these were subjects on which there was no necessity of explanation, as every one perfectly understands when we speak of the body seeing or feeling, that it is not the hand that sees, nor the eye that feels. I will so far agree with this. The precept to teach and admonish each other, is only intended for those who are in some measure qualified. No person supposes that all are even occasional teachers. But surely if the apostle had intended that 1700 years after he wrote, none but the elders should speak in the church, he would have written in a different manner. In his days those who had gifts taught their brethren, although not called to be stated teachers. Granting that these were miraculous gifts, to which we have no pretensions, might we not naturally think, that if our elders, who are as destitute of miraculous gifts as ourselves, may teach, the brethren who are qualified for it may exhort; for surely these brethren are not more inferior to the gifted brethren at Corinth, than our elders are to primitive elders possessed of miraculous gifts.

In writing to the Hebrews, the apostle directs them to "exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you he hardened through the deceitfulness of sin," Heb. 3:13. Can anyone suppose, that this precept does not include the duties of that day, when the brethren are commanded to assemble together for the purpose of instruction and edification. Again, chap. 10:24, 25. "And let us consider one another; to provoke unto love and unto good works; not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another." Nothing surely can be more evident, than that mutual exhortation formed a part of their exercises when they assembled together.

Upon this passage Mr. Ewing observes, "Many understand the exhorting here recommended, to be mutual encouragement, given by individual Christians to one another, to assemble statedly for the observance of ordinances, notwithstanding the persecution which deterred some from the practice. Thus, Newcome's translation is, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting to it; and so much the more," etc. Surely this is most arbitrary and unnatural. It is not properly a translation, but an interpretation. The obvious meaning of the apostle's words is, that they should assemble, and when assembled should exhort one another. Of this Mr. E. seems sensible; for he proceeds - But granting that Heb. 10:24,25 does speak of the exercises of their assembled churches," (indeed it can hardly with decency be denied); "it cannot be understood as referring to a particular ordinance, far less as fixing the manner in which a particular ordinance should be observed, because the word "exhorting" is, in the acceptation supposed, a general term for all the exercises of social worship taken together. But by whom is this supposed? I understand exhorting each other to refer simply to that one ordinance of mutual exhortation, just as I suppose that I Cor. 11:20-31 refers exclusively to the Lord's supper. Though the apostle mentions their assembling, there was surely no impropriety in referring to one particular duty then incumbent upon them.

As to the Hebrews having persons who had shepherds overseeing them, watching for their souls, and speaking to them the word of God, and that these also exhorted them, it is freely granted, but it in nowise affects the passage where the brethren are commanded to exhort each other when they assembled.

But it is said, The term exhort, Heb. 10:24,25 is used to "include the whole of public teaching. To apply it to the spontaneous teaching of any private church members whom the churches have never called nor proved as their teachers, is certainly greatly to misapply the language of the Scriptures." This is merely begging the question, that none are to exhort in the church, but those who have been called and proved. No evidence of this, however, is attempted. We know the elders were teachers in a church. That they are to wait on teaching is undoubted; but there are others to wait on exhortation, Rom. 7:6; and in short every man is to occupy the gift he possesses, Rom. 12:6, 1 Pet. 4:10.

In Hebrews 10: 24,25, we have an express precept addressed, not to the elders, but to the brethren, to exhort one another. Indeed less is said in the New Testament of the elders, and more of the teaching of the brethren, than might have been expected, probably because the Lord knew, that they would endeavor to comfort the edification of the church to their own teaching.

Having thus examined the objections brought against these plain and obvious passages, I would just observe, that after all the pains and ingenuity employed on them, no explanation has been given which seems satisfactory, even to those who oppose exhortation. Our brethren not only contradict each other, but themselves. The various and opposite explanations given of the passages plainly show the difficulty under which they labored. It was the remark of an eminent physician, that formerly there were many cures for the ague, but since the use of bark there was but one. In like manner, there is one, and but one interpretation which will suit Rom. 15:14,15. 1 Thess. 4:18: 5:11; Heb. 3:13, 10:24, 25 and that is, that the brethren are called upon mutually to exhort each other.

