THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOMB, Editors.

VOL. III.
NASHVILLE, OCTOBER, 1857.
NO. 10.

PROFESSOR ROBERT RICHARDSON’S THEOLOGY AS SET FORTH IN THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER FOR SEPTEMBER, 1857.

With increased interest we again invite our readers to a careful examination of the New Theology of Prof. Robert Richardson and others.

FAITH VERSUS PHILOSOPHY.

“Beware lest any man spoil you, through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” – Paul to the Colossians.

“It was intimated in my last article, that from the delicacy of some of the questions handled, and their detached and isolated presentations in short and disconnected essays, I felt myself exceedingly liable to misconstruction. I have been conscious that not only particular positions taken, but the general scope and design of the whole series of articles might be misconceived and misinterpreted, but I ventured to proceed under the assurance of my own good intentions and the hope that the gradual evolution of the subject would at last place all these matters in a proper light.

It may be that, in this confidence, I have too long neglected to introduce some explanations and qualifications of my remarks, which I now desire to offer.

Let me not be understood, then, as questioning in the least the correctness of the principles and teachings of any of the leading brethren in the Reformation, when I have ventured to express the fear that many may have adopted their conclusive arguments showing that facts are the true basis of faith, as a theory or philosophy of faith itself. I would, on the contrary, re-affirm my entire conviction that this point has been so clearly elaborated, especially by Bro. Campbell, as to leave no just ground of dispute, and that if any have converted the arguments…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Argument into a theory, this error is not to be attributed to those who have employed the argument. It is due rather to that tendency, so common in religious society everywhere, to substitute theories and philosophies of things for things themselves. As to the actual extent to which the particular error in question may have prevailed, I do not undertake positively to say; for though, in view of the strong natural tendency in men to mix philosophy with religion, and the various indications of the existence of this error which have fallen under my observation, my fears might lead me to think that many, as taken by themselves, had fallen short of the true idea of faith, it may be no less true that, compared with the mass of the disciples, the number is but few. Of this, at least, I will endeavor to entertain the hope, for certainly nothing would be more subversive of the great principles and purposes of this reformation, or more unfavorable to spiritual progress, than the mixing up of human philosophy with so elementary a matter as faith.

We, as a religious community, are distinguished from all others, in that we have adopted facts instead of doctrinal theories as the basis of the Christian faith, and, on this account also, it has seemed to me important that imperfect views in relation to this matter should not be allowed to exist in the minds of anyone.

“I have no idea, indeed, that there exists amongst us as a religious body, any great diversity of sentiment. It has been said, indeed, by one whose judgment is entitled to the highest respect, that we have among us ‘all sorts of preachers preaching all sorts of doctrines,’ and this may be correct in the same sense as what I have above alleged as to the existence of imperfect views of faith. But it is certainly far more applicable to the other religious denominations than to us. The practice of text preaching and of spiritualizing the Scriptures which prevails among them, gives rise to the greatest discrepancies in their expositions of the Word of God, so that one will scarcely hear the same doctrine deduced from the same text by any two preachers in any one party. We, however, having adopted the true and established rules of Scripture interpretation, almost invariably reach the same conclusions, so that brethren the most widely separated from each other, find themselves of one heart and of one mind in regard to all the great matters of the gospel. This is not only agreeable in itself, but a sure indication of the correctness of our principles, and that the Bible alone furnishes the proper basis for the union of Christians. How important it is then that we should carefully adhere to this standard and allow no human philosophy to mingle itself insidiously with the pure teachings of the Sacred Word.

“The liberty we enjoy as disciples of Christ of sitting at the feet of our Master to hear his word, and to grow in knowledge of divine things, is one which we cannot too highly appreciate. Sectarians who are shut up within the narrow precincts of human creeds, can neither realize nor comprehend it. But knowing, as I do, the earnest desire of the brethren to make progress in the divine life, and the sincere delight with which they gain new insight into the sacred mysteries of the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

307

gospel, and that they will bring everything to the test of Holy Scriptures, I trust that my present effort to break the cold fetters of that sensuistic philosophy which has cramped the energies and arrested the advance of this religious movement to some extent, will be accepted in the same kind spirit and cordial love of truth in which I am sure it is made upon my part.
R. R.

“While upon the subject of misconstruction and consequent misrepresentations of my views, I wish to say a few words in relation to the sense in which I have used the word philosophy, and the point of view in which I contrast it with faith in the title to these essays. This, indeed, is to most readers, sufficiently indicated by the text which I have selected as a motto, but in order to prevent misapprehension on the part of any one, I would remind the reader that I have throughout, carefully specified the sort of philosophy to which I object in religion, as being human philosophy. He will also remember that I have by no means objected to human philosophy or wisdom, considered in itself, but that, on the contrary, I have defended it from the rude assaults of all ignorance so adventurous as to denounce it wholly and unreservedly as calculated only to ‘make infidels.’ I have taught that, in its own place, it is worthy of attention and respect, and that it is very far from being a mark of intelligence or wisdom to charge literary institutions or individuals with having infidel proclivities because they use the philosophies mental and moral of the times. The reader will perceive how forcibly this view of human philosophy is sustained in an article in the present number of the Harbinger from the pen of Bro. Campbell, and how absurd, in view of what is there said, are all such assertions as that ‘The revelations of God and the philosophies of the world agree in no particular,’ and that ‘no one who respects the Bible can believe in any system of philosophy in existence’—thus making faith and all philosophy necessarily antagonistic to one another. Truth is always harmonious. No truth in the universe can possibly be incompatible with any other truth, and whatever men may have discovered that is true in reference to mind or morals, or material nature, will be found to be in perfect harmony with what may hereafter be discovered, and certainly can never conflict in the slightest degree with any truths in Divine revelation.

The reader will remember that I have distinctly asserted that religion itself has its own philosophy, and that my objection has been to the substitution of human philosophy for that divine philosophy, which pervades the gospel. I remarked in the May number that, ‘since the philosophy of anything is its reason, there is a philosophy in religion, else there would be no reason in it. But, it is a divine and not a human philosophy. It is God’s philosophy. It is the gospel that is God’s power and wisdom. Hence it would be correct to say that Christianity contains the most glorious and sublime philosophy in the universe, since it is the divine plan or system of salvation, perfectly adapted to man through an infallible knowledge of his nature, character, and condition. It is because it is thus absolutely perfect in its own philosophy that any addition of human philosophy spoils it.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Christ must be our ‘wisdom,’ as he is our righteousness, our sanctification, and our redemption. I take pleasure in again referring the reader to Brother Campbell’s essay on ‘Christianity the true philosophy,’ in the present number, as a cogent and forcible presentation of the same view, and as exhibiting the contumely offered to the ‘Great Teacher,’ in forsaking his lessons of wisdom for mere human theories and speculations.

“It will be then, I presume, apparent to the most ordinary apprehension in what sense I use the word philosophy, and in what respect I contrast faith with philosophy. That there is a contrast and an antagonism between the faith of the gospel and human philosophy as its substitute, cannot be truthfully denied. The former is God’s wisdom; the latter is man’s wisdom; and being thus things of the same class, they are with entire propriety contrasted with each other. ‘My ways,’ saith God to man, ‘are not as your ways, neither are my thoughts as your thoughts.’

But the opposition or antagonism between faith and human philosophy is clearly implied in the text which I have prefixed to these essays. The apostle in addressing those who were to be guided by faith, warns them to take heed lest any one should ‘spoil them through philosophy,’ which he further defines as ‘after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.’ This human philosophy, then, was, in his view, antagonistic to the Christian faith, since he warns the disciples AGAINST it, and exhorts them to ‘walk in Christ Jesus the Lord as they had received him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith as they had been taught.’

While I have thus, the language of an inspired apostle clearly affirming the mutual antagonism of faith and human philosophy in religion, I care not to seek for any other justification or defense of the appropriateness of the title, “Faith versus Philosophy.” The faith of Christ is adverse to human philosophy in religious matters. The Holy Spirit has declared its entire incompatibility with a pure faith, and has given us the most earnest and emphatic warnings against it; and it will be our wisdom to give proper heed to these admonitions.

