The life and times — of — benjamin franklin, — by — joseph franklin, and

CHAPTER XIII.

There is, perhaps, no subject on which the views of the Disciples are less clearly defined than on that of the relations of the ministry to the church. A very large number of them do not incline to acknowledge the ministers as a separate and distinct class. There has been, from the beginning of the Reformation, a strong tendency to what is, in theological phraseology, styled, "lay preaching." Probably a majority of those known as preachers may be called "lay preachers, " because they have never been "set apart to the work of the ministry" by the ceremony called "ordination." In the churches, generally, a man who is known as a successful preacher, is accepted without ever asking whether he is an "ordained minister." The ordained ministers themselves partake of the general feeling of indifference in regard to this matter by freely co-operating in the work with ministers who not only have never been ordained, but openly question the authority for any such ceremony, excepting, as some do, the case of overseers and deacons. Men who can command a hearing, go to preaching when they choose to do so, preach as long as inclination or their sense of duty impels them, and cease without scruple when not sufficiently encouraged in the work of the ministry.

The Bethany Reformers, at an early date, were very clear in their views as to the officials lo be recognized, and very definite in the terms used for that purpose. All understood and used freely the terms, "overseers, " "deacons" and "evangelists."

"Overseer, " the literal translation of eniokonos, was preferred, because the word "bishop" had been so generally mis-applied in the Papal and Episcopal Churches. "Elder" became quite current with the people, but was objected to by critics because it simply signifies an "older person, " and many members who were older persons, or seniors, were not called to the "office of a bishop." The office or work of the overseer was held to be the ruling and teaching of the congregation. He "must be apt to teach, " and must "rule well his own house; " for, "if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? "

The "deacons" were to take charge of all the temporal affairs of the church. All financial matters, providing places for meeting, fuel, lights, the bread and wine for the communion, the care of the poor, etc., were matters coming under their supervision. And, as looking after these things made public men of them, it was held that they ought to,, and would naturally, "purchase to themselves a good degree and great boldness in the faith."

The word "evangelist" was taken in its literal import* the "bearer of good tidings." It was his business to preach the Gospel to sinners. This might be done in a community where there was a congregation of Disciples, or elsewhere. As to the authority which sent him and the authority committed to him, there does not appear to have been a definite understanding after the dissolution of Mahoning Association. Theoretically, any congregation of Disciples might call an evangelist to the work, and send him wherever they thought there was an open field. Practically, every man who felt a desire to preach the Gospel, went forth with the. tacit approval of the congre-

gation of which he was a member, and worked where he pleased. He preached the Gospel, baptized penitent believers, constituted churches, and took the temporary oversight of churches destitute of officers.

The Kentucky Reformers do not appear to have left any record upon this subject. When Barton W. Stone and his co-laborers dissolved the Springfield Presbytery, they threw away the ecclesiastical system of the Presbyterians, without adopting anything in its place. The "Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, " recognizes the "particular church, " and "her preacher, " but makes no allusion to any other church officer. The "Witnesses" held themselves "ready to help churches ordain elders or ministers."

When the union of these two classes of reformers took place, the people of the "Christian Connection" generally accepted the views of the Bethany Reformers, above given, except that there was among them a prejudice against promising any regular salary to an evangelist.

We have already characterized the Reformation in Eastern Indiana as somewhat different and distinct from those originating at Bethany and Caneridge. A very large infusion of the Caneridge element brought with it a zeal which was not always according to knowledge. The immense proselyting energy brought in hundreds who were not afterward carefully taught. There were many churches with no overseers who could teach the members, and the evangelists pushed on the work of converting sinners. Churches were left in a languishing condition until such time as the evangelist could return and renew them by a "revival meeting." The signification attached to the term "evangelist" by the earlier Disciples was soon lost, and the more general and indefinite terms "preacher" and

"minister" came into use. Gradually the churches came to lean upon the evangelists, or "preachers, " and the oversight was committed to them. "Elders "' were generally chosen; but, wanting confidence in themselves, they waited for the coming of the preacher on his monthly visit, who was expected to lead the way in all matters pertaining to the oversight of the churches.

Men sustaining this relation to the churches were, by all the religious parties round them, and also by the world, called "pastors." In course of time the Disciples began to use this term, and especially in towns or cities where preachers were employed all their time. As soon as the term "pastor" had been used enough to attract attention, it was called in question. Thus came about the discussion in regard to an office called "the Pastorate."

The discussion of this subject, however, has not, of itself, awakened any bitterness. In many instances a preacher has virtually superseded the "eldership, " and carried everything as he pleased in the affairs of the church. So long as there was no other disturbing element, peace has prevailed. In other instances the preacher has introduced new policies, to which a portion of the church objected as "innovation." In such a case, his assuming to be "the pastor, " was given in as evidence that he was a "progressionist."