In writing to the Colossians, the apostle says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord," Col. 3:16. Here is a general exhortation to the brethren to teach and admonish each other; they are not directed to seek for miraculous gifts in order to do this, nor do we hear that they possessed any; but to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly, which is certainly equally incumbent on us, and equally in our power.

There are various other proofs that the brethren were in the habit of teaching in the first churches, and we are sure they were not always inspired, because they sometimes taught false doctrines. Thus, Acts 15:1.2. "Certain men came down from Judea to Antioch, and taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation in with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other with them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." Here we find uninspired persons, not only teaching in the presence of the apostles, but disputing with them. Will our brethren affirm that they only taught in private? The contrary appears evidently to have been the case; and nothing can be more arbitrary than to affirm, that the teaching of Judas and Silas, verse 32, was public, and at the same time to maintain, that the other was private. The apostle, I Tim 1:6,7 gives directions as to some false teachers; "From which, says he, some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain jangling, desiring to he teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." This does not seem to refer to elders or other servants, who were to be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. It is most natural to understand it of improper persons who attempted to teach in the churches. Again, says he, speaking of the same characters, "There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; whose mouths must he stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake." Let it not be said, this was private teaching. What introduced so much confusion into the churches but the Judaizers teaching false doctrines? Did the false teachers at Corinth not teach in public? Those false apostles who had acquired so much influence in the church. It cannot be doubted. Here then are instances which cannot be set aside, of persons who had not the Spirit teaching in the primitive churches and this fact subverts the foundation of the theory of those who oppose exhortation on the ground that we have no instance of an uninspired person teaching.

The principal abuses in the first churches evidently arose from false teachers; see epistles to Corinthians and Galatians. The apostle labors to check the abuse, yet he does not forbid the thing. Our brethren apprehend, that abuses will arise from exhortation, and to prevent these they would supersede the thing itself.

Nothing can be more express than I Pet 4:10,11. "As every man hath received a gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." This speaking evidently refers to speaking in the church; and it cannot be considered as addressed exclusively to elders. Whoever is possessed of a gift is to use it, and none will maintain, that there are not in the present times persons capable of edifying their brethren. . . . If any member possesses gifts for being useful to his brethren, he is commanded to use them, whether the gift be that of speaking in the church, or any other.

On the whole, it appears, that the evidence for mutual exhortation by the brethren is clear and conclusive. We have seen, 1st, That it was practiced in the Jewish synagogues. 2dly, That it springs from the very nature of a church of Christ, and the relation in which the members stand one to another, and, 3rdly, from the commandment to each member to use the gift he has received. 4thly, various passages of Scripture have been brought forward, in which mutual exhortation is either referred to, or expressly enjoined, together with directions to prevent the abuse of this ordinance. Let this evidence be impartially weighed, and the remarks made upon the apostolic mode of teaching at the same time kept in view and let believers judge with what consistency they can reject this, while they attend to other ordinances for which it is impossible to bring stronger proof.

I shall now very briefly notice a few objections to which I have not particularly adverted,

It is said, that in Eph. 4:11, where the apostle evidently speaks of the edification of the body of Christ the public teaching of the brethren is not hinted at. Now granting this, it would only prove, that the duty of the brethren to exhort each other, could not he inferred from this passage, and that, although some of the means of the edification of the body are here mentioned, yet all are not spoken of, which is very common in general descriptions, such as that before us. But if we read the passage in its connection, we shall find in verses. 14, 15, that these gifts were given, that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, to the edifying itself in love.." Here the body is said to speak the truth in love, and to edify itself in love, according to the various abilities of the members.

As to 1 Cor. 12 the apostle is speaking of the gifts bestowed on the members by the Spirit. We have already seen, that these were not confined to elders or other teachers. Every direction in this chapter applies as much to the gifts now possessed by the brethren, as to miraculous gifts. It is equally true of believers in the present day, that by one Spirit they are all baptized into one body, although the extraordinary gifts have ceased.