Of course there never can be any just antagonism between the Christian faith and that divine philosophy of which it is itself the exponent, and I trust that no reader will so far misconceive me as to imagine that I have anywhere asserted the existence of such an antagonism. As our beloved Bro. Campbell has well remarked, one might as well assert an antagonism between faith and reason. For faith is the very perfection of reason or true philosophy, and we cannot then too reverently receive the things of faith which are revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures, since they are the infallible dictates of infinite wisdom, and the appropriate and necessary means devised by divine love for our salvation.

“Upon this subject I have many things to say which seem to me important in the present position of affairs. But as this particular point has already occupied so much space in the present number, I defer any further discussion to a future opportunity.”

R. R.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

FIFTH REPLY TO PROF. ROBERT RICHARDSON

PHILOSOPHY AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION—FINAL STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION

Courteous Reader,
Although we have not been hasty in our examination of the New Theology, we have endeavored to discuss the matters under consideration in great moderation, and we have not doubted for a moment the truth of our position, or that we would not be fully sustained by our most discriminating and pious brethren. We have cause to rejoice—the best men of the world are with us, and the boldest advocates of the “higher-law theology” are now attempting to escape from the rotten castle in which they have been sheltering. An honorable retreat gives the highest evidence of competent generalship, but a confined appearance under a suspicious flag, or no flag at all, is most inglorious.

In the present number, it is our purpose to advance several steps in our examination of the New Theology. We think it possible to show with the clearness of a sunbeam that there is nothing profound in it, no “deity,” suited only to a “rare class,” but that it is shallow throughout, and its advocates are incompetent to defend it.

The first error of the school consists in the adoption of the old heathen dogma, resuscitated in modern times, which makes the soul of man an emanation from the Deity, and teaches that man, aided by the Bible, is fully able to originate all spirituality. The doctrine is first found plainly set forth in the Vedas of India. Brahman is represented as the One, the Soul of the Universe, and all human souls are but modes of his existence, and their transmigration shall continue, till they finally return to unity, “Atma.”
The next instance is Plato’s doctrine of ideas being real existences, one with the Supreme which is identical. The soul, with Plato, is a self-acting energy at one with the Divine—it is God within. Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, taught that consciousness is the only ground of absolute certainty. Hence his principle of knowing was within and depended not for its action upon any external influence. Leibniz, his disciple, taught that the soul was capable of immediate, spontaneous thought, and competent to make all spiritual discoveries without aid. This is the basis of all modern philosophy. Some call it “The divinity within,” others “reason,” others the “inner consciousness,” others “intuition”—some speak of the divine governing principle within, under the head of “conscience” or a “suggestive power.”
The higher-law of our nature; and some as a directing and con…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

310

Moral Sense and Philosophy

Others call it our “moral sense.” Cousin, a favorite with Prof. Richardson, speaks of “the universal and perpetual revelation of reason.” He maintains that “The ideas of the useful, the just, the beautiful, the divine, the true, are facts attested by the human consciousness, and are the controlling elements of human nature.” He further contends that “There are no other elements, and that these exhaust the capacity of human nature.” This is the key to modern philosophy, and the reader need not be told that if we possess natural elements to afford us all the knowledge we need with regard to God, and things divine, we should seek no such aids as are afforded in the Bible.

The Noetic Principle

The infidel Newman calls this “the noetic principle,” “an unwritten monitor,” speaks of following the “instincts of the soul,” and “the soul is the specific sense by which we come into contact with God;” exhorts to follow “your glorious tendencies,” and declares “A book relation on the subject of spiritual matters is impossible.” Theodore Parker maintains that there is a “religious element in us,” amounting to a “higher law,” that is our only safe guide.

Philosophical Ideas

The philosophical idea is that there is a power within—call it by whatever name we please—capable of originating spiritual ideas, and of perceiving spiritual truth without aid. This spontaneous operation of the soul is called philosophizing, and the various theories drawn from it are denominated “systems of philosophy.” As we stated in our first essay, light from within is called the a priori knowledge. Spirit, mind, reason, or the soul, it is said, is a cause quite adequate for all absolute truth.

Each system professes to give the principle—original cause of all things. Thales regarded water as the grand cause in creation. Anaximenes chose air as the agent in creation. Heraclitus said fire was the maker and preserver, but it remained for Anaxagoras to set forth the theory, (though the idea no doubt was borrowed,) that there is a “world-forming intelligence.” These systems assume that the “divine spark within”—the pure reason, is quite sufficient for teaching also all duty, and hence the highest authority in the universe is feeling or intuition.

The Christian Position

It will be proper in this place to give the Christian position. Those who believe in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, maintain that God made man liable to err; “The first man was not spiritual, but earthly. He was distinguished by mind-capacity to improve—and draw correct conclusions from data submitted to him. Yet man is not

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

regarded as God, or in any part divine, or capable, in the words of the prophet, to “direct his steps,” and, therefore, it has pleased our Kind Father, to become our adviser and teacher. All of his instructions to us regarding his existence, our creation, our present relations to Heaven and earth, and eternal destiny, have been revealed by the Spirit, and are embodied in the Bible, and beyond the lessons of wisdom therein contained, the world has no spiritual light.

We think proper in the next place to call particular attention to the teaching of Prof. Richardson and some of his coadjutors on these momentous questions. They plainly and unequivocally maintain the natural ability of man to discover truth without the intervention of God’s revelations, by the spontaneous powers within.

Dr. Richardson speaks of “the spiritual in man”—although Paul said, “That was not first which is spiritual”—affirms that “It is the spirit itself (spirit of man) that can perceive or contemplate the truth presented,” and caps the climax by asserting, that “all attempts to reduce spiritual truths to the forms of the understanding are futile, and degrade to that Divine word which addresses itself to our higher spiritual nature.” He employs the phrase “In our consciousness,” as indicative of an infallible spiritual power common to all men. We need not say to our readers that this is the doctrine of metaphysicians and infidel philosophers.
Our friend, Mr. I. N. Carman, editor of the Christian Sentinel—which Pres. Campbell suggests “is connected with good ability”—says, “That man has an intuitional nature as well as an intellectual one, and within this intuitional nature must be sought the spiritual.” He calls it “the Divine spark,” “spiritual nature,” pronounces Mr. I. N. S. Russell, “The founded, spiritual and beloved,” and published what he calls “The excellent article of Prof. Richardson—’Faith versus Philosophy,'” against us, but has neglected to give our reply. Mr. Carman and co-editors we believe were pupils of Prof. Richardson.
But by far the most talented, consistent, and so far as we are able to judge, best man of the new school, is W. S. Russell, whose teaching we long since felt constrained to pronounce unblushing infidelity. It is true, our venerable Bro. Campbell congratulates the brethren of Illinois for their good fortune in securing Mr. Russell’s services to the presidency of a college. No doubt Mr. Campbell is as sincere as we are, but we are sorry that we differ so widely in reference to men and their teachings.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

We will let Mr. Russell define his own position touching the philosophical dogma of man’s natural ability to discover spiritual truth.

In the June number of the Christian Sentinel he openly avows his philosophical creed. He sets out by saying he must “select the class of minds” he will address, and he can “expect sympathy from only a few classes of men.”

“Those who are accustomed to obey the highest behests of reason and are not adverse to the labor of thinking.”

With Prof. Richardson he considers the questions not suited to the “common mind” or the masses of thinkers amongst Christians. He says, “There is a vulgar prejudice against the second metaphysics, yet it is but a circumlocution for spiritual.”

“Let us,” he says, “gather up our conclusions.” “We have seen that in the soul there is a mean and reason, not reflective but spontaneous in its character, giving all men primary inspirations which compose the elements of thought, and this is determined by the fact that these principles are universal and necessary—exhibiting themselves wherever there is a sane mind, and which it is impossible to conceive as ceasing to exist—which cannot therefore, have their cause in the finite spirit of man, and must be referred to a Higher Intelligence, to the infinite mind of God.”

“Once admitting,” he adds, “and fully realizing this important conclusion, which a rigid analysis of the phenomena of consciousness cannot fail to establish, the possibility of God’s making more revelations through man than those constituting the elements of his spiritual activity, or of his imparting greater energy to those elements already existing in their germs, is fully established. Also the avenue through which all divine revelations given in the form of inspiration must come, is made known, that is, in the instinctive reason or conscience, taken in its wider significance.” He calls “the higher laws of our being, the laws of God.” The energizing of the pure reason, therefore, is the method of inspiration.