By many leading men the public minister is constantly referred to as "the pastor." Some justify it as strictly correct when the preacher is an overseer or "elder" in the church. It is generally agreed that those having the oversight of a congregation of Christians may be figuratively called the "pastors" or "shepherds, " as the congregation is sometimes figuratively called "the flock."

And we do not find that any one has ever directly plead for the office

of "pastorate" as separate and distinct from the bishopric. The discussion has not, therefore, been carried on within clearly defined limits, and may be regarded more us a question of the use of terms than as a difference as to fact or truth. The prevailing custom of the country has led to the introduction and use of the terms "pastor" and "pastorate." By one party the terms are defended on the ground that their use does no violence, while, by the other party, it is urged that the language and usage are unscriptural and of necessity must do violence. On the whole, the difference has been regarded as a difference of opinion, and has not, so far as we know, ever disturbed the fellowship of a congregation.

Mr. Franklin's views on this subject were clear and well-defined, and have been given already to the reader. We need not, therefore, detain him any further here.

III. EXPEDIENCY IN THE WORSHIP.

"All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient, " says an apostle. How many things are included in the "all things" of this passage, has been a question of disagreement among the Disciples for above twenty years past. The extension of the principles of the Reformation built up large churches and included a full measure of wealth and social position. The increase of wealth among a people has always very greatly changed their manners and habits. The people who lived in log house"?, with no carpets on their floors, dressed in home-made jeans, "linsey-woolsey" and "tow-linen, " and rode through the mud to meeting, two on one horse, or walked, had meetinghouses corresponding to their own houses, if so fortunate as to have any at all. Sometimes the houses were of logs, with no floor but the ground. Seats were made of planks

laid upon logs or blocks, or puncheons made stool-fashion, with holes bored in them in which pegs were inserted. The pulpit consisted of two posts with a board upon their tops. The lights were tallow-candles, and often not more than two or three of them burning at once.²³

But the energies of the people developed their lands into most bountiful productiveness, towns grew up everywhere, conveniences were multiplied, and a more luxurious mode of living was introduced. Log houses gave way to neat frame and brick cottages. Floors were carpeted and parlors furnished. Horses and saddles, buggies and carriages, were possessed by most families. Schools, lectures, concerts, and the circulation of books, increased and developed new tastes in the people.

In the course of these changes, —which undoubtedly, to some undefined extent, may be called progress, —the people began to make improvements in their meeting-houses, "Our church edifices ought to be as neat and inviting as our own homes, " was the unanswerable argument for the improvement of church architecture and furniture.

The changes in the tastes and manners of the people did not stop at the building and furnishing of the meetinghouses. In the days of log-cabins and clapboard-roofs and puncheon-floors, any earnest and fervid preacher, who was a godly man, was listened to with patient interest, regardless of ungrammatical language and uncouth gestures. But the refinements of social life, and the culture coming from schools, lectures, concerts and general reading, made awkward pulpit manners intolerable. The people began to demand a cultivated ministry, and to despise the unstudied efforts of their "elders." This was no inconsiderable influence in the change from "overseers and evangelists, " to "pastors, " elsewhere described.

During this period of transformation, there was a complete revolution in another respect, which laid the foundation for a disagreement among the Disciples that is probably the most irreconcilable of any that has yet arisen. The improvement in the general intelligence, of course, awakened a more general interest in music. One of the first things that attracted attention, when good music was brought within the knowledge and reach of the people, was the great defect of the singing in the churches. An effort at improvement, heretofore described, was made and sanctioned by everybody. But soon the invention of the cabinet organ, a cheap, yet almost perfect musical instrument, and its introduction into almost every family in the land, resulted in the rearing of a generation who are unaccustomed to sing without an instrumental accompaniment. These young people soon began to clamor for the privilege of taking their instruments with them into the Sunday-school and the church.

These changes raised in the churches three questions, about, "Expediency and Progress:

1st. All agreed that a certain degree of improvement in the building and furnishing of meeting-houses was right or "expedient." But the question was, how far may churches go in this matter without becoming extrava-

gant? How shall we distinguish that which is done for comfort, convenience, and in good taste, from that which is done to cater to "the pride of life?" No one has ever been able to fix any standard upon this subject. "Comfort, " "convenience, " and "good taste, " are relative and shifting terms, like "orthodox" and "evangelical." The editor of the American Christian Review cried out at the extravagance of the Central Christian Church in Cincinnati, which cost one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, so as to bring down upon it the condemnation of thousands of people. He was worshipping at the time, when at home, in a neat little brick house, costing, with its furniture and appointments, about eight thousand dollars, and feeling quite at home in it. But a preaching brother, coming in one night from the country, looked at the carpeted floor, the carvings at the ends of the benches, the upholstering of the pulpit, all illuminated with a splendid gas-light, and then, with a doubtful shake of the head, remarked: "This is too fine for me. I don't feel at home here."