Again, It is said, that mutual exhortation sets aside the distinction of teachers and taught, and that the former ought to be maintained by the church, Gal. 6:6. Ye have seen that the Lord has appointed stated and official teachers in the churches, and that mutual exhortation by no means precludes this. I would also ask, whether all those who are called prophets, and who possessed miraculous gifts in the first churches, received temporal support? This would hardly agree with the number who are supposed to have been thus endowed; and if so, Gal. 6:6 has no more to do with our exhortation than it had with miraculous gifts.

Mutual exhortation is said to stand in direct opposition to James 3:1. "This plan appears to me," says Mr. Aikman, "to stand in direct opposition to the commandment James 3:1. "Be not many of you teachers" as the word ought to have been translated here and elsewhere. The Lord well knew that as in the days of the apostles, so in all succeeding ages, some would be desirous of becoming teachers, who "knew not what they said, nor whereof they affirmed." Against this spirit the precept now quoted appears to be directed." I am inclined to think that the translation suggested by Mr. A. is the proper one, although, from the context, some rather suppose that the apostle warns his brethren against censoriousness proceeding from a haughty domineering spirit, and not merely against teaching.

But admitting our brother's interpretation, and his reasoning upon it, what would it prove? That the apostle warns his brethren against abusing the privilege they enjoyed of mutually exhorting each other. There are two evils which ought to be avoided. On the one hand, those who are qualified for it must not neglect to stir up the gift that is in them; on the other, unqualified persons may become unruly and vain talkers, while they are completely unfit for edifying their brethren. No one will maintain, that those who know not what they say or whereof they affirm, should speak in the church. If the apostle then (as our brother thinks) intended to direct the precept against that spirit which would lead such persons to endeavor to teach others, it is only guarding us against abuse, which is very necessary on this and every other subject. But if only those who were inspired spoke in the churches in the apostle's time, as our brother elsewhere affirms, there was any need of this precept, for inspired persons could not teach error. And if it was intended, that when miraculous gifts ceased, only the elders should speak in the church, the simple statement of this fact would at once have prevented the evils which our brother apprehends; whereas, in the way the precept stands, it in fact sanctions the teaching of those who are qualified for it, while it instructs us not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think, but to think soberly.

It is said, that we consider the cultivation of gifts by diligent study to be necessary to fit men to go to preach in the highways and hedges. We do not think it necessary, that is indispensable, because learning is not a qualification enjoined in the word of God but we think it highly desirable to cultivate as much as possible the gifts of any of our brethren where there is an opportunity for it. And we doubt not, but the more the primitive practice is restored, the more careful will the brethren be to stir up their gifts by such cultivation as circumstances may permit.

Further it is alleged,that the law of mutual exhortation is subversive of order, comfort, edification, and peace in the churches. So it was said of lay preaching; but both assertions require proof. It always argues a deficiency of Scripture proof, when our brethren have recourse to such general assertions, which they cannot prove, and which experience does not confirm!

It is also said to be subversive of Christian liberty, as it does not allow the church to choose their own teachers . (Our brother strongly asserts, that no man can claim authority to teach without the suffrage of his brethren. I have already proved the contrary. As to churches being entitled to call those who shall be over them in the Lord, it is an undoubted fact. Let him, however, attempt to prove this from Scripture, and then compare the proof with what has been adduced for exhortation, and see whether it would be possible to reject the latter, while we admit the former. Plausible reasoning has been brought against the one as well as the other. The plan of the people choosing their own teachers, has been said to be in its very nature destructive of order, comfort, edification and peace in the churches of the saints; that it promotes party spirit, &c. It is well known, that the right of Christians to choose their own teachers is a subject on which great differences of opinion have existed.) Properly speaking, the church does not choose its own teachers. The choice ought to be an act of submission to Jesus, by calling the persons to be over them on whom he has bestowed the requisite qualifications. In doing so, he points them out to the church, who are thus directed to acknowledge them as the gift of Jesus. But the question is not about elders. Did the church choose the teachers who had miraculous gifts? No; the Lord bestowed them severally as he would, and the man who had a gift was to use it for the good of his brethren. There is just as little infringement of liberty in the present day. As to improper persons coming forward, this may happen from a church not being properly taught on this subject, and the overseers must watch, as they who must give account, to repress from time to time any abuse of this ordinance.

