CHRTSTTA-TSr
2
K—-- i., . . ■
i
-
*
........ .. ................ —.......... ..............
..... - 1
J
..................... '
......
Beecher and wife were stopping, of
eating our breakfast with him, of
traveling on the coach with him
fronrTacoimrto Kalama, and even
of buying a dime’s worth of pea
nuts in the same grocery store at
the same time Mr. Beecher invested
his dime, and yet we do not see
that we are any “ bigger ” preacher
• or that we can write any “ bigger ”
editorials than before. Suffice it to
say that he did not convert us and
that we did not convert him. So
- our readers may dismiss all fears
from their minds in reference to
the future of the H erald in this
___ respect_______ •'
_____ _____
We had the pleasant company of
Sister Spinning, her son and daugh-
- ter and Miss Ryan from Puyallup
on our way to Tacoma and while
there. They too went to hear Mr.
Through the special
Beecher.
r
kindness of Bro. Frank Sui
we all occupied reserved seats where
we could view the distinguished
lecturer from head to foot at our
leisure. We are under obligations
to Bro. Frank for his many acts of
kindness to us. We shall ever re
member him, and the pleasant
Christian family to which he be-
■e.
iOngSj Witft tfir go
Tacoma is the rival city of
Seattle, is favorably located for
commercial purposes, and is a
thrifty business town of a few
thousand inhabitants. Like Seat
tle, we think New Tacoma also is
destined in the near future to make
a commercial centre of considerable
importance. Early in the morning
we took the train for Kalama,
reaching there at 12 o’clock noon
Over this line we saw some very
good agricultural country, and
passed through a number of smaller
towns noted for their enterprising
spirit. At Kalama we took the
boat, Mountain Queen, for Portland,
at which place we arrived about
six in the evening.; On this boat
we met the same old abomination
that we encountered as we went
down. There were on this boat no
less than four agents representing
that number of hotels in Portland.
If their lives had depended on it
x they could not have been more per
sistent in their efforts to out-do and
oppose one another and try to
make the passengers believe that
they were all a company -of boobies
who did not know where they were
from, where they were going
or what their business was,
and 'so needed
the
special
oversight and protection of these
angels of mercy. They went so far
A
HERALD.
as to raise a war of words in and that in his body “ there is neither
around the ladies’ cabin which was Jew nor Greek, there is neither
bond nor free, there is neither male
no credit to the boat officers, a dis nor female; for ye are all one in
grace to-themselvas an d an a ut.rag e. Christ~Jesu* *
r — lf-th e He r ald still
on the more respectful and better claims the distinction contained in
bred portion of the passengers. They its question, we will trace its posi
succeeded in so confusing two men tion to a logical conclusion.
There is proof that a church
of apparently good judgment un privilege for a part is a privilege
der ordinary circumstances, that for the whole. But it has no such
when the boat landed a police offi proof for weekly communion. It
cer had to actually take charge of very unjustly says we garbled Mc
them and set matters aright. Our Garvey. We deny it, and affirm
carriage was delayed at the landing that it has not shown it, neither has
it given a word of proof of its
at least half an hour, for no other, position from McGarvey. . Prof.
"piirpose than to give the runners 'sfcGai ■ a - ey T^T^'sWaFTR^if pos to li c
time to pull timid and inexperienced church “had some regular interval ”
travelers from one place to another. for the celebration of the supper,
We have positively never witnessed but admits that the New Testa
ment does not say so. He bases his
anything to equal this disgraceful conclusion on two points : (1) That
bable of hotel agents and hackmen, -ilieir.. is no. evidence in favor of
and hope never to again encounter monthly, quarterly, or yearly com
munion ; therefore weekly com
anything like unto it.
The folio wing morning at an early munion must have the preference,
though there is no New Testament
hoar wp boarded the train for Mon- evidence for it' This is exactly
mouth. All went well and we his position, according to the two
really enjoyed our ride till we came quotations. (2) Antiquity teaches
to White’s. Here we took a long that communion was observed
breath. But soon the transfer was weekly in the second century, and
considered it a custom of apostolic
made and away we went. “ O, my
appointment; and yet confesses
“ Did you !” “ Well —Well, we that the apostles said nothing.about
r-e a-c h-e-d home in the evening it !
