"What Winebrenner Taught Editorially" A Condensed Reprint of Articles by C. H. Forney edited by Glenn E. Beatty
John Winebrenner

In the Fiftieth Volume of The Church Advocate, July 1885 to June 1886, C. H. Forney (then editor) republished some of the editorials that had been published during the 50 years existence of The Gospel Publisher and The Church Advocate. Also in this Semi-Centennial Volume he published a series of nine articles with a total of 35 different points entitled "What Winebrenner Taught Editorially."       The following is a summary of the introduction and the articles on "What Winebrenner Taught Editorially" by C. H. Forney. In this summary I have endeavored to retain the original meaning of each point made by Forney. The footnotes are not a part of the original. I have added them to clarify some of the statements and to refer different points with the same general content to one another.       In this we shall come in contact with some of the teachings of Winebrenner which are not so generally known in our Church today. We must not forget that the sole purpose is to simply present what Winebrenner taught in his editorials, without implying that all these views are now current, or that anyone who does not hold them is in any way subject to censure.--G.E.B.

C. H. Forney

      NATURAL AS IT is for us to refer to, and quote, the sentiments of Elder Winebrenner, it is well known that we do not attach that weight and authority to his teachings which are so common under similar circumstances. We have, indeed, not yet come to a distinct recognition of what might be regarded as Winebrennerian teaching; and that mainly for the reason that the word of God with the Church has always been exalted to the first place. To it, therefore, and not to the views and sentiments of any one man however eminent, has the Church always been habituated to refer. . . .

      Nevertheless, the teachings of Winebrenner possess a historical value and interest such as can attach to the writings of no other man in the body. . . .

      For a man in Elder Winebrenner's position to occupy the leading editorial chair in the body was quite natural. And it is as natural for us to suppose that he would use that position to teach, advocate, maintain and defend the doctrines of the Church. . . . But those who peruse the files of The Gospel Publisher and The Church Advocate while Elder Winebrenner was editor will be disappointed in their expectations. Though a zealous preacher, and one who abounded in labors for Christ; and though he was the author of several works explaining, advocating and defending his views, yet as editor, the first period (June, 1835 to April, 1843) that he occupied the editorial chair, he did comparatively little writing. . . . Yet he did teach editorially to some extent.

      I. It has already appeared that so far as the advisability of publishing a Church paper or papers is concerned Elder Winebrenner had distinct and definite views. . . . Then the newspaper was in its infancy, and there were still very many who did not approve of using such an agency for the promotion of religious and spiritual interests. . . . He believed [10] and taught that "no one means has been more instrumental of real good to the people than the habitual reading" of religious papers. Hence from the first he was earnest, energetic, self-denying and quite enthusiastic in pushing the enterprise of a Church paper.

      II. He held clear and definite views as to the character of a Church or religious paper. . . . He would make these papers Church organs, and so put them under the control and supervision of the body. He would make them diversified in their contents, so as not to be too exclusively theological, or even too purely religious. He thus had a view to the "domestic benefit" of his readers, as well as their spiritual edification. . . . He hence could not see that it was incongruous to have matters of a worldly, political and business character in the same periodical which was to be a herald of the gospel.

      III. Elder Winebrenner held to the universal rule in newspaper offices that the columns of a paper are subject to the unquestioned control of its editor. He announced at times that he had the "right of admitting or excluding at his own option any article." And he also held that he was under no obligation to give a reason for excluding an article sent him for publication. . . . There is this modification, that an editor may be subject to the authority of the owner or proprietor of the paper, be that an individual or an ecclesiastical body.

      IV. Elder Winebrenner held clear and positive views on Christian Union. The Church in earlier years was far more pervaded with union sentiments that it is now. . . .¹ But as a general thing the doctrine of union as taught by Winebrenner and his co-laborers did not, involve a compromise or surrender of important doctrinal positions. . . . He stated editorially that "the doctrine of Christian union and the unity of the Church of Christ is clearly and explicitly taught in the New Testament." This position! he always maintained, thus early hinting at the true ground of union among Christians as found in the essential unity of the body of Christ. Hence he condemned the "destruction principles of disunion and division, or sectarianism, acted on by a large majority of professors of religion." . . . He felt that his efforts to build the Church of God were fully in harmony with these views, and that he and his brethren were doing their part toward bringing about the end he devoutly hoped for. . . .²

      V. Elder Winebrenner taught what he called the "conversion of the world." This doctrine he expressed in very general, but mainly in scriptural, terms. . . . But he never taught the universality of the conversion of the world as some interpret that expression. It was to him universal only as it included all nations, and not all individuals.