Let us not cast a stumbling block in the way of the world. Every part of the order of Christ's kingdom is foolishness to the natural man; but we are not to neglect any of his ordinances. If we simply follow the Lord, we shall edify believers, and turn sinners from the error of their way. If being foolish in the eyes of the people of the world be a good reason for neglecting mutual exhortation, it will be conclusive against gathering churches at all.

It is well known, that throughout this country, except perhaps in a few large towns, the number of people attending the preaching of the gospel has always been diminished when believers have begun to observe all the ordinances. But shall we on this account neglect the ordinances of Jesus? By no means. Let us act as God commanded his servant of old. "Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them," Jer. 15:19.

I cannot conclude my remarks on Mr. Aikman's Observations without noticing, that his views on exhortation are not only opposed to the Scriptures, but altogether inconsistent with his own practice, and in fact entirely set aside mutual exhortation in the church. He professes to oppose indiscriminate and spontaneous teaching, but recommends meeting on the evening of one of the days of labor, for the trial of the gifts of the brethren. From this it would appear, that any of the brethren may then speak. But we find him observing, that on this evening the churches may hear any of their brethren whom they judge able to instruct them." Those who thus instruct their brethren, must be considered teachers, for he maintains, that no person can be engaged in exhorting, without occupying the place of a teacher, and that mutual exhortation in the church sets aside the uniform distinction between teachers and taught." "The persons" he also observes, "who engage in the work of exhortation, are supposed to continue in it. It is not a work to be taken up occasionally, or laid down at pleasure. No, he that possesseth this gift is called diligently to cultivate it, statedly to exercise it, and to devote himself to it, and to the means of improving his qualifications for it." These persons must of course be supported by their brethren, according to the passage which he quotes, "Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth," Gal. 6:6. Yet Mr. A. still countenances spontaneous and indiscriminate teaching on the evening of one of the days of labor, while none of the brethren have been appointed to the office of teachers after some years of trial.

Our brethren seem to have departed entirely from the first principles on which we set out, for they are now strenuously opposing in others, what they themselves formerly practiced. A few individuals, without any foreign assistance or authority, joined together as a church, which assembled at the Circus grounds in Edinburgh; and upon this is founded all that our brethren and their churches have been doing to this day. They also fully recognized and practiced what is now branded with the name of spontaneous and indiscriminate teaching; and they approved of the conduct of some of their number, who, without any call from others, or trial of their gifts, had gone forth to preach in the highways and hedges. The principles on which we then acted, still appear to me sound and scriptural, and I only plead for others to enjoy the same liberty we then made use of.

While I have shown, I trust, the inconclusiveness of the reasoning of a dear brother on the subject of this ordinance, I feel towards him the same affection as ever I did; and although in this case I think him wrong, I give him full credit for acting conscientiously and knowing his regard for the authority of Jesus, I trust we shall yet be of one mind on these subjects. Of one thing we are sure, if any man be inclined to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it is of God or not. I am sorry my brother has declined entering at present on the question, Whether a church should prevent those who desire it, from witnessing the observance of all the ordinances of Jesus. I trust he will be led to change his views also on this subject; but if not, I sincerely hope he will state his sentiments respecting it; persuaded that the more it is canvassed, the more its evidence and importance will appear.

The Parable of the Orange Tree by Dr. John White

I dreamed I drove on a Florida road, still and straight and empty. On either side were groves of orange trees, so that as I turned to look at them from time to time, line after line of trees stretched back endlessly from the road. Their boughs were heavy with round yellow fruit. This was harvest time. My wonder grew as the miles slipped by. How could the harvest be gathered?

Suddenly I realized that for all the hours I had driven (and this was how I knew I must be dreaming) I had seen no other person. The groves were empty of people. No other car had passed me. No houses were to be seen beside the highway. I was alone in a forest of orange trees.