“All nations possess the primitive intuitions”—”Conscience is the representative of the will of God.” In opposing light through the senses, he asserts “It denies intuition or immediate suggestion as a means of obtaining knowledge. The theory of spiritual influences founded upon it (knowledge from without) maintains that all the influence of the Spirit is exerted by the truths conveyed through the words of scripture; that these words were spoken by the Spirit, (all philosophy denies that these words were spoken by the Spirit,) and therefore its influence is restricted to the ideas which thus reach the mind.”

This he calls “spiritual philosophy.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

But we need no more. Mr. Russell possesses the rare gift of speaking plainly, and he seems to believe what he says. There is no mincing of matters; no saying a thing and then saying its opposite. Now we ask the candid, if we can be mistaken as to the nature of philosophy? Prof. R., Mr. Carman, and Mr. Russell, agree with the German, French, and American infidels in asserting that “there is a divinity within,” who is our only teacher, “and that shapes our end.”

With such data we feel fully authorized to draw conclusions.

The doctrine that man is born with uninspiring divinity which is an infallible guide, call it “conscience,” “intuition,” “reason,” “Divine spark,” that makes us one with God naturally, precludes the possibility of sin, or future condemnation, and in fact all its advocates, if they would speak candidly, maintain that death but frees the human family from the habiliments of clay, to enjoy unconditionally, eternal bliss.
The system precludes the necessity of a Savior—none is needed—man being divine naturally, never sinned, cannot be lost, and salvation has no meaning. No one of its advocates regards Jesus Christ as a Savior.
The doctrine destroys the whole idea of the church as a saving institution. Hence the teachers speak of something natural within the heart, which they call “the kingdom of heaven.”

No marvel that with such views even Prof. Milligan should say, “In our present independent, weak and distracted condition, we can, as a church, do but little for the salvation of the world.”

Prof. M. says, “Brother Farming has very unfairly and erroneously represented my views concerning the church.”

We cannot see wherein we represented unfairly Prof. M. His words need no interpreter. If Prof. M. will publish our last reply to him, we will be in a condition to examine our differences as Christian brothers.

We appreciate his use of the phrase “gross perversion,” applied to some of our statements; and we certainly should feel under obligations to him and Prof. Richardson for their well-intended interest in our “secular business.”

Men who have done no more for the world in a temporal or spiritual point of view, it occurs to us, should be modest in assuming the guardianship of others.

Prof. M., like some of his timid associates, in stepping forth into the realms of speculative religion, has defended two systems as opposite as the poles. When under the influence of, perhaps, his grandmother, he was for the church alone, but in his liberal, learned and philosophical teaching, the church…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

could do but little,” and the world must look to “the institutions of necessity” for the benevolent labor “for which the church,” he says, “as it is now organized furnishes no corresponding medium. We forbear.

Prof. Richardson, in his second essay on Misinterpretations of Scripture, as found in the Harbinger for November, 1836, devotes over six pages to Greek and other criticisms to prove Christ did not intend to communicate the idea, that the passage, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” indicates the perpetual existence of a visible church, but merely the resurrection of its individual members. True, Prof. R. did not say there has been no church in the different ages, but his style is well calculated to discountenance the faith of a permanent church. We doubt not our Lord intended to make the impression, that on the confession that he was the Christ, he would build a church—a spiritual temple—that should not be broken down, and even “the gates of the unseen world should not prevent its triumph,” and he would finally deliver up the kingdom, as a kingdom, to his Father.

We will notice some of his singular declarations. He says, “The promise has been commonly understood to be the perpetuity of the church, on earth as a distinct, visible, organized community, and that the Savior referred to something more than a mere temporary existence of a body of believers at all times upon the earth.” Again he says, “Suppose that this promise referred to the mere temporal existence of the church.” “It refers to a far more glorious deliverance than from the mere external, formal and temporal overthrow of an outward organization.”

This is the style of the entire school of speculators from Cousin, Sleighermacher and Strauss, to Parker, Newman and Andrew Jackson Davis. The renunciation of the church as a city on a hill to give light to the lost; is a legitimate result of Dr. R.’s natural spiritualism. Hence his style.

The advocates of intuitive spiritualism, are forced from their premises to oppose the inspiration of the scriptures, and to deny the authority of the Bible in religion. Theodore Parker says, “Naturalism is the philosophy that lies at the foundation of theology, though little understood by men in or out of the pulpit, while they deny the immanence of God in matter and man, and, therefore, take away the possibility of NATURAL INSPIRATION.” Thus, Mr. Parker, most consistently with the idea, that the divinity within guides us, maintains natural and universal inspiration.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

315

Frequently he affirms, that a “Man is not sent outside of himself to ancient documents (the Bible) for a rule of faith and practice— inspiration is coextensive with the soul. There can be but one mode of inspiration,” he adds, “it is the action of the highest within the soul. Is Newton less inspired than Simon Peter?” The system admits of degrees of inspiration. Hence Mr. Parker says, “There must be degrees of inspiration, from the lowest sinner to the highest saint.”

It is not necessary to add authority. All the school agree. But, we are asked if it is possible this is the teaching of Prof. Richardson, Mr. Russell, and many others amongst us? We will see.

Prof. Richardson informs the world that “The scriptures do not reveal spiritual truth to him who relies upon his understanding alone.” He says, “We must take account of man’s higher forms of being to realize the truths of Divine revelation.”

“To reduce spiritual truths to the forms of the understanding must be futile—it is the spirit itself (the spirit of man, T. F.) alone that can perceive the truth.” (See U. Harbinger for 1856, pp. 301 and 5.)

Dr. Richardson is almost as clear on the subject as Parker, Newman or Strauss. He says, “The veil of the outward appearance (the written word) must be lifted from the view of divine revelation.” Open transcendentalists say, “in proportion as we rise above words, forms, written documents,” to something they call “the real, absolute truth, independent of subject or forms, so we perceive what is spiritual.”

This is precisely what Prof. Richardson has been trying to say for years. It is what he imagined he saw, and what others were too ignorant to see, but he has lacked two essential qualities of mind to say what he wanted. In the first place, the very peculiar construction of his thought-form, as Kant would call it, does not permit him to make a very lucid statement of any question; and, secondly, he has not been sure that the brethren would go with him.

Mr. Russell, however, hesitates not to say that the teaching of A. Campbell and others is shallow, and we must keep pace with the progress of the age. We will hear him upon inspiration.

As already quoted, he says, in the June number of “The Christian Sentinel” for 1837, “In the soul there is a higher reason, not reflective but spontaneous, giving all men primary inspiration.” His language is even stronger than Theodore Parker’s. He adds, these “Inspirations compose the elements of thought—these principles are universal and necessary, and cannot have their cause in the frail spirit of man, and must be referred to a higher intelligence—to the infinite mind.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

of God.” This is as nearly Plato’s doctrine of Ideas—ideas constituting and being the essence of Divinity—as it is possible to conceive. This inspiration which is universal, as Parker says, “from the lowest sinner to the highest saint,” is “intuitive,” says Mr. R., through the “reason or conscience.” He modestly admits, with all the school, the exceeding imperfection of revelation, owing to the imperfect agents. Hence he says, “The relations cannot come to us except they be marked by the characteristics of the prophet’s own mind, and be given to us in the imperfect fullness of the understanding.”

Again, “While all nations give evidence of possessing the ideas of God as primitive intuitions, in what various degrees of purity and strength do they express them through the materials of the understanding.” Mr. Russell maintains boldly, that the various books in the Bible partake of the personal imperfections of the writers, and, therefore, they can constitute no infallible standard of faith and practice. We repeat, that he is consistent so far as we have noticed. He has not denied his position. He has not adopted the philosophical system, and pretended all the while that it is precisely what Brother Campbell and the brethren universally have taught, as J. B. Ferguson, Dr. Richardson and others have done.