      VI. Another doctrine which Elder Winebrenner taught editorially to a limited extent was that of the millennium. He believed in the fact of a millennium. . . . While Elder Winebrenner has generally been classed among pre-millennialists; he has not left on record, so far as we know, any definite expression of sentiment on this point. Much of what he wrote with reference to the last times does not seem to harmonize with pre-millennial views. He taught the doctrine of the conversion of the world in the sense of the general Christianizing of all nations. This event he characterized as "certain, speedy and universal." Following this Christ will vacate his "mediatorial throne," and "then the world's destiny will be fixed and sealed forever." There are no clear indications that he distinguished carefully between the [11] different theories of the millennium. He was far more absorbed in the great work of saving souls, and far less devoted to questions of systematic theology than men in such high places usually are.

      VII. Elder Winebrenner insisted that there must be a conscious experience of conversion; that is, that a man must know that he is a true believer before he is a proper subject for baptism. Yet he did not believe that it is necessary for a man always to know, and to be able to give "the time and place of his conversion." . . . He also taught in this connection, as at other times, that the Spirit bears direct and immediate witness or testimony to the fact of a man's conversion. This, he claimed, was the "privilege of all;" but he did not think many enjoyed it. The great body of believers, he taught, enjoy only what he calls "the reactive testimony" of their conversion. The "reactive testimony" he defines to be this: "The believer must have the fruits of the Spirit and thereby know himself to be a good tree."³

      VIII. Elder Winebrenner was not an expert financier; but he understood enough to see clearly the necessity of a well-arranged system of church finance, and so taught the churches editorially on this point. This is the more surprising when we recall the fact that fifty and more years ago⁴ special emphasis was laid on the fact that the gospel is free. Salaried ministers were called hirelings; and it was a matter of conscience (?) with many not to pay anything for the promotion of the gospel. Elder Winebrenner did not sympathize much with such views. He urged editorially that "preachers of the gospel are entitled to a reasonable and competent support." And he insisted that in this, as in all other matters, "if things are to prosper there must be system and due attention." . . .⁵

      IX. It will seem strange that Elder Winebrenner should have opposed "promiscuous praying." That is, the kind of praying which was so common years ago during revivals, one person leading in prayer and nearly the whole church praying aloud at the same time. He spoke strongly against this practice. . . . He goes on to urge objections against it on the following grounds: "I. Because we believe it to be unscriptural. II. Because it is unreasonable. III. Because it is injurious or hurtful." . . .

      We have now reached the period of Elder Winebrenner's second term as editor. . . . The Gospel Publisher, owing to financial embarrassments, was suspended in August, 1845. During the fall and winter arrangements were made to resume its publication in May. The principal change made in the paper was in the name, which was thereafter to be The Church Advocate. . . .

      From this time on Elder Winebrenner wrote a great deal more for the columns of his paper than he had done before. He also made a more formal defense of various doctrines peculiar to the Church, and advocated and inculcated them occasionally with much force of logic and scriptural proof, the latter being always his chief reliance. . . .

      X. One of the first lengthy editorials after Elder Winebrenner's return to the editorship was a plea for toleration. There are two things which make this fact somewhat remarkable. The first is, that Elder Winebrenner was himself at different times the victim of intolerance. . . . The second fact which makes his plea for toleration remarkable is that to a considerable extent this spirit was lacking in the churches and among the ministers. . . .

      He pleaded for civil toleration, a blessing which the American people have enjoyed during their whole history. But just as strongly does Elder Winebrenner plead for "ecclesiastical toleration." His definition is as follows: "Ecclesiastical toleration is a liberty given by the Church to all her members to differ on opinions and usages not inconsistent with a profession of religion." This last phrase--"inconsistent with a profession of religion"--makes this a very broad platform. He characterized both kinds of intolerance as "radically and essentially wrong." . . .