But, at last, I saw some orange pickers. Far from the highway, almost on the horizon, lost in the vast wilderness of unpicked fruit, I could discern a tiny group of them working steadily. And many miles later I saw another group. I could not be sure, but I suspected that the earth beneath me was shaking with silent laughter at the hopelessness of their task. Yet the pickers went on picking.

The sun had long passed its zenith and the shadows were lengthening when, without any warning, I turned a corner of the road to see a notice "Leaving NEGLECTED COUNTY - Entering HOME COUNTY." The contrast was so startling that I scarcely had time to take in the notice. I had to slow down for all at once the traffic was heavy. People by the

thousands swarmed the road and crowded the sidewalks.

Even more startling was the transformation in the orange groves. Orange groves were still there and orange trees in abundance, but now, far from being silent and empty, they were filled with the laughter and singing of multitudes of people. Indeed it was the people we noticed rather than the trees. People &endash; and houses.

I parked the car at the roadside and mingled with the crowd. Smart gowns, neat shoes, showy hats, expensive suits, and starched shirts made me a little conscious of my work clothes. Everyone seemed so fresh and poised and gay.

"Is it a holiday?" I asked a well-dressed woman with whom I fell in step.

She looked a little startled for a moment, and then her face relaxed with a smile of gracious condescension.

"You're a stranger, aren't you?" she said before I could reply, "This is Orange Day."

She must have seen a puzzled look on my face, for she went on, "It is so good to turn aside from one's labors and pick oranges one day of the week."

"But don't you pick oranges every day?" I asked her.

"One may pick oranges at any time," she said, "We should always be ready to pick oranges, but Orange Day is the day that we devote especially to orange picking."

I left her and made my way further into the trees. Most of the people were carrying a book. Bound beautifully in leather, and edged and lettered in gold, I was able to discern on the edge of one of them the words: The Orange Picker's Manual.

By and by I noticed around one of the orange trees, seats had been arranged, rising upward in tiers from the ground. The seats were almost full-but as I approached the group, a smiling well-dressed gentleman shook my hand and conducted me to a seat.

There, around the foot of the orange tree, I could see a number of people. One of them was addressing all the people on the seats and just as I got to my seat, everyone rose to his feet and began to sing. The man next to me shared with me his song book. It was called: Songs of the Orange Groves.

They sang for some time and the song leader waved his arms with a strange and frenzied abandon, exhorting the people in the intervals between the songs to sing more loudly.

I grew steadily more puzzled.

"When do we start to pick oranges?" I asked the man who had loaned me his book.

"It's not long now," he told me. "We like to get everyone warmed up first. Besides, we want to make the oranges feel at home." I thought he was joking &endash; but his face was serious.

After a while a rather large man took over from the song leader and, after reading two sentences from his well-thumbed copy of the Orange Picker's Manual, began to make a speech. I wasn't clear whether he was addressing the people or the oranges.

I glanced behind me and saw a number of groups of people similar to our own group gathering around an occasional tree and being addressed by other large men. Some of the trees had no one around them.

"Which trees do we pick from?" I asked the man beside me. He did not seem to understand, so I pointed to the trees round about.

"This is our tree," he said, pointing to the one we were gathered around.

"But there are too many of us to pick from just one tree," I protested. "Why, there are more people than oranges!"

"But we don't pick oranges," the man explained. "We haven't been called. That's the Orange Picker's job. We're here to support him. Besides we haven't been to college. You need to know how an orange thinks before you can pick it successfully &endash; orange psychology, you know. Most of these folk here," he went on, pointing to the congregation, "have never been to Manual School."

"Manual School," I whispered. "What's that?"

"It's where they go to study the The Orange Picker's Manual," my informant went on. "It's very hard to understand. You need years of study before it makes sense."

"I see, I murmured. I had no idea that picking oranges was so difficult."

The large man at the front was still making his speech. His face was red and he appeared to be indignant about something. So far as I could see there was rivalry with some of the other "orange-picking" groups. But a moment later a glow came on his face,

"But we are not forsaken," he said. "We have much to be thankful for. Last week we saw THREE ORANGES BROUGHT INTO OUR BASKETS, and we are now completely debt free from the money we owed on the new cushion covers that grace the seats you now sit on."

