How Serious is That Issue?
Kerry Duke

Does a man really believe that an issue is as serious as he makes it out to be? He may get excited and upset and speak strong words against a belief or a practice. Judging from the tone of his voice and the fervor of his words, we might think the matter is a heaven-or-hell issue with him. He may even say that it is. But does he really believe that? His actions may tell a different story. He may talk about the question as if it is gravely important yet behave in ways that say it is not of the utmost significance to him. Here are some practical ways to gauge the depth of a man's convictions about the issue he is pressing:

1. Is he willing to stand against the people he loves the most over this issue?
2. Does he make it a test of fellowship in his home congregation?
3. If he is a preacher, is he willing to lose his job because of preaching on it?
4. Is he just as concerned about other issues that are on an equal level of importance?
5. Does he hesitate when asked if he thinks a person who is wrong on the issue is going to hell?
6. Is he willing to publicly debate those that he regards as false teachers on the question?
7. Is he willing to meet privately with those he opposes so that they can cross-examine him?
8. If he presses the issue from his seat in the pew, is he willing to stand up before the audience and defend his view?
9. Do the activities in his personal life indicate that the issue is serious or not serious with him?
10. When a man feels that he is approaching the end of his life, how much does he think about this issue?

A man who is making more out of an issue than he should needs to ask himself these questions. These tests do not determine whether a man's position is true or false. They do, however, urge us to be honest about our overall perspective and the emphasis we place on issues. Sincerely considering these questions in light of the Scriptures should bring things into focus.

Editorial — The Unity Meetings
Malcolm L. Hill

A number of years ago the Christian church and the liberal wing of the church of Christ started their unity meetings. While Christian unity is to be desired there must never be a willingness to compromise biblical truth. Unity at any cost is not taught in the word of God. Unity in Christ must always be based on the Bible. Christians must love the truth of God's word enough to die for it if necessary (Rev. 2:13). Unity at any cost is not acceptable to God. Christians are to stand their ground on the Bible no matter how much persecution, slander, hardship, criticism, hate, reproach, and ill treatment it may bring (Matt. 5:10-12).

We received some information about the 8th Annual Stone-Campbell Journal Conference to be held in Cincinnati in April of 2009. Programs such as this one used to be filled with a mixture of liberal church of Christ people and the Christian Church. But as we went through this program such was not the case. It is very obvious that there has been a slow-down with the liberals in the church of Christ and the Christian Church. What do you suppose has happened? The Christian Church is not going to roll out the red carpet for the liberals in the church of Christ and take a back seat. The Christian Church has its share of high-minded preachers and they do not intend to leave the higher seats for lower ones and give the higher seats to the liberal-minded church of Christ preachers. So what have they done with the unity movements that were so prominent just a few years back? They have pushed them aside to some extent and are moving on in the movement that was started by the Christian Church many years ago. Will the Christian Church and the liberals in the church of Christ continue to have some meetings? We suppose so but they will never get the merger to work as they had in mind. There are too many big-minded Christian Church preachers who refuse to move over and give place to the liberal-minded church of Christ preachers who also have an inflated view of their importance.

How long will we oppose the stubborn will of the Christian Church and their refusal to follow the Bible? As long as we have breath and life in us. We were hoping the liberals in the church of Christ would join the Christian Church and get out of the way of the faithful people of God. We would rather the liberals in the Lord's church repent and do God's will but it is obvious they are not ready to do so. The liberals in the church of Christ are faced with a great dilemma. They are too conservative for the denominations and too liberal for the true church of Christ. Neither group will have them and amen to this.