But why pursue this point further? All understand and must admit that inspiration which is universal in saint and sinner, is not Christian, and worse still, a volume not bodily inspired, possesses nothing divine in it. The idea of following the mere inspirations of our nature, is a yielding to animal impulses—to fleshly desires, brute instincts, and a plain denial of the authority of the Scriptures. As we stated in our first essay upon “Metaphysical Discussions,” our spiritual knowledge must be a priori—from the external world—nature; a priori—from within, intuitive—or in direct revelations—communications in words from God. Prof. Richardson says, “Man can learn the being and perfections of God from the works of nature;” secondly, he maintains that we perceive spiritual truth direct—not through the understanding and the written word—but a priori, by “the spirit,” or the “spiritual in man.”

But what signifies all this, if Prof. R. and friends, after asserting these things should now talk of our light by the word of God in the Scriptures? They certainly understand the meanings of the positions they have so zealously advocated. They have not renounced them, and should they now all retire from the contest under false colors, we can but fear their stealthy return. If real Campbell were not on the stage, we know not what they would, or would not attempt.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

317

The system completely neutralizes and blots from existence the meaning of public institutions or ordinances of religion.

Prof. Richardson’s style, in regard to what he is pleased to denominate “a mere visible, external church,” shows the direction of his mind. Hence the course of Mr. Russell in engaging with the denominations “in praying for the mourners in revivals.” Wonder if it is true that the party preachers gave him $25—Judas received 30 pieces—for his spiritual efforts to bring the disciples to the truth. If they did not, we will apologize for the insinuation. The fact is, ordinances have no meaning with the school. The highest authority is faith—the voice of conscience is the voice of God. We regard it not necessary to notice the system or its tendencies further than to call attention to something in the September Harbinger.

1st. Prof. R thinks “from the delicacy of some of the questions handled, and their detached and isolated presentation, he is exceedingly liable to misrepresentation.” We hope to relieve our quondam friend, by assuring him that it is not difficult to understand him. No one can be mistaken in regard to many cardinal points.

He “desires to refer to examinations and qualifications.” None are necessary. The “whole system is unblushingly infidel. It is moral death to touch any part of it. He is better understood without explanations than with them. The only hope for Prof. R is to renounce his individual faith, and do works worthy of a great reformation.
He says his object has been “to break the cold phalanx of sensualistic philosophy.” His object has been to satisfy the brethren that faith is not through the facts of the gospel, but from our inner consciousness, and from influences above the written oracles. His new doctrine he cannot force upon the brethren—it has led him to the precipice, and he is inclined to hold on a little longer to Bro. Campbell’s skirts. Will he let him? That is the question.

In the August number he left us under a deceptive banner, but he returned masked in the September number feebly crying, “I have by no means objected to human philosophy, (no one supposes I have,) or wisdom considered in itself, but that on the contrary, I have defended it from the brutal assaults of an ignorance so adventurous as to denounce it wholly and unreservedly as calculated to make infidels. I have taught that in its own place it is worthy of attention and respect, and it is very far from being a mark of intelligence or wisdom to charge literary institutions or individuals with having infidel proclivities because they ‘use the philosophies, mental and moral, of the times.'”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Prof. R. has said so much of “uncalled assaults,” “ignorance,” etc., etc., that we have no heart to reply. His is the deep wail of a martyr; but it is not a martyrdom for the truth of the Bible, but, from his own showing, it is death for defending human philosophy, against the ignorance and recklessness of believing on the Savior through the words of the Apostles. Dr. R has saved himself from the delicate office of becoming his executioner, by a most suicidal course. His vacillating, contradictory, and bitter manner, consigned him to a different position from what he has long occupied amongst the disciples. To think of his future usefulness is extremely preposterous.

“So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai.”

He consoles himself by asserting that Bro. Campbell sustains his “view of Philosophy.” This statement to our mind lacks a very essential ingredient, viz., proof. To be sure, Bro. Campbell has spoken of Prof. R.’s essays being “timorous, learned and highly interesting.” We regret to differ across the whole heavens with our venerable brother, and confess that we do not understand these remarkable suggestions. Perhaps it is not our province to ask for more light. It is Pres. Campbell’s right to defend whom he pleases, but in the day that he shall adopt any part of Dr. Richardson’s philosophical system, he will renounce the whole teaching of his well-spent life. As we intimated doubt when Prof. R. stated that Bro. Campbell was teaching “Natural Theology in Bethany College,” we cannot and will not believe that he will defend his views till he does it.

Prof. R attempts to shift the whole ground of controversy, by asserting that his objection has been to the substitution of human philosophy for that divine philosophy which pervades the Bible, and this he says Pres. C. is defending. We remark, with much respect, that no one has the right to use the word philosophy in a sense not discovered in the Bible, or any reputable author of ancient or modern times. This new application of the word to something in the Bible portends nothing good. In the only passage it is found in the Bible (Col. ii, 8) the apostle exhorts the brethren to “Beware lest any man spoil them through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

There is no acceptable sense in which philosophy can be connected with religion. It is of the world, of men, and religion rests upon no intuition or even “natural inquisitiveness,” to look into the cause of things, in our humble judgment, but upon direct revelation from God. Philosophers in all ages

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

319

have professed to learn the being and perfections of God, what is law, what is right, and all religious obligations from nature without the aid of revelation. The apostle, however, says, “The world by wisdom knew not God.” Prof R. and associates think differently.

Still Prof. R. asserts, by way of explaining himself, that his “objection has been to human philosophy for that divine philosophy which pervades the gospel.”

Does Prof R. speak at random? Does he really believe the brethren are destitute of ordinary perception? The idea of connecting philosophy with the gospel is gratuitous. This was not in his mind when he wrote his “essays.” He was advocating the philosophy of Cousin—the “higher-law” doctrine of Parker and infidels generally, and now to take shelter under a pretended philosophy of the Bible, must make a singular impression upon the candid. We feel no ambition to reply further to Dr. Richardson and comrades on infidel speculations.

Thus have we given some of our reasons for believing that the whole system drawn from the heathen dogma, of “a divinity within,” “spark divine,” “spiritual nature,” “higher reason,” “intuition,” “inner-consciousness,” nature without or within, being a teacher superior to Christ, is infidel in its inception, infidel in its details, infidel in the lives of its advocates; subversive of the faith of the Gospel, subversive of the church of Christ, of the ordinances of religion; subversive of every influence calculated to purify the heart and elevate the character, and disgraceful to any people professing to be governed by the mind of Christ.

Towards the several writers and editors who have published their various infidel expressions without giving our replies, we feel that it would exhibit the deepest hypocrisy to profess Christianity regard. We cannot be induced to respect the doctrine as Christian, or the men teaching it, or in any way aiding and abetting in its propagation, friends to Jesus Christ and his religion. It is a pleasure to treat them with respect, as men, and we will not degrade ourselves by abusing, misrepresenting or disparaging them, but we shall be forced to regard them as apostates and infidels, till they renounce, without reserve or equivocation, their deistical and atheistical tendencies, and at least endeavor to repair the serious injury they have done to the cause of Christ. We will wait for developments.

There is but one platform upon which we dare associate with men religiously—the oracles of Heaven, as recorded in the Bible. As the papers generally have been so free to publish and favor the influence teaching of Prof. R and pupils we ask, with great respect,

320

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

if the brethren have not a right to expect that replies will be admitted? So far as we have been able to learn, it is the first instance in the history of the “reformation of the nineteenth century” in which there has been the least hesitation to give answers to controversial and personal publications. We refer particularly to the course of the Millennial Harbinger, Christian Sentinel, and Christian Age—while under Mr. Bosworth’s administration. We respectfully ask the editors of these journals to give our replies, and especially our fifth, in their columns.
T. FANNING.

EDITORIAL

Bro. M. M., of Moulton, Ala., urges us to visit his section. Gladly would we do so, were it in our power. There are no people to whom we feel more endeared. In the congregation of that place two of our best men have fallen to rise not till the resurrection of the just, but the Lord will raise up others to occupy their places. We pray constantly for the beloved disciples and friends at Moulton. We hope to see them again—perhaps in December. We trust, also that we may be able to comply with the wish of our friends further South.

The brother in Missouri who writes so favorable a notice of Franklin College has our thanks; but we think it best not to publish it.