      On matters of faith, however, Elder Winebrenner would not be so tolerant. But he gives a definition of "matters of faith" which justifies the position he takes on this point. He says, "Matters of faith are solemn facts and doctrines set forth or declared to us in the Scriptures; whereas mere matters of opinion relate to human things and human interpretations of the things of God." With regard to the former he inculcates "Christian firmness;" with regard to the latter "Christian toleration." . . . The fact that Elder Winebrenner makes the extent of the atonement a matter of opinion shows the breadth of the platform upon which he stood.

      XI. Elder Winebrenner was pronounced in his advocacy of the divine name for the church, and in his opposition to all sectarian and human names. . . . Any other name for the church, either local or general, than that of the Church of God, he regarded as a pseudonymous title, a nickname. He spoke strongly on this point, asserting without qualification that "using human names in preference to divine names is an odious and sinful abomination in the sight of God." He taught that the church was [12] God's property; his heritage. That "God verily has the best right to name his church." That God "has exercised this right, and has called her the church of God." Hence he inquired, "What right and authority has any man, or any set of men, to change this inspired and scriptural title to some other, newfangled, human name? We utterly deny that there is any such right given to man. Hence, every misnomer applied to the people of God, individually (locally) or collectively, is a sin against God and against his people."

      XII. Elder Winebrenner as occasion offered taught editorially the ordinances of immersion, the washing of the saint's feet, and the Lord's Supper. On the first and second of these ordinances he was not decided when his connection with the Reformed Church was severed. Even up to the time when the first church of God was organized Elder Winebrenner was not convinced that immersion alone was taught in God's word, and that the washing of feet in a religious capacity was required. Not until after he had labored five or six years independently of ecclesiastical connections, and after hundreds had been converted through his labors, did it become clear to him that immersion and feet washing are ordinances. But when he came to the knowledge of this fact by a more careful and thorough study of the word he was uncompromising in his advocacy of these divine institutions. He, however, preached on these ordinances more frequently than he wrote. . . . And he always defended these institutions not as ordinances of the Church, but as rites divinely enjoined, as institutions of the New Testament. Church authority had little weight with him. It was characteristic with him to appeal "to the law and the testimony," and he would accept nothing which failed to receive divine endorsement.

      XIII. Elder Winebrenner taught editorially that evil speakers and traducers of the brethren are unworthy of church fellowship. . . . He says, "Such persons are the worst kinds of miscreants. . . . Hence, if churches will connive at such vain talkers, tattlers and false accusers, and retain them in the church, this hurtful leaven of malice and wickedness may leaven or corrupt the whole body."

      XIV. In his "Church View," published in 1829, Elder Winebrenner had taught that "when any church member thinks himself called of God to take upon himself the sacred office of the ministry," the proper way is for "the individual church of which he is a member to proceed to ordain him an elder of the church of God." . . .

      Winebrenner in his editorials freely acknowledged his change of position, and insisted that the Eldership in its modern sense should ordain; and so of necessity takes all such power from the local churches where he had formerly lodged it. . . .

      XV. The imposition of hands also claimed editorial attention from Elder Winebrenner. He had been himself ordained by the imposition of hands, and some things written by him before 1830 bear the interpretation that he then believed in the practice. But when he was editor of The Advocate he taught differently. . . . Elder Winebrenner opposed ordination by the laying on of hands. He claimed that there is no authority for it. He taught that "the thing itself (ordination) is plainly taught; the manner of doing it is not."

      XVI. Elder Winebrenner taught editorially that there are two classes of elders, teaching and ruling elders. . . . He gave five reasons for the position which he took "that there are both ruling and teaching elders appointed in the church of God." These are as follows: 1. "Because Christ has appointed both ruling and teaching elders." 2. "Because the Apostle Paul makes a distinction between teaching and ruling elders." 3. "Because there is a plurality of elders in the primitive churches." 4. "Because it is the most rational." 5. "Because church elders were not always divinely, but often ecclesiastically, appointed."