Does the Herald editor think
and thanked God, went to bed and
after a delightful nights rest, found that he has given any proof from
McGa.rvc.y-Z Hy dras" given his
ourselves well and ready tor the opinion, and this is based on the
office next morning.
opinion ot men who lived in the
-------------------- ♦ » ♦—------ :----- -
second century. But just exactly
such evidence as that is furnished
.HERE IT IS.
for every dogma of the Catholic
Some weeks ago we had occasion church; for infant baptism, for
to remark that the Scriptures re trine immersion, for infant com
munion, and everything of that
quire the weekly communion and kind.
hence as we take the Bible alone as
The Herald started out with the
our rule of faith and practice we also profession of speaking where the
observe the communion on the first Bible speaks, and keeping silent
day of every week. The Signs of where the Bible is silent, and lands
the Times called for the proof and on a doctrine based on the opinion
of McGarvey, for which he offers
quoted McGarvey’s Commentary to the opinion of “ antiquity” with the
show that he admitted therein that confession that the Bible says no
the Scriptures do not teach it, inas thing about it' “ (), consistency !”
much as there is “ no command that It is not found in the lieraid.
Does the Signs find any positive
Christians should do so, and no ex
press statement that they did so.” command in so many words in the
We showed from the Commentary above quotation for females to com
what McGarvey does teach on the munc, or any express statement
subject, and then said : “ We would that they did so ? Certainly not;
ask the Signs how it knows that yet we grant that the passage con
females have any right at all to tains Scripture authority for female
commune ? for there is no com communion. But how does it do
mand that they should do so, and it ? Simply by logical inference.
no express statement that they did Now that is precisely the way we
so. When the Signs answers this claim the Scriptures require weekly
question we will tell it how we communion. The Signs practices
know the Scriptures require weekly the one and refuses the other on
communion.” On this the Signs the same authority. “ O, consis-
tency !” “It is not found in the
remarks:
This is a very feeble evasion. We Signs”
know that females have a right to
It denies garbling McGarvey, and
commune because they are follow
ers of Christ; “have put on Christ,” yet it represents him as saying
and are members of his body ; and there is no Scriptural authority for
weekly communion; and that he
confesses that the apostles said no
thing about it'!” Indeed ! Will
the Signs tell us where to find such_
language ? McGarvey never con
tended that there was any express
statement in the New Testament
that the disciples broke the loaf
every Lord’s day; neither do we
make such a claim. But that is
quite a different thing from con
fessing there is no New Testament
authority for it. Yet McGarvey
says: “ The intimations contained in
the universal custom known to
have existed in the churches during
the age succeeding’ that of the
apostles, has been decided by them
all (the denominations) as sufficient
’tcTesDnSlisIFTKiErdM^
the religious observance of the
Lord’s day ; and yet they have not
consented to the weekly observance
of the Lord’s supper, the proof of
which is precisely the same.” From
this it would seem that McGarvey
understands the intimations con
tained in the New Testament, to
say nothing of the universal custom
kjiown to have existed in the
churches, furnishes divine author-
tiy for the weekly communion, and
that this-proof is -as- fttrong-as that
for the observance of the Lord’s
day. Again McGarvey says : “Now
it can not l>e doubted that the
apostolic churches had some regular
interval at which to celebrate this
institution, and seeing that all the
evidence there is in the case is in
favor of a weekly celebration, there
is no room for a reasonable doubt
that this was the interval which
they adopted.” Then in his mind
there is no room for a reasonable
doubt, based on the evidence of the
Scriptures, that the apostolic
churches practiced weekly commun
ion. If these churches practiced it,
they evidently did so by divine au
thority inasmuch as the apostleA
themselves were participants. Here
we get our divine authority for it,
not from an express command or
statement, but from necessary
scriptural inference.
The Signs will pleas« remember
that the question is not whether
McGarvey’s “ opinion ” is correct or
not, but simply did he “admit” that
“ there is no New Testament evi
dence for it ?” Will our contempor
ary now correct his misrepresenta
tion of McGarvey’s views ?
We submitted the following
questions to the Signs to which it
has given no answer:
1. “ Was it the custom of the