FRANKLIN COLLEGE

The Fourteenth Annual Session of Franklin College opened September 14th with a small but, we think, very promising class. Many things have conspired for years past to diminish the patronage. The institution is in the country, too far from the exciting influences of which so many youths are ruinously fond to suit the taste of the light-minded and unsteady; the officers have done little or nothing to attract patronage, the various religious influences are brought effectually to bear, and worst of all, in our judgment, young men are becoming less and less inclined to study, and parents seem to us to be growing more and more indifferent as to the education of their sons.

With our new organization, however, and a plan of interesting the members of our Faculty in the business of the establishment, the college never opened a session with more healthful prospects. The Faculty, Trustees, and friends who know the condition of affairs, never felt greater confidence. The institution is, in our judgment, in the midst of the best country on earth; the buildings and preparations are every…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

321

way suited to the objects contemplated, and a more competent faculty, we think, cannot be found. We feel it our right and duty thus to speak, and we are conscious that our language is not too strong. Indeed, we have felt cramped for years from the fact, that the business was mainly ours, but we have relieved ourselves from much of the pecuniary interest, and therefore, we speak with confidence. Prof. Car-T\lack, who is at the head of the Preparatory School, offers greater inducements to parents to educate their younger sons with him than anyone in our acquaintance. Prof. Lipscomb, our Vice-President, Prof. A. J. Fanning, and Mr. T. T. Baudouin, are fully alive to the improvement of the students and advancement of the school in usefulness. Such persons as desire their sons in school, in circumstances most favorable for pursuing and cultivating moral habits, and making the best intellectual advancement, will not be disappointed in sending to Franklin College.

T. F.

REVISION OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES

The best argument, in favor of a “Revision” of the Holy Scriptures, is the fact, that a “Living language is always changing.” It is the best, because it commends itself to the understanding of every thinking man: it is the best, because it needs only to be stated, to be understood; and only needs to be understood, to be believed.

Had we a perfect and an immutable language, and a perfect translation of the living Oracles into that language; then, the necessity of, and excuse for revision would forever cease. But while it is so obvious that we have neither a perfect language nor a perfect translation, it does seem to me, that the necessity for a new revision must be transparently obvious to every man, that is not committed to the support of a party.

It has been said by someone, in support of the importance of a revision of the Bible, that “Words are constantly changing their meanings.” The original meaning lost, and a new meaning substituted for it. As an illustration of this, and in order to call up a new field of thought before the public, I beg leave to investigate one single word; which will show the changes of meaning a word is liable to. I refer to the word “Religion.” This term is a Latin compound. It originally meant no more than to re-bind, and was used as an “Oath to the gods,” by which the offender was supposed to have regained the favor of the god, or gods, by whom, or to whom, he swore. This was the ancient meaning of religion. Now I ask does

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

any man, in all christendom, so understand this word or so use it?
Not one! What, then, is its modern meaning? Every thing, any thing, nothing. It would take a volume to define this single word. Without an adjective to restrict its meaning, it stands for Judaism, Paganism, Mohammedanism, Romanism, Protestantism, and all the parties under the broad banners of all these primary bodies, or parties. Has not this word changed its meaning? We answer most wonderfully.

There is a question, however, which I desire to ask, of much more grave import, viz.: Is there a word in the Greek of the New Testament, that answers to the word Religion, in either its ancient or modern use? This I must be at some pains to answer; for it is the object of the present scroll; and is intended to be thought on by the present Board of Revisers of the New Testament. Every man, writing or speaking for public edification, is bound to use the words of his discourse in their common acceptation. Otherwise, he will misidentify himself, and misrepresent, and becloud his subject, beyond all hope of understanding.

Now if we are so bound to use the word religion, and that it is as broad, and as ambiguous as we have seen, in its meaning, then I must say, there is not a word in the Greek of the “Living Oracles,” that would be fairly translated by the word “religion.” This word is found only five times in the King’s Bible: (as a noun: I mean.) This word is found in the following passages, viz., Acts xxvi, 5; Gal. i. 13, 14; James i, 26, 27. All told.

Now, although this word occurs so seldom, in the common version, yet it is found oftener in this than in any other translation I have seen. In Gal. i, 13, 14, the word is Judaism; simply Judaism; and is so translated by Machnight, by Campbell, and in two series of the French, one from the Vulgate, and the other from the Greek. In fact, no one but the King’s Revisers, so far as is known to me, has ever rendered this word by any other than Judaism. I, therefore, conclude that it is a misrepresentation of the meaning of the original, to translate this word, by the phrase “Jew’s Religion!” Ismos is not a just equivalent of religion, but is the root from which all the “isms” in the world are derived. In Acts, and James, the word is “Threskeia.” This word has, by common consent, been translated religion, by all translators, to whom I have had access since I have been thinking on this subject. But why has it been so translated? Because it answers to the modern meaning of the word religion? No, verily. Is it, then, because it answers to the ancient meaning of religion? We shall see. To come to a correct understanding of the meaning of any word, it…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

is best perhaps to examine the whole family. I shall begin, then, with “Threskeia.” This is the infinitive form of the verb, and means “to worship—to serve.” This word was formed in the following manner. Orpheus, a Thracian, “Instituted,” the “Mysteries,” or ancient Greek worship. Thus, to worship like the Thracians, was to perform something they call Threskeia. In plain English they performed something called worship. I, therefore, conclude that the word worship comes nearer the meaning of the word under consideration than any word in all the English Language!

Threskeia is found four times in the New Testament; three times translated “religion,” and once “worshipping.” Acts xxvi, 5, is the first time the word is found in the new institution; Paul says, the Jews know, if they would testify, “that according to the strictest sect of our religion, (worship,) I lived a Pharisee. Sects of worshippers might be, but sects of religion, never!!! Everybody knows that the Jewish worshippers were divided into many parts; but who ever heard of the Jewish religion, (worship) being divided into sects. No sir; it was always the same, and indivisible. But this word sect is found in Col. ii, 18. Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, etc. In this case the King’s revisers themselves, committed as they were to the verbiage of Papalism, could not quite stand “The Religion of Angels;” but to show this, they converted the noun into a participle, and rendered it worshipping of Angels, rather than give the true idea of “Angel-worship,” one of the distinctive marks of the mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth, by whom the word Religion has been fastened, like an incubus on the public mind.

The next and last place in which this word is found, is James i, 26, 27. In this connection we have the adjective derived from the same root Threskeia, which is here translated Religious; its meanings are religious, devout, pious, a worshipper. (Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament.) The text reads thus: If any man among you seem to be religious, (pious, or a worshipper,) and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion (worship) is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and the widow in their afflictions, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. Now, to change religion for pious; and religion for worship, and this text is perfectly plain to every one that reads; but otherwise the preacher feels himself bound to give an exegesis of the passage. The common explanation of it is this: “Not—

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

withstanding the Bible says, Pure and undefiled religion is this, To visit the fatherless, etc., we are to understand it to be the fruits of religion.

That is to say, the Bible says this is religion; but I say this is not religion, but only its fruits. I would rather say, All such tampering with the word of God, is the fruit of such translations, and of such uses of words as have been made of the word religion. I am aware that this word is esteemed sacred; and that any one who shall dare to call its divinity in question, must be regarded as profane, and guilty of sacrilege.

I must, however, think that no word is worthy of being canonized as a sacred word that does not answer to the meaning of some Greek word found in the Bible.

Whenever a word becomes so mystified as the one under consideration has, it is sure to become the “shibboleth” of every party: it is true, too, to every party because of its Delphian antiquity. Hence we hear of religion of all sorts: head-religion, heart-religion, and heart-felt-religion; cold-religion, warm-religion, true, false, and all other sorts, until some years ago in Tennessee they really sang, “I love the show religion, Hallelujah,” etc.

Now, my dear reader, in view of these things is it not, after all, better to call a spade a spade? To call piety, piety; to call worship, worship; and so on of every fact and emotion in the Bible and the human heart.

This much have I said to call attention to this word, its uses and abuses. Much more might be said and ought to be said to correct the false impressions made on the minds of the young, through the pulpit and the press; and as far as possible to free the Bible from such ambiguities as may make its pages of doubtful interpretation.