Did Our Lord Put Instrumental Music in Worship?
S. H. Hall

I am asking one plain question: Did the early churches use the instrument in any sense? They either did or did not. But if they did not use it, it stands, as sure as heaven itself, that they intentionally refused to use it. It was a thing that they had used under the old covenant that had just ended. From the fact that they had instruments in abundance, and plenty of musicians to play them, we can conclude only that they intentionally left them out. From this conclusion there is no escape. Too, we will have to allow our Lord Jesus Christ, our Captain and King, the responsibility of leaving them out. Get this: Beginning with Pentecost, Christ did the teaching, the speaking, the directing of affairs. Study John 16:12-15, and you get these facts: (1) Christ had things to say to the apostles that he could not then say to them; but when the Holy Spirit came, he, the Holy Spirit, would guide them into all truth. (2) The Holy Spirit would not speak of himself, but speak only what he heard. (3) He, the Holy Spirit, had no one to whom he could listen, except Christ, who had all the authority God had in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:16-20). (4) The Holy Spirit would glorify Christ by taking his doctrine and giving it to the apostles. Let us remember that all that was said on Pentecost was the word of our Lord—the conditions of pardon then imposed and all the work and worship of the church came directly from Christ. Well it would be for us to remember the words of Paul in I Corinthians 14:37: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."

So the question I ask again is: Did Christ lead the apostles to use the instrument in any sense? Of course we know that there is not any proof whatsoever in the New Testament that they used instruments of music for individual aid or otherwise; and of course there is nothing said about the mannerism of the song leader—whether he waved his hands or baton in beating the time. However, if he had, there would have been no music in it, as everyone well knows. But when the instrument is used, it is a dead certainty that a music is made that was intentionally left out. When instrumental music accompanied the singing under the Old Testament, the two musics coalesced and became one sound to be heard. "It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord" (II Chron. 5:13). When the hands and arms of the leader are used, most certainly another kind of music is not made. You are making a music that our Lord intentionally left out when the instrument is used. Some have tried to argue that the early church used the instrument, but such is pitiful. Again I say: A music that they had been accustomed to using, that they had plenty of instruments and players to make such with, if left out, it could not have been done by accident or oversight. It was intentionally left out. What our Lord intentionally did, should we not also do? It is strange that some of those early members did not think of it as an aid and ask permission to bring it in. No, they knew too much about its former use to think of it other than a part of the worship, coalescing with the voice and making one sound. How in the name of all that is reasonable, can we be accused of making laws where our Lord made them not when we leave out what he left out?

When in a unity meeting some years ago in Lexington, Ky., I called a number of the strongest men there on the music side around me as I laid my notes on the pulpit before them. I asked them the plain questions: "A thing that God's people had been using under the old covenant and had plenty to use when the New Testament was given, and left out of the worship, can we come to any other conclusion than that it was intentionally left out?" I then called their attention to the fact that the New Testament says nothing about their use. Then I read to them from the following: American Cyclopedia; Chamber's Encyclopedia; Schaff-Herzog; Fessenden's Encyclopedia; London Encyclopedia; Encyclopedia by J. Newton Brown (Baptist); New International Encyclopedia; McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia; Neander's Church History; Mosheim's History; Dr. Frederick Louis Ritter, director of music at Vassar College; Edward Dickinson, professor of the history of music, Oberlin College; Clement, A.D. 12-100; Chrysostom, A.D. 347-407; St. Ambrose, A.D. 340-397; St. Augustine, A.D. 354-430; Frank London Humphreys, author of The Evolution of Music; J. E. Riddle in Christian Antiquities; Lyman Coleman (Presbyterian); George Park Fisher, professor of ecclesiastical history in Yale; John Kurtz, German Lutheran scholar and church historian; Philip Schaff, president of the American Company of Revisers; John Bingham, author of Antiquities of Christian Church; William Hetherington, History of Westminster Assembly of Divines; James Pierce (learned Presbyterian); Thomas Aquinas, great scholar of the 13th century; Professor John Girardeau, of Columbia Theological Seminary (Presbyterian); Justin Martyr, A.D. 139; Book of Musical Knowledge, by Arthur Elson, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, and others.

Adam Clarke, the great Methodist commentator, in his comments on Amos 6:5, says: "I further believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God; that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion; and that they are sinful." He then has this to say about John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church: "The late venerable and most eminent divine, the Reverend John Wesley, who was a lover of music and an elegant poet, when asked his opinion of instruments of music in her terse and powerful manner: 'I have no objections to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither seen nor heard.'" As to the array of scholarship named before coming to Clarke and Wesley, it is enough to say that they all speak in about the same vein of the American Cyclopedia and Chambers' Encyclopedia, which say: "Its use began about A.D. 670," and "Pope Vitalian introduced it about A.D. 666," respectively.

