BRO. MCGARVEY:--I am led to call the attention of your department to the case of Bro. H., who gives utterance in the pulpit, and also in private, to some strange sentiments.

      1. He preaches that the Book of Job is not genuine history--that the story is hypothetical and parabolic.

      2. He teaches that such men as Buddha, Mencius, Confucius and Seneca were inspired by God, and that the apostles of Christ differed from them only in having more than their inspiration. To prove they were inspired he quotes Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1.

      3. He also holds that instrumental music in the church is taught in Col. 3:16, in the word "psalm." He holds and teaches that the church, as divinely organized, is sufficient for all word and work in the Lord; and he is opposed to other organizations set up to do the work of the church. [115]

      You will help a multitude of the brethren by giving your opinion on each of the above items.--E. S.

      I doubt this last statement. If any man teaches or believes that the founders of heathen religions, and heathen teachers of morals, were inspired of God, and is silly enough to quote in proof of it the two passages cited, which say nothing at all about inspiration, I doubt whether anything I can say will do him, or those who believe with him, any good. And if any man who is a preacher believes that the apostle teaches the use of instrumental music in the church, by enjoining the singing of psalms, he is one of those smatterers in Greek who can believe anything that he wishes to believe. When the wish is father to the thought correct exegesis is like water on a duck's back. As to the Book of Job, there is room for doubt how much of it is historical. That there was such a man, that he was a remarkably righteous man, and that he bore suffering with remarkable patience, we know from the statements of Ezekiel and James; and I have no doubt that the contents of the first and last chapters of the book are historical; but I believe that the speeches throughout the book were composed by the inspired author, with the exception of the essential arguments at the basis of them. I suppose that the preacher referred to believes that the portions of the book which have the form of history are imaginary. If he does, he differs from two inspired writers, and this is enough to prove that he is wrong.

      Finally, that the church of God, when organized according to the Scriptures, is sufficient for all word and work of the Lord--i. e., for all "word and work" enjoined upon her--is denied by no man of sense. As to any other organization "set up to do the work of the church," if there is such a thing, and if it can do the [116] work of the church, I see no reason for opposing it. If some one else wants to do the same work that I am trying to do, by all means let him do it, for then there will be two at it instead of only one. So of the church. When some men preached the gospel through envy, to add to Paul's affliction, he was glad that the preaching was done, though he did not fancy the motive. But why oppose something which has no existence? The famous Don Quixote fought imaginary foes, but they turned out to be windmills, and he got the worst of it. There are plenty of organizations which are not doing the work of the church to keep us busy. If we oppose them, as we should, we shall have no time to throw away.

[SEBC 115-117]