Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
April 1868
NUMBER 34, PAGE 2-3b

Editorial April, 1868

Nearly ninety-two years have passed since the sad announcement appeared on the last page of "Lard's Quarterly" in April, 1868, "Brethren, I am under the necessity of stating that with the present number, I am compelled to suspend the Quarterly. This suspension grows wholly out of the fact that I have not the means to carry on the work longer."

Thus did the able Lard write "finis" to one of the most remarkable and most stimulating of all Restoration publications. In the few brief years it existed this journal carried perhaps the most scholarly and most thought provoking articles to be found in any publication edited by our brethren. Lard was brilliant, and wrote with elegance and power; his articles were persuasive and penetrating. Not all the material in the journal was his own work, but the genius of his editorial judgment is discernible in every line printed.

As we were re-reading the several articles on the "Missionary Society" question (articles pro and con) recently, we were struck once again with the almost uncanny similarity between the arguments, attitudes, and assumptions which characterized the early defenses of the Missionary Societies and the arguments, attitudes, and assumptions now in evidence in defense of the Benevolence Organizations. Did you ever enter a room and have a sort of eerie, spooky feeling that you had been in that very room before, when, as a matter of fact, it was impossible for you ever to have been near the place? There is a weird, unearthly, creepy sensation about such an experience as though one might have caught a glimpse of a ghost or an apparition.

Such were our sensations as we re-lived those stirring days of the past century as they unrolled before us on the pages of Lard's fine journal. What a pity the great men who so vigorously defended the Society could not have lived long enough to see how time and the relentless downward progress of human caprice and inconstancy would make hollow mockery of their most noble arguments! That which they were so positive could never happen was that which was inexorably certain to come to pass. The nobility of heart and character they ascribed to their brethren promoting the societies were as elusive and unreal as a wraith.

Consider a case in point, a comparison of what we hear now and what they argued then:

Over and over the advocates of certain Benevolent Organizations have told us that "The church is its own Missionary Society; but the church is not its own orphan home." The argument is, that the church, by its very nature, is incapable of giving "child care" to the neglected infants and helpless youngsters. That, we are told, is the work of the home, not of the church; and while the church may supply the funds for child-care, it is the duty of some other organization to supply the care.

With that in mind, take a look at this argument made in defense of the Missionary Society:

"In the nature of the case it is impossible for a church to preach the gospel. In the secondary sense, of illustrating the gospel by example, it certainly can; but in the primary sense of the term preach, it can not. The church may cause the gospel to be preached; it may furnish food and raiment for the preacher, but it can not preach. It is not true, then, that the duty of preaching the gospel has been laid on the church; it is not so stated in the passages quoted, nor is it consistent with the nature of the case.

"The truth is, that the duty of preaching the gospel is laid, not on the church, but on certain members of the church. In one way of preaching, it is the duty of every member to preach. This "W." very earnestly and correctly insists upon. But the preaching which is done by example, by private admonition and exhortation, and in all the private ways in which an earnest disciple is always making known the truth, is not the preaching about which we speak when we discuss the question of Missionary Societies. It is the public and formal proclamation of the word of God; and to this the term is appropriated in the Scriptures. Now, it is clear to a Bible reader that this is enjoined not on the church, nor on every member of the church. Women are forbidden to take part in it, and only those are called to do it to whom God has given the natural or acquired ability...

"Instead of only one, we have two great duties involved: the duty of preaching the gospel, which devolves on those who can preach; and the duty of sustaining the preachers, which devolves on the churches. With this distribution of the subject, it is easy to see the position and work of Missionary Societies. The churches, or such individual members of the churches as see fit to do so, deliver money to the officers of these societies, authorizing them to expend it in supporting preachers who labor in certain fields. This is the true theory of a Missionary Society. It is the theory, more or less clearly understood, which advocates of the societies among us have approved, and which they have more or less efficiently redacted to practice. Effectively reduced to practice, it must satisfy them all. The machinery necessary to this is all they can ask; and if they have devised too much, they must be ready to lop off every superfluous part." (Lard's Quarterly, April, 1868 — pp. 195-197.)

Does it sound familiar? It is the IDENTICAL argument made in behalf of the Benevolence Organizations, i.e.: it is the duty of the churches and individuals to supply the funds; it is the duty of the Missionary Society to administer those funds so as to cause the gospel to be preached (April, 1868); and of the Benevolence Organization to cause the poor and needy to be cared for (January, 1960.) The church as such can NOT preach the gospel (April, 1868); and the church as such can NOT care for the needy (January, 1960).

Moses E. Lard died an embittered and disillusioned man. He had made a brilliant (and truly, brotherly) defense of the Societies; but died before these monstrous creatures had become the full-grown horrors into which they finally grew. If he could look back from that vale of shadows into which he has gone, what sardonic humor would curl his lips and what a bitter smile would sadden his face as he listened to modern preachers mouthing (in far less elegant or powerful fashion) the same trite and treacherous sophisms with which he waged his battle of yore. And from that vantage point across the chasm if he could speak, his sepulchral tones might intone one of those Latin phrases of which our forefathers were so fond "Nisi Dominus, frustra", or, as Solomon better said it, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." (Ps. 127:1.)