I am glad to see, since writing the above, a notice of the same words, by Brother Campbell, in connection with the greatest inconsistency in the world, “Natural Religion.” For every true exposition of the Word of Life we ought to be thankful to the Heavenly Father.

June 24, 1837

SPIRIT AND WORD

What is Spirit?

God is spirit. So spoke the great Teacher. The Bible speaks of the Spirit of God. Angels are spirits. Men have spirits. The inspired apostles speak of the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. Spirit is something, not nothing. Spirit is not flesh and bones. But words are used…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

325

Figuratively as well as literally. Hence the disposition of God, and Christ, and man, is spirit. Hence the gospel is spirit in contrast with the law which is letter. And hence the doctrine of Christ is “spirit and life” in contrast with his literal flesh and blood. Confounding the figurative with the literal produces great confusion in the Christian world.

Hence many imagine there is a literal baptism, pouring out, shedding forth, filling on and filling, of moral divinity. Is divinity literally found like water? Are Christians literally immersed in Divinity? There are figurative illustrations of miraculous and moral influences of Divinity. The application of a little common sense in understanding the scriptures would prevent many serious errors and guide us into all truth. Surely the Divine Spirit of God can influence man without being dissolved into a fluid like oil or water. The same absurd rule of interpretation applied to Christ would convert him into literal sunlight, bread, etc.

What is a Word?

We read of the word of God, the word of angels and the word of man. The spiritual Doctors have degraded the Spirit into fluid and the word into solid matter! Hence they speak of the word as ink and paper! But the word existed in oral history before it was written. It was spoken in certain articulated sounds. Is the word of God therefore mere sound? It existed in the minds of apostles, Christ, and the Father previous to the utterance of those sounds. How? As the wise, benevolent and powerful Christ! But what is an Idea? Is it matter or spirit? Here we are lost.

We can trace the word through letters, sounds, facts, ordinances and types, to Apostles and Prophets, to the Spirit, to Christ and the Divine Father. Here we have a Divine terminus that fills the mind and heart of finite man with that faith, hope and love that gives sweet rest to his traveling spirit. It brings the human into fellowship with the divine, the finite with the infinite, and the temporal with the eternal.

The Christ Idea then, as embodied in God, the Son of God, the Angels of God, the Prophets of God, the Apostles of God, the Church of God and the Bible of God, by the Spirit of God, is the living, spiritual and saving word of God. Anything short of this pertains to the vulgar, sensualistic spiritualism of this age.

With these premises before us, who can fail to understand the divine teaching in reference to spirit and word? Abstract spirit, and abstract word, or spirit alone and word alone, are the absurd inventions of men.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

They were invented to sustain the Calvinistic theory of partial grace or some modification of it.

Spirit and word were united in the wise and benevolent provision of salvation, and word and Spirit are united in the blissful enjoyment of salvation. To separate the word from the Spirit in the provision and enjoyment of salvation, is salvation without the Christian idea! To separate the Spirit from the word, is salvation without a Savior!

Was not the Christian idea connected with the Spirit of God when he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to be the Savior of the world? Was not the Christian idea connected with the divine Spirit of Christ when he lived and died for the salvation of the world? Was not the Christian idea connected with the Spirit when he came to convince the world of sin? And was not the Christian idea connected with the spirit in the apostles when they preached the gospel to all nations for the obedience of faith? Thus we see the word was the means by which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit provided salvation for man, and the means by which the apostles presented it to all nations.

Now, in view of these facts, to write and preach of and to pray for salvation by abstract Spirit, is to impeach the wisdom, power and love of God.

Did not John and Christ, the apostles and evangelists, connect the word with the Spirit in them in the conversion of Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles? Has not the church in all ages connected the word with the Spirit in the conversion of the world? And have not the disciples in all ages continued to stand fast in the apostles’ doctrine as the means of spiritual enjoyment? Is not the word the means of faith, hope and love?

Can we believe without an idea? Hope without a promise? Love without an object and the Christian idea of that object? We love God because he first loved us. The love of God is the reason of our love. Are we influenced by this reason without an idea? Reason without an idea?

Regeneration without the word would fill the church and heaven with spiritual and immortal effects! But Paul, James, Peter and John connect the gospel, the word of truth, the living word of the celestial seed with the new birth, and to teach otherwise is to ignore the inspired apostles and trust in our own foolish imaginations.

The Order of Heaven then is:

Spirit and Word.
Word and Spirit.

The Spirit by means of the word provided and presented salvation. We by means of the word receive and enjoy the Spirit in salvation. Thus agents, means and conditions are all united in the salvation and glorification of man.

J. J. T.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

CHANGE OF HEART, LIFE AND STATE

BY A DRAFT AUTHOR

The change of heart is effected by preaching faith—the gospel, the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.
Is the above called a preparatory change made in reference to Rom. 1:15-17, 10:8-17; Acts xv, 7; 2 Tim. i, 9, 10, and other passages?
Having faith, or trust, in heart belief to righteousness before mouth confession made to salvation.
Is the above called a heart change made in reference to Rom. 10:9, 10; Eph. 1:12, 13; John iv, 16, and other passages? A persuasive change, or a change of the love of sin. Another particular change.
Repentance or godly sorrow, working repentance to salvation must be mentioned.
Is the above called a legal or contrite change made in reference to 2 Cor. 7:10; Acts ii, 37; Isaiah lvii, 15; Luke xviii, 13, and other passages? A change of feeling. Another particular change.
Repentance or reformation to life and salvation.
Is the above called an evangelical change made in reference to 2 Cor. 7:20; Acts ii, 38; xi, 18; Matt. iii, 8; Luke xiii, 3; Matt. xxi, 29; Isaiah i, 16, 17; Prov. viii, 13; xxviii, 13; and other passages? A change of the practice of sin or a change made by ceasing to do evil and learning to do well. Another particular change.
Confession, or profession of heart belief.
Is the above called a new life-begotten and procuring change made in reference to John xx, 31; Acts viii, 37; Rom. 10:9, 10 and other passages? An invisible change of the state and relation of sin. Another particular change. No heart believer is evidently or known to be begotten of the Word and Spirit, or begotten of the Spirit through the word, unless he confesses with the mouth his belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. This faith confessed is necessary for baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.
Birth of water and of the Spirit.
Is the above called a new life—new-born and enjoying change made in reference to John iii, 3-5; Rom. vi, 1; Titus iii, 5 and other passages? A visible change of the state or relation of sin. Another particular and last change.

Though I do not understand the Greek language, I agree with the Greek scholars who render Metanoeo for repentance, and Metanoia for reformation in reference to 2 Cor. vii, 10.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

To you, children of your parents, you cannot see your father unless you are born. So, “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” You cannot enter into the kingdom of Nature, where you might enjoy your life, unless you be born of your mother and of your father. So, “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

If I am right, the above is all the changes made from the beginning to the end in consequence of the obedience to faith. In conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God operates on persons through the word of Truth believed and obeyed. I claim no infallibility, and if I am mistaken in anything, I am willing to be, scripturally, corrected. The great matter is “rightly dividing the word of Truth,” giving each one his portion in due season.

Particular Selections of Scripture for Sinners

1 Cor. 15
If for enlightened sinners who ask, “What shall we do?” Let them hear or read the answer in Matt. iii, 35-41 after 37. If for unenlightened sinners who ask, “What must I do to be saved?” Let them hear the answer in Acts xvi, 31-34 after 30.
Particular Selections for Pious and Innocent Persons
Who will be saved eternally, though not saved in this world, in the New Testament sense, such as Abraham, Isaac, Israel, David, and all others like them from the beginning to the end of the world, infants and pagans.
Let us read such passages as are found in the scriptures, viz., the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, and especially Luke xxiii, 39-43; Mark x, 15-16; Rom. 15, 16; v, 14; Isaiah xxxv, 8, etc.

Particular Selections for Christians

Let them hear or read the exhortatory epistles in 1 Peter i; and 1 John v. To love each other with a pure heart fervently, since their obedience and purification is necessary; because to love God and keep his commandments is necessary to love his children.

James i, and 2 Peter show not only that their Christian or good works are necessary to show the truth of their faith; but also that it is necessary for them to attend diligently to the seven additions to their faith, for if they do these things they shall never fall.