After laying this before men who are considered the strongest on that side of the question, I said: "There it is, gentlemen. To save me, I cannot see why it was left out if not intentionally done. You cannot say that this great array of scholarship, makers of encyclopedias, whose business it was to get undoubted facts, that if they were used by the early church they could not find it out, and you know the New Testament does not teach that is was used." Well, I am awaiting their answer, and so do I await the answer from any other. It was not used back there in the early congregations. Those congregations were set in order and started by our Lord through the Holy Spirit that spake only as he authorized the Spirit to speak, and his will and wishes were given to us through the apostles. Say not it can be used as an aid, and the people back there did not have sense enough to know it could be so used.

Please, if you are using the instrument in worship or as an aid, cease your unscriptural practice and follow the leadership of Christ. We must respect the silence of God's word as well as what it says when it comes to learning what to do to be saved and how to worship today.

Truly did Drummond say: "He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave."

"Thinking it through" is the crying need when we come to study any question. But most certainly reason is dethroned and allowed not to function when any soul takes the use of instrumental music, a thing Christ intentionally left out and refused to recommend to the worship "in any sense," and puts the use of such on a par with individual communion cups, written comments as an aid to Bible study, or colleges in which the Bible is taught, or homes where orphans are kept. The "cup" that contained the fruit of the vine is in, and Christ put it in. The "divide it among yourselves," his expressed command, is left with us. How, in the name of all that is reasonable, can a thing expressly put in by our Lord be placed on a par with what he intentionally left out or failed to put in in any sense? Are you thinking? Is reason allowed to be exercised when you so state? When anyone writes a comment on a Scripture, he is doing no more than when he makes an oral comment. Our Lord did this (Luke 4:17-21). We are commanded to "exhort one another daily, while it is called To day" (Heb. 3:13). In all of this exhorting and teaching, orally or in writing, we must "speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet. 4:11a). And this speaking and writing must never be taken as a substitute for the written word, but done to encourage and exhort people to take the word and live by it. Our Lord certainly requires this of us. How ridiculous to put such on a par with something our Lord left out intentionally and did not recommend that it be used in any sense! The use of instruments of music in worship is contrary to, not in harmony with, the doctrine we have learned, and Romans 16:17-18 tells us plainly what to do.

The Way to Preach
Millennial Harbinger, August, 1861

(1) All preaching should be practical. The proper end of all doctrine is practice. Anything brought forward as doctrine, which cannot be made use of as practical, is not preaching the gospel. There is none of that sort of preaching in the Bible. That is all practical. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Some people are opposed to doctrinal preaching. If they have been used to hearing doctrines preached in a cold, abstract way, no wonder they are opposed to it. They ought to be opposed to such preaching. But what can a man preach, who preaches no doctrine? If he preaches no doctrine, he preaches no gospel. And if he does not preach it in a practical way, he does not preach the gospel. The very design of doctrine is to regulate practice. Any preaching that has not this tendency, is not the gospel. A loose, exhortatory style of preaching, may affect the passions, and may produce excitement, but will not sufficiently instruct the people to secure sound conversions. On the other hand, preaching doctrine in an abstract manner, may fill the head with notions, but will never sanctify the heart or life.

(2) Preaching should be direct. The gospel should be preached to men and not about them. The minister must address his hearers. He must preach to them about themselves, and not leave the impression that he is preaching to them about others. He will never do them any good, farther than he succeeds in convincing each individual that he means him. Many preachers seem very much afraid of making the impression that they mean anybody in particular. They are preaching against certain sins, not that have anything to do with the sinner. It is the sin, and not the sinner, that they are rebuking; and they would by no means speak as if they supposed any of their hearers were guilty of these abominable practices. Now this is anything but preaching the gospel. Thus did not the prophets, nor Christ, nor the apostles. Nor do those ministers do this, who are successful in winning souls to Christ.

