THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. Fanning and W. Lipscomb, Editors
VOL. III
Nashville, August, 1857
NO. 8

PROFESSOR R. RICHARDSON’S PHILOSOPHY

With increased anxiety we invite the brethren to a serious and prayerful consideration of the matter and spirit of Prof. Robert Richardson’s essay in the July number of the Millennial Harbinger, under the head of

FAITH versus PHILOSOPHY – No. 6

“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.

The investigation in which we are engaged is one of the utmost practical importance. The questions before us have respect to the very life of religion—to the fountains of religious thought and to the motives of religious action. They relate to the chief matters of the reformation for which we plead, and must be elucidated and settled before any real progress can be made in the work which we have undertaken.

We have just endeavored to show how false is the position assigned to the Scriptures by those who are secretly imbued with the sensualistic philosophy, and how completely, under this system, words are substituted for things, and Christianity is evacuated of all its substance. It is necessary to our ultimate design that we should now direct the attention of the reader to the view which this same philosophy takes of Christian faith. This also will be found to be quite characteristic, divesting this faith of all its spirituality, and confining it to the earth, like a bird which has been deprived of its plumage is no longer able to mount towards the skies.

In speaking of the means through which philosophy may have introduced itself into the reformation, we said that common sense afforded great facility in this respect, and that it was often the case that considerations used merely as arguments would be misunderstood as a

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Philosophy as Theory, when they had any tendency to account for the facts or processes of which they were designed to furnish merely a logical proof.

We have a striking illustration of this in the theory which many seem to have adopted in regard to Christian faith. The extravagant and unscriptural notion which many among the various religious parties of the day have entertained in relation to faith, that it is a peculiar and mysterious work wrought upon the heart by the direct power of God’s Spirit, independently of the written word, has justly been regarded as calculated to render the word of God of none effect, and to render nugatory the invitations and claims of the gospel.

This notion is itself a theory of hypothesis introduced to account for the familiar fact that certain individuals only, out of the multitude who hear the gospel, are induced to believe and obey it. It is in opposition to this theory that the argument from cause to effect has been employed, showing that, in conformity with the laws of human nature, and in harmony with the express declarations of Scripture, the gospel facts are and must be the foundation of the Christian faith, and that the evidences and assurances of the Divine word are amply sufficient to produce a true and living faith, without having need of recourse to miracle, or to any kind of mystical Divine interposition for its origination.

It is effectively urged that when the result can be satisfactorily accounted for upon principles which are entirely accordant with the laws of the human mind, and with all human experience, it is quite unnecessary to substitute for the ordinary and natural avenues to the human soul, the miraculous approaches of spiritual being, presenting itself suddenly within the most secret chambers, as Jesus to the disciples when the doors were shut. And that, moreover, it is especially to be deprecated that a theory should be adopted which detracts from the power of the gospel and is irreconcilable with some of the plainest statements of the Scripture.

The argument which is thus employed, traces the chain of cause and effect as follows: It places facts first, then testimony, then faith, then feeling, then action. It endeavors to show how it is that the gospel is the power of God to salvation through the facts which it reveals, and how reasonable a thing it is that men should believe and obey the gospel upon its own proper evidences and invitations without hesitation or delay.

Thus far, and so far as argument is concerned, all is well. But our sensualistic philosopher, seizing upon the theory which this argument involves, adopts it at once as the true philosophy of conversion, and not content with this, proceeds to modify and fashion it so as to bring it completely into harmony with the dogmas of Locke. The power of facts must be exaggerated, the verbal narrative must be either endued with unwonted efficacy, or faith itself must be reduced within more convenient limits, and provided with a more material form. The Christian faith becomes now merely the belief of the historic facts presented in the gospel. To believe upon the testimony of apostles and prophets that Jesus lived and died and rose again as recorded, is to be at once in possession of the Christian faith, and it is asserted that this faith is not at all different in its nature from our confidence that…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

243

such a one as Julius Caesar lived and died as history reports. Faith itself, indeed, in this scheme, is made of little or no account. It is not in it, we are told, that the power resides—the whole efficacy is in the facts believed. These are in themselves the subject-matter—the terminus of faith—the nexus in this philosophy, the genius of which is ever to resolve, as far as possible, everything into words, propositions, arguments, and to reduce all spiritual phenomena to the forms of the ordinary understanding.

It is in propagating this theory of the nature of faith that an industry and zeal are manifested which are never exhibited in behalf of righteousness and the weighty matters of Christianity. It seems to be adopted as not only of divine authority, but as constituting the very essence of religion, so that no one is to be regarded as sound in the faith itself, unless he admits this view of its nature and makes confession accordingly. It is thus that each sect loves its own philosophical theory of religion better than religion, and labors more earnestly for its diffusion, rejecting from its communion individuals of acknowledged piety because they do not acquiesce in its opinions.

It is the natural tendency of human philosophy thus ever to magnify itself against the simplicity of the truth, and completely to supplant the gospel in the hearts and minds of men. It is on this very account that the present reformatory movement was designed to banish it entirely from the precincts of Christianity, and abandoning all speculations, to enjoin nothing upon any one as a “matter of faith or duty for which there could not be produced a ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ either in express terms or by approved scripture precedent.”

That the maintenance and inculcation of the above philosophy of faith is a plain departure from this great principle of the reformation, is obvious. For it is nowhere propounded in the Holy Scriptures, and it is not in the power of its advocates to show that Christ or the apostles have anywhere pronounced ‘facts’ as the ultimate object and terminus of the Christian faith, or that they have ever propounded such a philosophy of faith as this, that it consists in a simple conviction of the historic truth of facts. Could such Scripture authority be produced, it would end all controversy on the subject, and there would be no need of endless disquisitions upon this favorite topic.