Rom. ii reminds them that a patient continuance in well-doing to the end is necessary to realize the hope of eternal life to be enjoyed. Their works of never-dying love to God and man are necessary, both for an example and for the conversion and happiness of the world now and for ever to the glory of God, who will judge the dead and the quick according to their works.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“God is Love,” because his good word is enough to tell them what to do and not to do during their Christian pilgrimage. The Christian religion is a religion of practice, not of profession. If the world knows that scripture-keeping Christians walk by faith, seek by hope, and work by love, produced or fructified by the Holy Spirit given to them, they cannot fail to admire their character because they do not persecute, abuse, think evil, do evil, nor love in mere word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth. Christian love is not like any other love in the human heart, not purified by the Holy Spirit.

Gifts without Christian love are nothing, nor acceptable to God. The world suffers, spiritually, so much for their want of conversion to God as to demand the works of love and even sacrifices, if necessary, of Christians. Temporal sufferings would be more successfully and permanently relieved by Christians than any other people that can if the whole world were now converted. The doctrine and practice of Christian love are beautifully explained and understood in 1 Cor. xiii.

To you, teachers of Modern Revelation. You imagine that the Spirit revives (quickens?) persons dead in sins without the word spoken to them; as you have been taught by your fallible traditional fathers that the Spirit does any work without the word as you work without a plow. You seem to be too much like Spirit-Rapper Witches, Quakers, and other false prophets; for they do not preach the words of Truth sent down with the Holy Spirit from Heaven.

“It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit (and they are life).” (John vi.)

“For the word of God is quick and powerful,” etc. (Heb. iv.) The word is not dead; for it is the quickening power of the Spirit of God. Christians preach the word through which the Spirit quickens sinners. “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” (Acts v.)

We have another objection to your modern revivalistic doctrine and practice; for I was informed in Mississippi that when the sickly season came on, the members, professors, or victims of revivalism were so much alarmed about their sins as to come to camp-ground meetings to beg to be prayed for; but when the sickly season was gone they returned to the same habits of sins as before. This is the reason for our objection to your doctrine and practice, not consistent with the doctrine of Christ, which requires of Christians a patient continuance in doing well, without which they cannot obtain eternal life. Christians are not idle; for they are patient in doing God’s will, prayerful always, benevolent, peaceful and ready to be blessed in the Lord.

P. H. N.

330

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE INDIAN MISSION

DEAR BRETHREN: — The Lord willing, I hope to leave for the great missionary field of the far West the first week in October next. I expect to go with letters of authority and instruction from the church at Franklin College, of which I am a member, provided the benevolent enterprise accords with the views and wishes of the brethren. I have long desired to enter on this mission, but have been hindered hitherto by many unforeseen causes. But so far as I can now see, there will be no serious obstacle in the way, and I trust I shall be ready by the time mentioned.

Some of the benevolent churches of Missouri have already defrayed the expenses of my exploring and preparatory mission to the Indian Territory. I now wish to ask the churches in Tennessee to contribute a portion of their abundant surplus to help sustain the mission. The churches of other States are cooperating to send the gospel to Jerusalem, Jamaica, Liberia, England, and some portions of America. In view of this great missionary movement, cannot the churches of Tennessee be inspired with the missionary spirit and induced to take some part in the conversion of the world? If they are not disposed to cooperate through the agency of the American Christian Missionary Society of Cincinnati, why not cooperate as churches through the agency of some of the congregations according to primitive usage? How long shall we object to the manner of others and do nothing ourselves? It would be an easy matter to amend our missionary society so as to obviate all objections if we were disposed to occupy common ground.

How? I answer in one sentence — Let the church at Cincinnati act as the agent of all the churches in the United States in the great missionary work. But we have such a wonderful predilection in this new world for Constitutions, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, etc., that it is doubtful whether we will ever conform to apostolic simplicity in our missionary operations!

But I do not ask the churches of Tennessee to contribute to sustain me in the great missionary field of the West. I perhaps could not do so without exciting in them a suspicion that I am actuated by selfish motives in pleading the claims of the Indian mission. It would be better for me to live and die in want than to be the occasion of such a calamity. I therefore ask for no $500 or $1000 outfit, which might be perfectly lawful and proper under other circumstances, but I do ask for your authority, your instructions, and your prayers for myself, and…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Contributions to Missionaries

Your contributions to help sustain one or two other missionaries in the same field, with whom I may co-operate in the good work.

If the love of God, the mission of Christ, the mission of the Spirit, and the mission of the church, commenced by the apostles, embraced the white, red, and black children of our world, then it is our duty and our glorious privilege to send missionaries to the great central territory of the United States. Kansas Territory has its thousands of white inhabitants already, besides many Indian tribes scattered over its vast surface, and the Indian Territory proper, adjoining it on the South, is filled with thousands of whites, Indians, and Africans.

But why argue this matter? We have as many reasons and motives for sending missionaries to this extensive and promising field as to any other on the four quarters of the globe.

A Call for Prayers and Efforts

Now, my dear brethren, may I hope to have your prayers and efforts in this holy benevolent enterprise? Will not your benevolent hearts move your tongues and pens to plead the cause in which God, angels, and the wisest and best men have co-operated?

Having devoted twenty years of the prime of my life in laboring with and for the churches of Tennessee, I would be happy to spend the evening of life in the midst of long tried and faithful friends; but humanity and Christianity, as I believe, call me far away, and, by the blessing of Heaven, I hope to spend the remnant of my days in the missionary field of the West, pleading the cause of Christ to the glory of God the Father.

The Lord bless and prosper us all in every good work!

Your brother in Christ,
J. J. TROTT
Locust Hill, Tenn., August 21, 1857.

A Tent Meeting

Twelve miles distant, in quite an out-of-the-way place, (for the sake of good water and grass, an object this unusually dry season,) we commenced a Tent meeting on the 7th inst., being 13 or 14 miles southeast of Belton, and one to two miles from any house or road.

Six tents were on the ground, however, and many people found the place from distant parts—some only after bewildering rides through the prairies. The meeting closed on the 12th inst. in the greatest harmony and joy.

There were 32 additions, six of whom were Baptists, and a few were Methodists.

Evangelists Present:

Bro. S. Strickland
Father T. Armstrong
Young Bro. Brown
Bro. E. Morgan
Bro. Rainey

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

I never witnessed more brotherly love or Christian joy; never attended a more happy or successful meeting, all things being considered. There were six additions at the last discourse; and the meeting would have been continued, had it been practicable.

We are to have another in three miles of this place, at Col. Robinson’s well-known spring, on the Salado, commencing Friday before the 2nd Lord’s Day in October next, and if I were able, I would go with a large tent to many places in our beautiful prairies, the happiest place in the world for such operations, and invite the people to a series of discourses setting forth and sustaining the gospel. What a vast field of labor we have, and how inviting! I have done so little recently, owing to circumstances I could not control, and the opportunities are so great, it is really a sore trial to be restrained! Our days are passing away! They are swifter than the weaver’s shuttle! What exclamation is sufficient to express the feelings and desires of the Christian heart! It really does seem to me, that, with such a system as the Lord has been pleased to commit to us, he ought to hold us strictly accountable for the conversion of the world.

C. KENDRICK
Salado, Texas, 1851.

CIRCULAR:

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, THROUGHOUT THE GREEN RIVER COUNTRY.

Beloved Brethren, – The following resolution was unanimously passed, during the last session of the Green River Co-operation, viz:

Resolved, That a Committee of five be appointed to address a circular letter to all the Churches within Southern Kentucky, urging them to meet, by their messengers, in Hopkinsville, on WEDNESDAY BEFORE THE FIRST LORD’S DAY IN NOVEMBER NEXT, to interchange views, thoughts, etc., in regard to a more thorough system of evangelizing and building up the cause within said region of country.