(3) Another very important thing to be regarded in preaching, is that the minister should hunt after sinners and Christians, wherever they may have entrenched themselves in inaction. It is not the design of calling in a physician to have him give opiates, and so cover up the disease and let it run on till it works death; but to search out the disease wherever it may be hidden, and to remove it. So if a professor of religion has backslidden, and is full of doubts and fears, it is not the minister's duty to quiet him in his sins, and comfort him, but hunt him out of his errors and backslidings, and show him just where he stands, and what it is that makes him full of doubts and fears.

Jesus and Fellowship
Malcolm L. Hill

Jesus ate with sinners at times (Matt. 9:11). Jesus fed thousands and ate with them (Mark 6:37-43). Jesus preached in the synagogue (Matt. 4:23). Jesus permitted Judas to work with Him during His personal ministry knowing he was a devil (John 6:64, 70). Jesus worked with the 12 who never did understand the nature of the kingdom of God (Acts 1:6). All these things were fellowship in a sense.

But the word fellowship has been used loosely in our brotherhood today. When we eat with someone this does not mean that we are in agreement with that person when it comes to serving God. When we give to the poor this does not mean that we go along with them when it comes to Bible teaching and doctrine. When we preach on a lectureship and there are false teachers on the program this does not mean we are in fellowship with them. Jesus preached in the synagogue but this does not mean He was in fellowship with the scribes and Pharisees. We must understand the word fellowship and what constitutes the wrong kind of fellowship. Let us notice the different kinds of fellowship.

(1) There is business fellowship. This takes place when two or more people are in business together—they are partners. (2) We have fellowship when we have others to come and eat with us in our homes. (3) We have fellowship when we have others to come and play games like Rook with us. (4) We have fellowship when we sing together. (5) We have fellowship when we go places with others.

The word fellowship can be used in a number of different ways. It certainly can be used when it comes to religion. Many brethren in our age have misunderstood Christian fellowship and this has brought on division that should not have been and such still exists in our brotherhood. Christian people need to know when they cross the line of biblical fellowship. When do Christians transgress God's law on Christian fellowship? It is done in two ways: (1) When Christians commit themselves to false doctrine in word, they sin. (2) When Christians involve themselves in sinful deeds they cross the line of Christian fellowship. So one must commit himself in word or deed when it comes to Christian fellowship.

We have non-believers to come to our worship services. They sing and pray with us but we are not sinning when we let them sing with us. Non-believers often give to the church contribution and they in so doing are fellowshipping with us but such is not unscriptural. Christian fellowship involves a number of things. Let us notice some of these things. (1) It involves Christian growth. When people become Christians, they enter the church as newborn babes (I Pet. 2:1-2). They are to grow in Christ (II Pet. 3:18). Should we fellowship newborn babes in Christ even though they may believe much error? (2) Christian fellowship involves the grace of God. Does God strike down Christians every time they err in their beliefs? There were some in the early church who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (I Cor. 15:1-58). (3) Christian fellowship involves the seriousness of the error involved. There is a great difference in a member of the church living in adultery and a church member that does not take the Lord's Supper as seriously as he should. (4) Christian fellowship involves time. We must give members of the church time to grow up and set things in order. They sometimes need a space of time to repent (Rev. 2:21). Some brethren are so quick to cut the erring brother off. Circumstances control the time space of withdrawing fellowship. There is no place for one to be mean to and curt with a brother who has gone astray. We do not treat our children in the flesh in a disorderly fashion when we discipline them (Eph. 6:4). We must remember the Lord's Word when we deal with one who has so conducted his/her life in such a way that disfellowshipping them is demanded of God (II Thess. 3:15). We are convinced that the spirit of some brethren has been wrong toward a withdrawn-from brother or sister. By all means we through loving care should do all within our power to get the disorderly church members back into faithful service of Jesus Christ. (5) Christian fellowship involves the attitude of the erring brother. If the brother displays his willingness to study the issue that brought about the withdrawal of fellowship, then we need to be longsuffering when it comes to settling the matter and of course such should be settled by the Sacred Scriptures. If a withdrawn brother shows resentment toward and an unwillingness to reason about the matter, then certain steps must be taken. We have come to the conclusion that one is always right when he stands for Bible doctrine in word and in deed. There must be a commitment in word or deed when it comes to the Christian fellowship issue. The issue of Christian fellowship is sometimes very difficult to understand. The brotherhood now faces this issue. It is one of the big issues before us today.