      XVII. Elder Winebrenner not only was no sectarian in spirit and teaching; but he was pronounced in his opposition to everything of a sectarian character. . . . He published three editorials on this subject, the gist of which was that "The Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches the unity of the church; and that it no less clearly and unequivocally prohibits schisms, or divisions in the church." And he taught thus in "vindication of the Church against sectarianism." He concludes: "If this, then, was the primitive order of things, and this order and settled polity existed because, as we have seen, God ordained it to be so, and prohibited the contrary, it follows as a matter of course, that a division of the church or a plurality of denominations, is unscriptural and antiscriptural."⁶ [13]

      XVIII. . . . Editor Winebrenner's position on secret societies. To all such societies he was thoroughly opposed. This is not the case with the Church, and never has been. That is, the Church at no time arrayed itself against these societies. Yet in earlier years the ministry as a rule stood aloof from these orders, and also the body of the membership. It is only within the past twenty-five years⁷ that a good proportion of the ministers and members of some of the Elderships have joined secret societies. . . . He would leave this question, along with certain others, to the conscience and judgment of each man. This position, held by the Church ever since, was an outgrowth of that spirit of fervent charity which never failed Elder Winebrenner.

      XIX. Elder Winebrenner taught editorially that the best and most scriptural system of Church support is that of tithes.⁸ . . . He advocated tithe paying on the ground, first, that "it is reasonable that we should give the tenth part of our income to the Lord." Second, that "it is scriptural to pay tithes." Third, that "it is advantageous and profitable." He advocated this plan as against the pew-rent system, and against the assessment plan. In the purely voluntary system, wherein each one gives simply as much as he feels to give, he had but little faith. And yet he did not favor coercion in any form. "We are opposed," he wrote July 15, 1848, "to any civil or ecclesiastical enactments of this kind, coercing the people to obey the law of tithes. Yet we are strongly in favor of the principle and practice." About this time the General Eldership passed resolutions recommending the tithe system to all the churches.

      XX. On the question of tests of church fellowship Editor Winebrenner was quite pronounced. He did not believe in any other test of fellowship but faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This test he set [13a] over against a "political test"; or the test of membership in secret societies, advocated by some; or subscription to the creed or confession of a Church. As opposed to all these human tests of fellowship, Editor Winebrenner held that "we can find no authority whatever in the word of God for adopting any other test than this, 'If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest.'" The introduction of other tests he believed to have been the occasion of splitting the church into sects, and of preventing them from coming into "the unity of the Spirit and bond of peace." Hence he said, "All who dove our Lord Jesus Christ, and who are willing to take his word as the man of their counsel, and strive to follow him in the straight and narrow way; who are willing to believe, and let believe, we shall recognize as our brethren, and extend to them the hand of fellowship, and strive to meet them in glory." . . . In 1851 he advocated this position as against, 1. Subscription to Christian faith and practice; 2. Christian character; 3. Christian baptism; 4. Christian experience and church covenanting. He believed that "salvation from sin brings men into the general church"; and hence they need no other qualifications to bring them into the local church.⁹

      XXI. On the question of divorce Editor Winebrenner, as usual, fell back on the Scriptures exclusively. He taught, editorially, that "There is but one justifiable cause for dissolving the marriage covenant, viz.: Adultery." . . . Hence in an editorial in March, 1849, he says: "The only question, therefore, to be ascertained is whether the deserting party is guilty of adultery. If so, then there can be but one opinion as to the lawfulness of the deserted party to marry again. For in all such cases the innocent and injured party cannot be bound by the law of the first marriage. Therefore, it follows that the deserted party is loosed from the law of marriage, and is at liberty to marry again."

      XXII. Among the doctrines which claimed his attention. . . . we find, first, that of the origin of the church of God. . . . He held no uncertain or doubtful position; but taught clearly and positively that "the church of God originated,
      1. Not in the days of Abraham; nor,
      2. In the days of John the Baptist; nor,
      3. Under the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost; but,
      4. During the time of the personal ministry of Jesus Christ."