And, in accordance with its intention, we now extend to you a cordial invitation to come, at the time and place specified. Time is hurrying us all to the judgment seat of Christ, to give an account of our stewardship—shall it be said of us, before assembled worlds, that we have been unfaithful to the great interests committed to our charge? Many questions, of eternal importance, demand, at the present time, the earnest attention of the wise and good amongst us. These interests must suffer if we neglect to take council together, and fail to concern…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

333

Trnte our energies for the work before us. Is it necessary, dear brethren, to put you in remembrance that the salvation of the world has been committed—a solemn charge!—into the care of the Church? Are we doing all we can to rescue the world from sin, sorrow, and death? Can we do anything effectually, unless we combine together to accomplish that which the Redeemer of men has committed to our care? The experience of years proves that we cannot.

Will you, then, dear brethren, come to this meeting, and will you, in the meantime, gravely and earnestly consider the following vital questions?

What are the best means for procuring a pious and able Christian Ministry?
What can we do to rouse the spiritual energies of our membership throughout the country?
What should we do to put upon a firm basis our foreign and domestic missions?
Does the cause of education demand any combined efforts from us?
Should the brethren throughout this country become a thoroughly organized body, in order to advance the cause of the Redeemer?—or, can they accomplish much without any co-operation?

These and kindred questions we deem to be all-important. Shall we then, brethren, in the fear and love of God, come and reason together for the good of Zion? If we can do no more, we can unite our prayers to God for help—we can strengthen each other in zeal and love—we can sing praises to the great King, and converse together about the better land and the endless life before us.

The members of the Congregation in Hopkinsville extend hearty invitation to all our brethren and sisters to come—they have room in their hearts and houses for you all. They want such a gathering together of the tribes of Zion as shall long be remembered in this great country.

E. CAMPBELL
G. P. STREETER
W. E. MODLY
C. M. DAY
G. POINDEXTER
Committee

Hopkinsville, Aug. 5, 1857.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

REPORTS OF EVANGELISTS

Bro. W. D. Jourdan, of Easton, Mo. writes under date of Aug. 14th, that there had been 34 additions during a meeting held recently at Antioch, in that vicinity.

Sister Amelia McLester of Athens, Tenn. writes, “At Bro. Love’s last meeting we had four additions—my sister and daughter being of the number.”

Bro. J. B. Morton, of Lexington, Ky., reports several additions by the labors of Bro. B. Franklin, of Cincinnati.

BROS. FANSING AND LINSCO—

Since my last to you, we have had some interesting meetings. At one embracing the 3rd Lord’s day in June on the West Fork of White River, we had 4 additions; at three meetings embracing the 6th Lord’s days in June, July and August, at Middle Fork Union, we had 11 accessions. At Forest Hill, near the Cherokee Line in this Co., an intelligent young lady, a native of the nation, obeyed the Lord the second Lord’s day in August; the day following on my way home at a private house, two others, one lady and a gentleman, became obedient to the faith.

The Friday following, our annual meeting commenced in this county, which was well attended. We enjoyed the labors of our beloved and gifted bro. Carlton, of Springfield, Mo., who was the chief speaker; the result was 12 accessions, some of whom were among the oldest and most substantial citizens of the community; much more doubtless would have been done, but for the rain which cut our meeting short.

At this meeting, the brotherhood formed a Co-operation, for the more successful proclamation of the word of life, a report of which is to be sent to the Gospel Advocate and Millennial Harbinger for publication. I hope much good may be the result at this meeting. My years service closed, but by the choice of the brethren composing the Co-operation, I am again in the field, and may the Lord bless our feeble efforts to do good.

I returned last Thursday from Carrollton, in Carroll Co., 50 miles east of this place, where in company with our esteemed bro. Robert Graham, President of Arkansas College, we held a very interesting and profitable meeting, embracing the 5th Lord’s day in August, at which there were 4 accessions, leaving a general good impression with a flattering prospect for much good to be done.

Yours in the one hope,
J. S. ROBERTSON.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

EVANGELIZING IN TEXAS

Hopkins County, Texas, July 1, 1857.

Bro. Fanning—The “Advocate” still continues to visit us, and it has exerted quite a salutary influence among the good brethren; still it seems that many have failed to discover and appreciate the great superiority of God’s plan of co-operation and evangelizing, to that of the modern and improved plans invented by men.

Notwithstanding the efforts, Christianity has made slow progress in North-Eastern Texas. There must be some cause for the partial failure. Some tell us it is because we have no regular system of evangelizing. Our brethren some three years ago, in all confidence of success, began to try to set on foot a “regular system of evangelizing,” by adopting the ad valorem system among the congregations, in order to raise funds for the support of preachers. The plan was simply this: Each congregation in the bounds of the co-operation formed a society. These societies were to choose or appoint delegates to attend at the yearly meeting of the co-operation, which was to be formed of the delegates from each congregation, or from the “auxiliary society,” as they were called. The society formed by the delegates was to be called the “North-Eastern Texas Christian Missionary Society.” The funds collected from each congregation or “auxiliary society” were to be sent up to the “Parent Society” once a year for the purpose of hiring preachers to go around and keep the churches alive another year. Many of these churches not having a treasury at home to defray the expenses incident to the congregations, were pressed to raise the means due the society by taxation. Any brother or sister found in arrears at the end of the year was excommunicated from the society, according to the constitution.

To tell of the interruption, the confusion and strife that this system has created would be needless. I do not want the brethren to think that I wish to speak disparagingly of their Christian zeal, but I do think I can tell some of the reasons why we have been so disappointed in not getting a decent support. I know I can speak advisedly in relation to Texas, and I suppose the same will hold good in other places.

The general plan is to go over as much territory as possible, and organize as many congregations as they can, leaving them undisciplined, and complain because they have never learned to work. An evangelist training congregations in this way may expect to suffer. But if they will only train them until there can be competent overseers to…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Letters of Encouragement

We feel thankful to know that our course in the discussion regarding the infidelity that has crept into the church is quite satisfactory to the brethren generally, and we deem it not inappropriate to give occasional extracts from encouraging letters.

Bro. A. W. Owen, of Atlanta, Ga., in regard to our teaching, writes:

“Your views are correct, and were our plans abandoned and the Scriptural plan adopted, our cause could but prosper, and we would soon become a very different people.”

“I regret very much Prof. R.’s course concerning Philosophy and Natural Theology.” I fear many will be engulfed in the infidelity. After pleading for the Bible so long, shall we now go to nature to learn who God is, and our duty to him? How degrading the thought to the people of God.
Bro. R. Honston, of Texas, under date of August 25th, writes:

“Prof. R. opposes the faith founded on the facts of the Bible. Paul, however, exhorts the Corinthians to keep in memory the truth in order to be saved; but why did Paul write thus, if they had attained to the righteousness of the faith, as Prof. R. thinks from something within, that is above testimony? He takes one side awhile, and then the other. If your views are wrong, like the Corinthians, I am yet in my sins.”

Bro. D. Oliphant, of Canada, who is the only Editor amongst the brethren that has intimated in any public manner, the least opposition to the “higher law” position of the school that we have for years pronounced “infidel,” writes under date of July 30th, 1857:

“I trust you will have on the armor of God while meeting the unexpected attacks.”

Bro. Dr. W. D. Jourdan, of Easton, Mo., says:

“Bro. F., your views in the controversy with Dr. R. are approbated, and his are regarded as French infidelity.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

PROFESSOR ROBERT RICHARDSON’S THEOLOGY AS SET FORTH IN THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER FOR SEPTEMBER, 1857.

FAITH VERSUS PHILOSOPHY.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

FIFTH REPLY TO PROF. ROBERT RICHARDSON

PHILOSOPHY AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION—FINAL STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Moral Sense and Philosophy

The Noetic Principle

Philosophical Ideas

The Christian Position

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

317

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

320

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

EDITORIAL

FRANKLIN COLLEGE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

REVISION OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

SPIRIT AND WORD

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

325

What is a Word?

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

CHANGE OF HEART, LIFE AND STATE

BY A DRAFT AUTHOR

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Particular Selections of Scripture for Sinners

Particular Selections for Christians

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

330

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE INDIAN MISSION

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Contributions to Missionaries

A Call for Prayers and Efforts

A Tent Meeting

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

CIRCULAR:

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, THROUGHOUT THE GREEN RIVER COUNTRY.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

333

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

REPORTS OF EVANGELISTS

BROS. FANSING AND LINSCO—

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

EVANGELIZING IN TEXAS

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Letters of Encouragement

Leave a Comment Cancel reply