"Isn't it wonderful?" the man next to me murmured. I made no reply. I felt that something must be profoundly wrong somewhere. All this seemed to be a very roundabout way of picking oranges.

The large man was reaching a climax in his speech. The atmosphere seemed tense. Then with a very dramatic gesture he reached two of the oranges, plucked them from the branch, and placed them in the basket at his feet. The applause was deafening.

"Do we start on the picking now?" I asked my informant.

"What in the world do you think we're doing?" he hissed. "What do you suppose this tremendous effort has been made for? There's more orange-picking talent in this group than in the rest of Home County. Thousands of dollars have been spent on the tree you're looking at."

I apologized quickly. "I wasn't being critical," I said. "And I'm sure the large man must be a very good orange picker - but surely the rest of us could try. After all, there are so many oranges that need picking. We've all got a pair of hands and we could read the Manual."

"When you've been in the business as long as I have, you'll realize that it's not as simple as that," he replied. "There isn't time, for one thing. We have our work to do, our families to care for, and our homes to look after. We . . ."

But I wasn't listening. Light was beginning to break on me. Whatever these people were, they were not orange pickers. Orange picking was just a form of entertainment for their weekends.

I tried one or two more of the groups around the trees. Not all of them had such high academic standards for orange pickers. Some held classes on orange picking. I tried to tell them of the trees I had seen in Neglected County but they seemed to have little interest.

"We haven't picked the oranges here yet," was their usual reply.

The sun was almost setting in my dream and, growing tired of the noise and activity all around me, I got in the car and began to drive back again along the road I had come. Soon all around me again were the vast and empty orange groves.

But there were changes. Something had happened in my absence. Everywhere the ground was littered with fallen fruit. And as I watched it seemed that before my eyes the trees began to rain oranges. Many of them lay rotting on the ground.

I felt there was something so strange about it all, and my bewilderment grew as I thought of all the people in Home County.

Then, booming through the trees there came a voice which said, "The harvest truly is plenteous but the laborers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest", that he will send forth laborers. . ."

And I awakened - for it was only a dream!

Oliver Cromwell

Thirdly, you say, You have just cause to regret that men of Civil employments should usurp the calling and employment of the Ministry; to the scandal of the Reformed Kirks. Are you troubled that Christ is preached? Is preaching so exclusively your function? Doth it scandalize the Reformed Kirks, and Scotland in particular? Is it against the Covenant? A way with the Covenant, if this be so! I thought, the Covenant and these "professors of it" could have been willing that any should speak good of the name of Christ: if not, it is no Covenant of God's approving; nor are these Kirks you mention insomuch the Spouse of Christ. Where do you find in the Scripture a ground to warrant such an assertion, That preaching is exclusively your function? Though an Approbation from men hath order in it, and may do well; yet he that hath no better warrant than that, hath none at all. .1 hope He that ascended up on high may give His gifts to whom He pleases: and if those gifts be the seal of Mission, be not "you" envious though Eldad and Medad prophesy. You know who bids us covet earnestly the best gifts, but chiefly that we may prophesy; which the Apostle explains there to be a speaking to instruction and edification and comfort, which speaking, the instructed, the edified and comforted can best tell the energy and effect of, "and say whether it is genuine." If such evidence be, I say again, Take heed you envy not for your own sakes; lest you be guilty of a greater fault than Moses reproved in Joshua for envying for his sake.

Indeed, you err through mistaking of the Scriptures. Ordination is an act of convenience in respect of order; not of necessity, to give faculty to preach the Gospel. Your pretended fear lest error should step in, is like the man who would keep all the wine out the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy, to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon a supposition he may abuse it. When he doth abuse it, judge. If a man speak foolishly, yes suffer him gladly because ye are wise; if erroneously, the truth more appears by your conviction "of him." Stop such a man's mouth by sound words which cannot be gain said.

Pp 234-5 of from Vol 2 of Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, New York, Charles Scribners, 1897. From a letter to the Governor of Edinburgh Castle, dated Sept 12, 1650.