      In confirmation of this fourth proposition he held, that Jesus himself claims to be the founder of the church; that the "power, force and efficiency of his preaching" resulted in gathering a large number of believers, and that these "constituted his flock, fold, bride, household, kingdom or church;" that many of Christ's sayings and doings can only be understood and interpreted upon the supposition that he found the church. Following these positive arguments, which are elaborated at some length, the objections to his views are also carefully canvassed. . . . These objections are honestly and carefully discussed, and the original position is reaffirmed.

      XXIII. The next point of doctrine which Editor Winebrenner taught and expounded was the "terms of Church membership." . . . In the issue of The Advocate for June 2, 1851, he discussed the following four theories touching the terms of church membership, or, as he says, "the door into the church," viz:

      "1. Subscription to Christian faith and practice.
      2. Christian character.
      3. Christian baptism.
      4. Christian experience and church covenanting."

The first three he rejected. The first, on the ground that it is a condition of membership which may be met by an unrenewed or unconverted man. The second, because it "implies too much." . . . Against baptism as the door into the church Editor Winebrenner protested in most decided terms. "It is wholly unscriptural," he wrote. Because "baptism is never said to be the initiatory ordinance into the church." Because "there is no example for it in the New Testament." . . .

      Hence, he advocated Christian experience and Church covenanting as constituting the door into the church. He held that by the new birth a person is brought "into the general church;" and by mutual covenanting he is made a member of a local church. Hence he says, "In conclusion, then, we would ask, is it not clearly evident from the foregoing facts and arguments, that Christian experience and covenant, more than anything else, are the true scriptural terms of church membership? Certain it is that baptism has nothing to do with the initiation, or bringing in of soul or body, into the church general or local. . . .¹⁰

      XXIV. On the question of rebaptism Editor Winebrenner was quite explicit. He did not, it is true, to our knowledge discuss the question as to whether a backslider who had been truly converted and scripturally baptized should be rebaptized when renewed again; but we are quite sure he did not approve such a practice. In other words, he under no circumstances believed it to be proper and right to repeat baptism which had been scripturally administered. But a so-called baptism, defective as to subject or action, he would repeat. . . . [14]

      . . . The baptism of unregenerated person is invalid." he wrote, "from the fact that it is nowhere authorized in the New Testament. the law book of the kingdom of God. Consequently, what is not of God is null and void. Accordingly the rebaptism of all such as do subsequently believe to salvation is perfectly right and proper. . . .

      . . . He for the same reason here given for rebaptizing, felt no hesitancy to immerse persons whom he himself in earlier years had sprinkled. Because the sprinkling was null and void as baptism; was not baptism; was no baptism at all. It is alone upon this ground that anyone is justified in immersing persons who had been sprinkled. . . .¹¹

      XXV. Editor Winebrenner was a persistent advocate of Prohibition. He took an active part in temperance work, and was conspicuous in affecting temperance organizations. And he was willing to have religion and politics so far as temperance is concerned in very close alliance. . . .

      XXVI. Editor Winebrenner also gave expression to his views on so purely a metaphysical question as the origin of the human soul. . . . Three theories concerning the soul have been held. One is the theory of pre-existence. This is most generally held by theologians to be squarely at issue with the biblical and Christian doctrine of man. A second is called Traducianism. That is. that the entire man is the product of human generation. The third is called Creationism, which Canon Liddon said "is the more generally received doctrine." Winebrenner was a believer in Creationism. . . .

      XXVII. Editor Winebrenner taught that it is scriptural, right and proper to pray publicly with and for penitent sinners. This he did as against the views which then so widely prevailed in the Reformed and other Churches. . . .

      XXVIII. Editor Winebrenner was strongly opposed to what is known as "doggerel singing." His attitude on this subject could not have been surmised from what one generally witnessed, at least in later years, in his manner or preaching at [15] revivals. . . . He defines it--"We mean, 1. The use of irregular, light, loose and rapid tunes, sung with vociferous, shrieking and boisterous voices. 2. Bungled, incoherent, irreverent and ranting ditties, songs and choruses. 3. Silly and useless bodily exercises, such as stamping with the feet, clapping the hands, swinging the body, and various other unseemly and rantipole gestures in time of singing." He proceeded to argue against this practice as "highly unbecoming," "hurtful to the cause of God," destructive of a serious and devotional spirit," and "a fruitful source of levity and irreverence." He exhorts ministers and members of the Church of God "who have erred by falling into the habit of doggerel singing," to "reform, and to learn to sing and pray with the spirit and with the understanding."