Although it is impossible to fix upon any limit to expenditures made in the name of necessary improvements, yet it is generally conceded that there is such a limit. It is not easy to define the point at which firmness changes to stubbornness. But the two are usually very clearly distinguished. As long as a man, under temptation, adheres" to what the' people believe to be right, he is called firm; -but when they think he is in the wrong, he is called stubborn. In like manner the standard of comparison by which a man distinguishes what is really necessary from that which is for mere show, is very likely to be his own notion. And the notions of people are usually formed by their surroundings. Those who have always been

accustomed to a meeting-house built at the least possible expense, are apt to take alarm at the slightest possible display in architectural finish or church furnishing. A. carpet, cushioned chairs or sofas in the pulpit, a baptistery, and many other such things, have often been accepted as decided evidences of a worldly mind or of ungodliness.

It is beyond question that many people who profess to follow the meek and lowly Jesus of Nazareth who became the "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, " who was accused of being "the friend of publicans and sinners, " and who could be approached with confidence by the lowliest people in Judah, build and furnish their meeting houses in such a way that they will be forbidden ground to poor people.

Benjamin Franklin was a man of the people, and anything in the manners or habits of the people comprising the membership of the churches that savored of exclusiveness, met his unhesitating and unqualified condemnation. His tongue and his pen were fluent and untiring in the effort to restrain any tendency to mere display of finery. He took no especial interest in fine church edifices and their furniture, yet made no war upon them, unless he saw them coupled with a worldly pride which courted the rich and frowned upon the poor. He was indifferent to mere formalities in social life, and in religion regarded them as certain evidence of a worldly mind and a time-serving spirit.

2d How far is it right to consider the public sentiment and feeling as to pulpit decorum? Shall the ministry be just what public opinion demands it to be? Stated in this form, there are none to affirm. Yet, there are those among the Disciples who are offended seriously if the manners of their ministers are not "up to the spirit of the

times." Denominationalism has established certain usages indicative (or at least in the public mind supposed to be indicative) of a fraternal feeling between the members of different churches. These usages demand that denominational feelings and convictions be laid aside in social life and often in public worship. The minister must preach a broad, catholic Christianity that will be offensive to nobody —that will know no denominational boundaries. Interchange of pulpits, communions of sects, ministerial convocations, etc., are involved in this discussion.

Here, again, the difference is not clearly defined. It will not do to say that any were opposed to culture and refinement in ministers—that, other things being equal, they preferred a minister of awkward gestures and ungrammatical sentences; nor, can it be said on the other hand, that others are ready to sacrifice the truth for the sake of literary culture. Yet, such accusations and counter-accusations were often brought by the contending parties; and sometimes, in the heat of excited criticisms, parties implied such views. The discussion of this subject was, for the most part, in the form of criticisms upon the "clerical manners" of some ministers, and their defence by the personal friends of those ministers. It did not become the occasion of any general strife among the Disciples, but often affected them badly. An earnest and intelligent preacher, of good literary acquirements, and who was not too "careful of his cloth, " was acceptable everywhere. But many who, while intelligent in the Bible, were deficient in literary culture, were refused audience in towns and cities, and, feeling themselves slighted, took up the discussion as a matter of personal grievance. There were yet others of this latter class, who, with a keenness of discernment which served them.

well in the absence of literary culture, avoided places where their imperfections would be noticed and lead to adverse criticism. Such a state of the case exists in all churches, and doubtless will continue until the end of the world.

Is it expedient, or right, to form singing-choirs and use instruments of music in the worship? On this question the views of parties are clearly defined. Unhappily for the cause of truth, the work of the historian is far easier than that of religious teachers and guides. It is quite an easy task for us to state the views held by different parties in this controversy, but it seems next to impossible for those who have the oversight of churches to prevent a contest which is sure to involve a great deal of strife and ill-feeling.

A choir of singers who would sit in the midst of the congregation and generally sing such familiar hymns and tunes that all the congregation who choose to do so could sing with them, was seldom, if ever, considered objectionable. But whenever a choir grew exclusive, by appropriating a corner or a gallery to themselves, and by the constant use of new and difficult music, thus destroying congregational singing, it at once became the source of strife. And, in such a case, the singers wore quite likely to be more engaged with the quality of their music than with the spirit of worship. A very general neglect of the singing by older persons, leaving it exclusively to the caprice of the young, has had much to do in opening the way for the strife that has so seriously disturbed the peace of so many of the churches.