The Editor and "Foreign-Mission Work"
B. C. Goodpasture

A brother, whose name need not be mentioned in this connection, takes umbrage at some things which were said editorially in a recent issue of the Gospel Advocate. He says:

I disagree very strenuously with the closing thoughts in the article, "Through the Spotting Scope," found on page 652 of the July 8, 1948 issue of the Gospel Advocate. . . The words to which I object follow, and I have taken the liberty to explain why I disagree.

The article says: "So far as we know, the soul of a Jew in Judea was as precious in the sight of God as that of a Jew or a Gentile in the 'uttermost part of the earth.' If the cost, financially speaking, of saving a soul in the 'uttermost part of the earth' would save five souls in Judea, what would be the proper thing to do—use the money where it would save the greatest number of persons or not?"

Of course the facts you give are so (you leave out other facts just as true, which bear on the case, such as the missionary zeal of the early church), but the application which you intend to make by the question is to me an attempt on your part to urge the congregations doing work for Christ in foreign fields to think on the things you mention, to the end that they will put more emphasis on teaching in local fields. By using such arguments as you give at this time, you imply that we ought not to take care of doing too much mission work abroad, for the money spent there could be put to better advantage at home. In other words, my charge is this: (1) You think that money spent in the service of the Lord in local fields is worth more than money spent in the service of the Lord in foreign fields. (2) You are, therefore, discouraging mission work in foreign fields at the present time.

In the outset we wish to say that we are not opposed to so-called "foreign-missionary work." Our original statement in the article in question ran as follows:

When Jesus gave his program for world evangelization, we think he knew what he was doing. He said; "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15). Later he indicated the order of procedure, saying: "Ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

It was, and is, our conviction that we should take into consideration both quotations in our plans to preach the gospel. Can we now forget the principle set forth in Acts 1:8 and think only of Mark 16:15? Can we not think of Acts 1:8 without disregarding Mark 16:15? Since the gospel was to be preached to the whole creation, and since the apostles could not be in every part of the earth at the same time, it was necessary that only a small part of the whole creation hear the gospel first. The Lord said to begin in Jerusalem.

The Jews in general and the people in Jerusalem in particular had enjoyed special privileges. The Jews had been God's peculiar people for centuries. Theirs were the law, the prophets, the Psalms, the covenants, and the promises. When John the Baptist came as the harbinger of the Lord, he came to the Jews; when Jesus went out during his public ministry, it was to his own people, the Jews. Under the limited commission, the twelve were commanded: "Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5-6). Likewise the seventy labored among the Jews (Luke 10:1; Matt. 15:24). Jerusalem had been the place of acceptable worship for generations. The temple was there. There the annual feasts were kept. There Jesus had taught the multitudes. Yet he commanded that the gospel should be first preached in Jerusalem. It seems that he did not think that everybody should have an opportunity to obey God once before anybody had the opportunity to obey him twice. It is not unlikely that hundreds died in heathenism without ever hearing of God while the apostles were preaching in Palestine among Jews who had known of God all their lives. Was Jesus opposed to "foreign missions" because he said to begin in Jerusalem, where seemingly the preaching would accomplish the most good?