      XXIX. Editor Winebrenner, though generally very mild, was quite severe on some forms of sin in Christians. On no point, to our knowledge, did he use greater severity of speech than in writing on plagiarism. In a brief editorial March 15, 1847, he speaks of this evil as "literary theft; " calls those guilty of it "knaves," "numskulls," and "blockheads," and characterizes the practice of plagiarism "sheer fraud." . . . It is a hateful thing to an editor; a great humiliation to the guilty party, and disgustful to readers. . . .

      XXX. Editor Winebrenner taught that "the inhabitants of heaven" know what is transpiring on earth. This doctrine he deduced from the text in Matt. 5:19--"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," etc. He says the latter clause means that he "shall be called, accounted or esteemed the least and unworthiest of all men by the inhabitants of heaven." . . . Upon the above quoted text, which he was requested to explain, he says, "This passage shows that in heaven they have a knowledge of the character and doings of men on earth; and, hence, they not only "rejoice when sinners repent," but also judge of the merits and demerits of men, and especially of the teachers of religion." Whether in the phrase, "The inhabitants of heaven," he included disembodied saints, or whether he meant only the angels, does not appear from anything he says in connection with the subject. He speaks of those having this knowledge of mundane events as "dwellers in the kingdom of God," "inhabitants of heaven," and says that "the kingdom of heaven in the text means the kingdom of glory"; but does not say whether these "dwellers" or "inhabitants" are saints or angels, or both.

      XXXI. On another topic now¹² so nearly obsolete Editor Winebrenner expresses himself on different occasions. We refer to the custom once quite prevalent of having seasons of fasting and prayer. In August, 1847, he insisted on what is now never thought of, the keeping of a day of fasting and prayer as a preparation for the approaching camp meetings. He says, "We cordially recommend to the churches of God the observance of days of solemn fasting and praying in reference to the approaching camp meetings. Such days, rightfully observed, are among the best means of preparing for a successful effort upon these occasions. We hope that the brethren will not fail to appoint and observe suitable days of fasting and prayer, and try to have on the whole armour of God when they go up to the help of the Lord at these tabernacle feasts." On another occasion, just before an appointed fast day, he earnestly exhorted all to observe the day. "In all our borders," he wrote, "throughout the Church, let there be solemn, earnest fasting and praying. These are important Christian duties. No Church will increase and prosper without the use of these necessary means of grace." . . .

      XXXII. Editor Winebrenner taught the Unity of the Church in more than one editorial. Indirectly we have already referred to this under the head of Christian Unity,¹³ and also of Sectarianism.¹⁴ . . . Editor Winebrenner taught that "whoever becomes an apologist for sectarianism does unquestionably assail, indirectly at least, the unity, which is one of the essential attributes of the church of God." . . . He held firmly to the unity of the church of God as against all sectarian divisions. This he did upon four distinct grounds.

      1. "The types (of the church) were a unit. There was but one Ark, one Tabernacle, one Temple, one house of Israel, one Jerusalem and one Zion."

      2. "The titles of the church are singular. We have no church titles in the plural number. We never read of more than one church, except where different individual congregations are named."

      3. The unity of the church is taught "didactically." "As ministers we are commanded to build but one temple. The precepts of the gospel, as well as the types and titles of the church, give us the idea of her unity and oneness."

      4. "The prayer of Christ, in John XVII, when he prayed that all his people might be one." To this church God has given a name, and ordinances, and officers, etc.; and Elder Winebrenner and his fellow-laborers aimed to build this church after the heavenly pattern; and they insisted that all others should do likewise. Not a sect, but God's church is what they were building. [16]

      XXXIII. Editor Winebrenner also taught the sinfulness of a disposition and spirit of fault-finding. . . . He pronounced a fault-finding spirit "utterly wrong" for two reasons. First, "because it is unscriptural." He held it to be a violation of the commandment which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves. . . . His second ground for condemning it is, "Because it is hurtful and injurious." He contended that "whatever is lawful and right is always good and useful; but whatever is unlawful and wrong is always more or less hurtful and pernicious." And as fault-finding, "criticising captious speaking" are conspicuously hurtful they must be positively wrong. . . .