— F. Y. T.

Nearly ninety-two years have passed since the sad announcement appeared on the last page of "Lard's Quarterly" in April, 1868, "Brethren, I am under the necessity of stating that with the present number, I am compelled to suspend the Quarterly. This suspension grows wholly out of the fact that I have not the means to carry on the work longer."

Thus did the able Lard write "finis" to one of the most remarkable and most stimulating of all Restoration publications. In the few brief years it existed this journal carried perhaps the most scholarly and most thought provoking articles to be found in any publication edited by our brethren. Lard was brilliant, and wrote with elegance and power; his articles were persuasive and penetrating. Not all the material in the journal was his own work, but the genius of his editorial judgment is discernible in every line printed.

As we were re-reading the several articles on the "Missionary Society" question (articles pro and con) recently, we were struck once again with the almost uncanny similarity between the arguments, attitudes, and assumptions which characterized the early defenses of the Missionary Societies and the arguments, attitudes, and assumptions now in evidence in defense of the Benevolence Organizations. Did you ever enter a room and have a sort of eerie, spooky feeling that you had been in that very room before, when, as a matter of fact, it was impossible for you ever to have been near the place? There is a weird, unearthly, creepy sensation about such an experience as though one might have caught a glimpse of a ghost or an apparition.

Such were our sensations as we re-lived those stirring days of the past century as they unrolled before us on the pages of Lard's fine journal. What a pity the great men who so vigorously defended the Society could not have lived long enough to see how time and the relentless downward progress of human caprice and inconstancy would make hollow mockery of their most noble arguments! That which they were so positive could never happen was that which was inexorably certain to come to pass. The nobility of heart and character they ascribed to their brethren promoting the societies were as elusive and unreal as a wraith.

Consider a case in point, a comparison of what we hear now and what they argued then:

Over and over the advocates of certain Benevolent Organizations have told us that "The church is its own Missionary Society; but the church is not its own orphan home." The argument is, that the church, by its very nature, is incapable of giving "child care" to the neglected infants and helpless youngsters. That, we are told, is the work of the home, not of the church; and while the church may supply the funds for child-care, it is the duty of some other organization to supply the care.

With that in mind, take a look at this argument made in defense of the Missionary Society:

"In the nature of the case it is impossible for a church to preach the gospel. In the secondary sense, of illustrating the gospel by example, it certainly can; but in the primary sense of the term preach, it can not. The church may cause the gospel to be preached; it may furnish food and raiment for the preacher, but it can not preach. It is not true, then, that the duty of preaching the gospel has been laid on the church; it is not so stated in the passages quoted, nor is it consistent with the nature of the case.

"The truth is, that the duty of preaching the gospel is laid, not on the church, but on certain members of the church. In one way of preaching, it is the duty of every member to preach. This "W." very earnestly and correctly insists upon. But the preaching which is done by example, by private admonition and exhortation, and in all the private ways in which an earnest disciple is always making known the truth, is not the preaching about which we speak when we discuss the question of Missionary Societies. It is the public and formal proclamation of the word of God; and to this the term is appropriated in the Scriptures. Now, it is clear to a Bible reader that this is enjoined not on the church, nor on every member of the church. Women are forbidden to take part in it, and only those are called to do it to whom God has given the natural or acquired ability...

"Instead of only one, we have two great duties involved: the duty of preaching the gospel, which devolves on those who can preach; and the duty of sustaining the preachers, which devolves on the churches. With this distribution of the subject, it is easy to see the position and work of Missionary Societies. The churches, or such individual members of the churches as see fit to do so, deliver money to the officers of these societies, authorizing them to expend it in supporting preachers who labor in certain fields. This is the true theory of a Missionary Society. It is the theory, more or less clearly understood, which advocates of the societies among us have approved, and which they have more or less efficiently redacted to practice. Effectively reduced to practice, it must satisfy them all. The machinery necessary to this is all they can ask; and if they have devised too much, they must be ready to lop off every superfluous part." (Lard's Quarterly, April, 1868 — pp. 195-197.)

Does it sound familiar? It is the IDENTICAL argument made in behalf of the Benevolence Organizations, i.e.: it is the duty of the churches and individuals to supply the funds; it is the duty of the Missionary Society to administer those funds so as to cause the gospel to be preached (April, 1868); and of the Benevolence Organization to cause the poor and needy to be cared for (January, 1960.) The church as such can NOT preach the gospel (April, 1868); and the church as such can NOT care for the needy (January, 1960).

Moses E. Lard died an embittered and disillusioned man. He had made a brilliant (and truly, brotherly) defense of the Societies; but died before these monstrous creatures had become the full-grown horrors into which they finally grew. If he could look back from that vale of shadows into which he has gone, what sardonic humor would curl his lips and what a bitter smile would sadden his face as he listened to modern preachers mouthing (in far less elegant or powerful fashion) the same trite and treacherous sophisms with which he waged his battle of yore. And from that vantage point across the chasm if he could speak, his sepulchral tones might intone one of those Latin phrases of which our forefathers were so fond "Nisi Dominus, frustra", or, as Solomon better said it, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." (Ps. 127:1.)

— F. Y. T.