John Newton

The Apostle, Paul addresses the Corinthians as a Church of Christ; and we have from him a larger and more particular account of the practices of their Church than any other. In chap. xiv. of his First Epistle, after censuring and correcting some improprieties which had obtained in their public assemblies, he gives them this direction: Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be comforted.

The general practice of congregational Churches in our time seems not to comply with this apostolic injunction, I think, my friend, in your assemblies, especially in your solemn stated worship on the Lord's day, there is seldom more than one speaker. The same minister who preaches, usually begins and ends the service.

Pp. 33-34 Apologia, Letter 3. Works of John Newton, Vol 4, 1822.

THE PULPIT COMMENTARY, CORINTHIANS

Verses. 29-33. Paul's idea of the Christian Church in assembly. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judges" etc. From these words we may infer that Paul considered:

I. That the Christian Church in assembly, on the SAME OCCASION, MIGHT HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS TO ADDRESS THEM. - "Let the prophets [or, 'teachers'] speak two or three." "For ye may all prophesy one by one." li this he so: 1. Should Christian teaching be regarded as a profession? It is so now: men are brought up to it, trained for it, and live by it, as architects, lawyers, doctors. Surely preaching the gospel should no more be regarded as a profession than the talk of loving parents to their children. 2. Is the Church justified in confining its attention to the ministry of one man? In most modern congregations there are seine Christian men who, by natural ability, by experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to instruct and comfort the people than their professional and stated minister. Surely official preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or later. Every Christian man should be a preacher. Were the half-hour allotted in Church services for the sermon to be occupied by three or four Christly men, thoughtful and reverent, with the capability of expression withal, it would not only be far more interesting, but more profitably spent than now.

II. That the Christian Church in assembly might ALLOW ONE OF ITS GODLY MEN TO RISE AND SPEAK ON THE INSPIRATION OF THE MOMENT. "If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." This does not mean, I presume, that the one who is speaking is to be interrupted, but that after he has delivered his message another, if he felt truly inspired to do so, might rise and address the audience. May it not be that under every discourse there might be some one or more in the audience so divinely excited with a rush of holy thought, that he craves for an utterance, not for his own sake, but for the sake of others; and why should he not have the opportunity? What an interest such an event would add to a religious service!

III. That the Christian Church in assembly SHOULD SUBMIT THE UTTERANCES OF ITS TEACHERS TO A DEVOUT CRITICAL JUDGMENT. "Let the other judge," or, as the New Version has it, "Let the others discern [or, 'discriminate']." The people were not to accept as a matter of course all that the prophets or teachers spake to them; for even were they inspired, they were not infallible. They were to act as it is said the Bereans did, who "searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so." Ah me! if congregations were so to act, there would soon come an end to the crudities, the assumptions, and the dogmas of modern pulpits.

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan pp 463, 464.

Lectures on the History of Preaching by John A. Broadus, D.D., LL.D.,

For this almost entire want of sermons remaining from the first two centuries, there are several reasons, which we need not go far to seek.

The preaching of the time was in general quite informal. The preacher did not make discourses, but only homilies, that is conversations, talks. Even in the fourth century, there was still retained, hr some out of the way congregations, the practice of asking the preacher many questions, and answering questions asked by him, so as to make the homily to some extent a conversation. And in this period it was a!ways a mere familiar talk, which of course might rise into dignity and swell into passion, but only in an informal way. The general feeling appears also to have been that dependence on the promised blessing of the Paraclete forbade elaborate preparation of discourses. And this feeling would prevent many from writing out their discourses after they were spoken, as the same feeling appears to have prevented the German Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, and many American Baptist ministers a century ago.

But we must by no means imagine there was but little preaching during the two first centuries, because no sermons remain. In fact preaching was then very general, almost universal, among the Christians. Lay-preaching was not an exception, it was the rule. Like the first disciples the Christians still went everywhere preaching the word. The notion that the Christian minister corresponded to the Old Testament priest had not yet gained the ascendancy. We find Irenaeus and Tertullian insisting that all Christians are priests.