      XXXIV. On political matters Editor Winebrenner's teachings were as oil upon the water. He held that it is not only right, but a duty which every Christian owes to the government "to guard the public weal by lending his personal aid to protect pure and proper principles, and to elect suitable persons for the administration of government." He held that "Christians are the best qualified persons in any government to mould and direct public opinion." "That pure politics is pure natural good." But partyism and the corrupt and corrupting machinery of party politics he unsparingly condemned. Christians, he wrote, "Should disdain the idea of being anything like a crafty, designing, self-seeking and boisterous politician. Have no connection and doings with such." He knew the dangers and evils of "pseudo politics," and he faithfully warned his readers against them.

      XXXV. In his early days especially Elder Winebrenner was eminently successful as a revivalist. Later revivals were less numerous among the churches, and conversions fewer. But Elder Winebrenner ever maintained a deep interest in revivals, and in his editorial capacity in 1849 he discussed the question. "Why are there not more Revivals?" He assigns three reasons for the decrease in the number and power of revivals. These are as follows:

      1. "The untoward and reprobate state of the unconverted." He seems to have held that unimproved gospel privileges harden men, so that reformations are hindered by their obduracy.

      2. "The inadaptation of preaching in point of matter, manner and spirit."

      3. "The anti-revival and unprepared state of many churches." As to the preaching, he claimed that it must be "plain and pointed," "bold and earnest," "in faith and patience," "with much prayer and perseverance," "publicly and from house to house," and "in a proper and Christian spirit." His closing words deserve careful consideration. "The secret of the whole matter is, ministers and people need more religion--more serious godliness--more true piety, and then the Lord will be with us now even as he was with his people in days of yore. Let us therefore all fast and pray more, and consecrate ourselves more fully to God in righteousness and true holiness, and primitive and former revival days will soon come in again."

      With these previous words of counsel we shall close our review of what Winebrenner taught editorially. [17]

CEDAR HILL FEMALE SEMINARY

      Glenn Beatty is a senior at Winebrenner Theological Seminary. From the Latrobe Church, West Pennsylvania Conference, he presently serves as student associate pastor at St. Paul's Evangelical United Brethren Church in Findlay. The article is result of research work done by Pastor Beatty in a course in the History and Doctrine of the Churches of God at the Seminary.

[The Church Advocate, April 1967, pp. 10-13; May 1967, pp. 13-17.]

      The electronic edition of this article has transcribed from two articles first published in The Church Advocate. Thanks to Jean Leathers, Archivist of the Churches of God Museum, for lending copies of the periodical for this purpose.

      Pagination has represented by placing the page number in square brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Changes in spelling and punctuation from the printed to the electronic version are as follows:

            Printed Version [ Electronic Version
            ------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 10:     Adovcate while [ Advocate while
 p. 12:     Elder W. wrote [ Elder Winebrenner wrote
            first lengthy editorals [ first lengthy editorials
            Elder W. was himself [ Elder Winebrenner was himself
            Elder W. plead [ Elder Winebrenner plead
            Elder W. would not be [ Elder Winebrenner would not be
            definition of matters of faith [ definition of "matters of
               faith"
            "Christian firmness;" [ "Christian firmness";
            Elder W. makes [ Elder Winebrenner makes
 p. 13:     Elder W. was not [ Elder Winebrenner was not
 p. 14:     "political test"; [ "political test;"
            church;" and hence [ church"; and hence
            quilty of adultery. [ guilty of adultery.
            kingdom or church;" [ kingdom or church";
            church;" and by [ church"; and by
 p. 16:     glory;" [ glory";
            "The titles of the church [ 2. "The titles of the church
 p. 17:     a fault finding spirit [ a fault-finding spirit
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 14 March 1997.
Updated 14 July 2003.