On the question of instrumental music in the worship, there was a division as to whether it was a question of expediency. Many held that the use of a musical instrument

was an intolerable addition to the worship. God has given the items or parts of the worship in a perfect revelation, and did not enumerate instrumental music as one of them. Its introduction, therefore, was an attempt to improve upon what God has made perfect. It was insisted that God would not accept this as worship at all, because he did not command it to be done. Those who held this view made it a matter of conscience, and refused to worship where an organ or other musical instrument was used. Some moved their membership on account of it, and some staid at home and worshiped nowhere rather than worship where a musical instrument was used. In a few instances men made churches of their own families and kept the ordinances in their own houses.

Those who discussed it as a question of expediency were by no means agreed among themselves. Some who saw no sin in instrumental music, if used in a proper manner, held that it was a thing so liable to be abused as to be a dangerous expedient. It might not necessarily be a corruption of the worship such as to render it unacceptable to God. Yet it was so liable to become a cause of strife, to choke off congregational singing, and to introduce irreligious persons among the worshipers, that it was not wise to employ any instruments of music. The furore which spread all over the country soon silenced all such objections as these, and musical instruments were very rapidly introduced into

the churches.

Anything regarded as a mere expedient can be submitted to in the hope that observation and experience will, in course of time, correct the evil there is in it. So those who objected to instrumental music on the ground that it was of no real advantage to singers, and liable to be used in such a way as to do mischief, retained their places in

the church after the organ was introduced and made but little opposition to it. But those who looked upon it as an added item in the worship could no more endure its presence than they could agree to the sprinkling of infants for baptism. Such persons immediately left the church when an organ was introduced, going to meeting where there was none, or staying at home if no such place was within their reach.

Mr. Franklin took this decided stand against the use of musical instruments in the worship, and refused to preach or to worship where there was one unless it could be silenced during his stay. On one occasion he found a congregation led in singing by a flute. He endured it for two or three evenings, but finally, on announcing a future meeting, urged the presence of more singers, and added: "Hereafter we will dispense with the whistle."

Mr. Franklin's youngest son had quite a talent for music, and while a mere youth became an accomplished performer on the piano and organ. He was at the time thinking of making music his profession, and upon the inquiry how he might get at the work so as to make it profitable. Some one suggested that a good plan would be to go along with his father and sell musical instruments. He was sufficiently interested to repeat the suggestion to his father. Mr. Franklin listened patiently till all the points of the case were before him, and then said, "And shan't we take a monkey along, too?"

The shape in which these matters came before the public was such that the advocates of the changes involved in them, regarded them as an advance required by the spirit of the times,, Progress in science, art, literature and commerce demanded progress in religion. These were matters left to the discretion of the Disciples, and

when they found that public opinion or the usages of society required changes in these respects, they were at liberty to make them. And it was further claimed that a church which should refuse to heed these demands could not succeed with the people. The old-fashioned and cheap meeting houses, with their uncarpeted floors and uncushioned benches, did well enough for the pioneers who lived in log houses. The uncultivated preacher did well enough for people who had no schools and no books but the Bible. The old style of singing, in which mules and females all joined with imperfect melody in singing the leading part in a piece of music, did well enough for people who had no musical education. But the people of our day are well-to-do people, who have all the conveniences and the manners of refined society, and cannot enjoy a meeting in a house which does not comport with their style of living at home. Our people are an educated people, and he who would edify them in public discourse must be a man of liberal education and refined manners. Our people are skilled in music, and they cannot join with true devotion in a song which violates all the rules of musical harmony. They require a band of cultivated singers, whose voices are to be supported by good instruments under the hands of skillful players.²⁴ Changing our customs as the times change, and keeping

up with the manners of the age, was called "progress" by those who made a point of it.

On the other hand, it was urged that we are not to be formed by the times in which we live, as that would be "conforming to the world." But we are to be above the times and are to use our influence in elevating mankind. It was held that "progression" is a misnomer—that these changes are a "retrogression." We should ever, in all these matters, keep in view the question of right. What is right? What is according to the will of God? These are the questions for Christians. They should never concern themselves about the manners of the age. It was insisted that we should be more godly and of more real service to mankind, to follow exclusively the dictates of reason enlightened by the word of God, wholly regardless of "the demands of the age." We cannot yield to the usages of society at all without contamination. The "demands of the age" are usually wrong, and rather to be resisted than consulted as a guide.

As usual in such cases, the discussion went on all the more furious, if possible, from the fact that the points of difference were not always clearly defined, Epithet and invective often superseded argument. The charge of "old fogyism" was met by the counter charge of surrendering to the "lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life." The periodical literature was filled to overflowing with controversial articles on these subjects, until readers sickened of the discussion and demanded a cessation* of hostilities. Editors were compelled to close their columns against it.