Prof. in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Greenville, S. C. Author of A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery Sermons, new York:1879 pp 46-47.

The Supremacy of the Sermon

The sermon remained the basic element in Presbyterian worship, diminishing somewhat in importance, it may be, as insistence grew for shorter sermons. There was, at the same time, a growing interest in the worship program as a whole.

Colonel J. T. L. Preston, on the staff of his brother-in-law, General Stonewall Jackson. developed a distaste for the shoddy services conducted by various roving preachers and chaplains. In 1864, as a commissioner to the General Assembly, he presented a resolution asking the Assembly to introduce for optional use "a few scriptural and well-considered forms of prayer, requiring responses on the part of the congregation." The proposal 'as quickly tabled, but eight years later, Colonel Preston, once more a commissioner, again raised the question: "Would it be in accordance with the principles and early usages of the Presbyterian Church and calculated to promote the (decorum and devotional character of its public service, to introduce a few Scriptural and well-considered forms, requiring responses on the part of the congregation - the use of such forms to be optional on the part of the pastors conducting these services?" In speaking to this motion, Colonel Preston pointed out that the Presbyterian service was becoming shorter through the abbreviation of the sermon. He suggested that it might be well for the congregation, in the time thus gained, to repeat the creed, to make confession of sin, to join in an audible thanksgiving to God for general mercies, using for this purpose well-prepared forms. Those who opposed the motion admitted that there was a growing desire for forms of worship in the church, but 'voiced their own opposition to all liturgical forms and felt that the slightest concession would be an entering wedge( for further developments. The motion to appoint a committee to consider the question was defeated by a vote of 102 to 5.

The question was raised again by a paper read at a meeting of the Presbyterian Alliance in which the speaker pointed out that Calvin, Luther, and Knox were all liturgists and suggested that the introduction of certain liturgical features might make the Presbyterian service more attractive. The proposal aroused a barrage of opposition. "Tile trouble about these schemes for making the services more attractive," commented the Central Presbyterian, "is that in proportion as the fancy is tickled, the soul is starved." Fixed forms of prayer, the editor continued, tend to degenerate into a mechanical operation. Where the congregation and the preacher mean business,

most of the adjuncts are an obstruction and not a help. When a soul desires to enter into the presence of God . . . it wants no book forms, no crucifixes, no vase of flowers, no music. The deepest communion with God requires absolute simplicity; the sinner in the presence of his God wants to shut out all the objects of sense . . . The introduction of a meager liturgical service, to be used at the option of individual churches, might, if it rested there, be unobjectionable, but the danger in the matter arises, as we know, from opening the door; the appetite for novelties increases; and safety lies in four bare walls and a perfectly simple conduct of the worship.

The Southern Presbyterian argued that the disposition for change, which had existed in the church for some time, had arisen in part from the slovenly manner in which the worship of God was sometimes conducted. It admitted that in some instances prayers were awkwardly expressed, or prolix and scattered, and protracted beyond the requirements of devotion and the capacities of the flesh. But the remedy was simple. Prayers should be less extemporaneous. More thought should be given to the worship service as traditionally administered. The editor feared, however, that much of the rising demand for change came from a lack of spirituality.

The North Carolina Presbyterian insisted that arguments for change based on the need of congregational participation were out of place, for the congregation participated adequately by listening attentively to the sermon. The movement for greater variety and more aesthetic beauty in worship, the editor further insisted, overlooked a fundamental principle of Presbyterian worship - that nothing is legitimate in worship unless expressly or implicitly set forth in Scripture. (From Thompson's History of Presbyterianism in the South)

One More Thing

One thing may be mentioned that would likely become a fatal barrier to the practical working of this apostolic plan. Let it be constantly proclaimed from high places among us, that he who presumes to instruct his fellow-Christians around him or to exhort them to the performance of their duties, must necessarily drop all secular pursuits and devote himself wholly to preaching - this would be the fatal barrier.

The Presbyterate Newspaper, No. 241,1872.

To discuss this article, enter the appropriate web forum.

housechurch.org > 2 or 3 gathered index > this document

 

---

---