Of course, it would be readily admitted that the case of Jerusalem, in this connection, is peculiar. There are many reasons why it was fitting to begin there. The prophets had foretold that the word of the Lord would go forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:3; Mic. 4:2). Jerusalem was on the highway of international commerce. It was the crossroads of the nations. To the Holy City devout Jews from every nation under heaven came to attend the annual feasts. The citizens of Jerusalem were the greatest sinners on earth, because they had sinned against the greatest opportunities ever extended to men. Jesus was tried, condemned, and crucified in Jerusalem; it was proper that his claims first be vindicated in that city. The people of Jerusalem believed in God and the Old Testament; other things being equal, they would be the most promising field for the gospel. It would seem, therefore, that the gospel was first preached where it would be most effective. The results justified the place of beginning. About three thousand obeyed the gospel the first day (Acts 2:41). Soon "the number of the men came to be about five thousand" (Acts 4:4). And, later, "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women" (Acts 5:14). Then "the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem exceedingly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7). The apostles began where they were and preached the gospel to the ends of the earth. Jesus compared the kingdom of heaven to "leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measure of meal, till it was all leavened" (Matt. 13:33). Thus Jesus compared the spread of his kingdom, the seed of which is the word of God, to leaven which spreads gradually in all directions until the whole mass is leavened. This is an illustration of God's plan of spreading the seed of the kingdom throughout the world. Leaven doesn't skip and jump, but proceeds gradually and uniformly and quietly.

We pose again the question: "If the cost, financially speaking, of saving a soul in the 'uttermost part of the earth' would save five souls in Judea, what would be the proper thing to do—use the money where it would save the greatest number of persons or not?" Other things being equal, we know of no better way of judging of the good being done than by the number of souls being saved. Is the soul of a Negro in Africa more valuable in the sight of God than that of a Negro in America? Do the angels rejoice any longer or louder over a sinner that repents in Africa than over one that repents in America? Did Christ shed his blood any more for the Negro in Africa than for the one in America? Understand, we are not trying to discourage preaching the gospel to other nations. We are trying to emphasize the New Testament order of procedure and the use of sound judgment in the use of the Lord's resources. If the amount of money necessary to convert one Negro in Africa would convert, by being properly used in preaching the gospel, 25 Negroes in America, would it be wise and in keeping with the spirit of New Testament teaching to use it where it would accomplish the least? The brother seems to think so.

The time has not come when we can take the emphasis from preaching in this country. Only about one person in each 150 in this country is a Christian, a member of the church of the Lord. Perhaps more than half of the people in this country have no interest in religion of any kind. There are literally millions of people in New York City who never heard the gospel. There are vast sections of country in the West in which there are practically no churches. The Southeast is a "mission field." Not only are these things true, but this country has many citizens from many lands. One of the best ways to send the gospel to other lands is to convert the foreigners and citizens of foreign descent within our midst and send them back home to preach the gospel to their own people. This is practical. It is effective. It may lack glamor, but it has the virtue of effectiveness. At a time when Communism and Catholicism are putting forth every effort to get control of our country we should be putting forth every effort to preach the gospel at home as well as elsewhere.

It is our conviction that the use of the Lord's money is a sacred trust. It should be used in the way that will serve his cause best, in the way that will accomplish the most good. "Oh," someone says, "if we spend a hundred thousand dollars and convert one soul, it is worth it!" Yes, it is worth infinitely more than that. But if the money could be so used as to convert one thousand souls, would that not be better? We need less promotion and more preaching. It is not necessary to "launch a big drive" or "carry on a great campaign" with an impressive retinue of "personal workers" to preach the gospel effectively.

The Future of Israel
Kerry Duke

In a series of articles entitled "The Welfare of the World Bound Up in the Destiny of Israel," the writer argues that the Bible prophesies these things:

1. Jerusalem will be rebuilt and will become the grand metropolis of the world.
2. Jesus will reign on earth over this city and will be assisted by His risen saints and accompanied by ancient men of God.
3. The law of Moses will go forth in a higher sense than it ever has.
4. The Holy Land will be fully possessed by the people of Israel, and its ground will produce crops more abundantly than at any time since Eden.
5. Ravenous animals will be gentle.
6. "The time is coming, and probably right at hand, when every Jew on earth shall be brought within the pale of salvation."

The writer claimed that the troubles and signs of the times indicated that events were near:

"The developments of the age teem with utterances, all eloquently inviting to action—admonishing us that the time is short, and plainly indicating that the day of Israel's redemption is at hand."

Can you guess who wrote these articles? It was not Pat Robertson, John Hagee, or Hal Lindsey. His name was J. T. Barclay, and he began this series on the eve of the Civil War in December, 1860, and continued the articles through July of the following year in the Millennial Harbinger.