The absence of Scripture authority for this theory, is of course, on our own principles, a sufficient reason why it should be denied a place in the presentation of the gospel. But the propriety of this will be still more manifest when we consider it more closely, as we shall find it actually at variance with express Scripture teachings, and calculated in itself to prevent those who embrace it from ever attaining to the true Christian faith. This last end it readily accomplishes by becoming a substitute for that faith itself, since men are prone to mistake the adoption of a theory of faith for faith. But even when this is not the case, when the theory is really applied in its fullest extent, it must necessarily prove a barrier in the way; since it leads the mind to adopt facts as the object of the Christian faith, and as the legitimate terminus of its contemplations. The facts, whatever their nature, will be

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Viewed in the light of this theory, as first simply, rather than in regard to their personal and practical bearing, and the mind, convinced that the mere recognition of their historic truth is a true and sufficient title, will rest in this and not go beyond it. The question to which this theory naturally tends to confine the mind is: Are the facts true?

This being decided in the affirmative, the mind rests content, resting upon the consequence to the verity of the facts for salvation, without having any inclination to make a legitimate application or the like.

To stop short thus, with the mere admission of the truth of the gospel narrative, is to remain wholly destitute of the Christian faith, to which the individual has neither desire nor the simple reason that he simply places himself entirely in possession of it.

“If any one be disposed to doubt that, there are many who thus take, under consideration the truth of the gospel for Christian faith, must have either a very inaccurate perception of the existing state of things, or be himself necessarily imbued with this same philosophy.

It is this theory which manifestsly constitutes the very essence of orthodoxy in the estimation of many scribes; and which, combined with the usual glorification of the sacred name, and spiced with the cavity condescension of ritualistic operations, forms the standard of a multitude of creeds, declarations, and orations. The attempt is made to establish this theory as the chief form of the argument, and to make its adoption a test of orthodoxy or genuineness in the faith.

For this class of persons have an ‘orthodoxy,’ as clearly defined and inexorable in its demands as the deal of any sect in Christendom. There is no such thing as a minor orthodoxy. Each party is orthodox to itself, whatever charity may pretend. The theory of each sect is its own orthodoxy, for which it contends with greater earnestness than for the ultimate and eternal salvation.

The class to which we refer, adopting the above theory of faith as their standard of correctness, have learned, like ancient Israel, to do all those who are concerned about them.

I must now state that the particular point now under consideration is one of great delicacy, and that, as there are comparatively few whose minds are accustomed to make those distinctions which are essential in such cases, one is naturally exposed, in treating them, to hasty miscommunication and misrepresentation.

The reader, however, have patience with me, and I will render to him his due. I have to regret, indeed, that the Harbinger can convey it to him only by piecemeal in monthly installments, and that these, being separated, and presenting but a single aspect of the subject, are the more liable to be misinterpreted.

But it is my design to consider the matter in uniform light, and to examine also certain speculations and dangerous philosophies of an opposite character from that before us in order that my views of the subject may be understood.

I have just said that there are certain distinctions which are essential to a clear comprehension of matters as they now under our view. I would add, that these distinctions are often extremely nice, and that

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

It is hence difficult to render them evident to the common mind. This, however, does not detract from their value. They are not on that account, essential to the knowledge and enjoyment of the truth. In all these matters, there are notable, fundamental, or essential distinctions. A variation of a single degree from the true heading alters the starting point, though scarcely appreciable in the review; it will make a tremendous difference in the end.

The different degrees of variation in the original, as seen in the light from which a subject is presented, is that which gives origin to a bird of paradise; it is wholly inappreciable at the earliest period of development, but there is no difficulty whatever in distinguishing from each other the things apparently evident. Now, it is the very germ of right, and a number of other things, that must be considered, and the things which are not. Most certainly, there are several different things for the same, and a certain result is produced which displays its gorgeousness, just as a result from the magnificent bird which displays its gorgeous plumage.

I have not the slightest desire to be hypercritical or contentious, but being convinced, from long continued and careful observation of the subject, that I may be able to contribute something to the elucidation of the actual sense of our Christian faith, I think it is important to state that I believe, and I think, that the true Christian faith transcends beyond the recorded facts to the person concerning whom the facts are related. It is Christ Himself, and not any, nor all of the facts in His history, that is the true and proper object of His faith. But the error which, I think, has been made, is that the things which are recorded in the history of Christ are made to be the whole faith, the reality of faith.

Let it be observed, then, that the true Christian faith transcends beyond the recorded facts to the person concerning whom the facts are related. It is Christ Himself, and not any, nor all of the facts in His history, that is the true and proper object of His faith. But the error which, I think, has been made, is that the things which are recorded in the history of Christ are made to be the whole faith, the reality of faith.

Faith itself is confidence in the truth of God’s word; it is trust in the love and power of a person. Whatever prevents the attainment of that personal trust is a hindrance to faith. If the person is forgotten and left out of view, the action is contemplated, and must the matter. Faith itself is confidence in the truth of God’s word; it is trust in the love and power of a person.

It is indeed, undeniable, that a belief of the life of Christ is essential to the Christian faith. The belief of the life is the very basis of this faith, but it does not constitute this entire faith. The facts are important, as they lead the heart to the test—the full to rely on Christ. They are not an end but a means of faith.

We trust, be…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Extracted Text

Thus we believe the essential mission and miracles of Christ. We believe the recorded facts that He died for our sins, was buried and rose again according to the prophecies of the ancient scriptures, as set forth in the gospel. These form the basis of our faith in Christ as our Savior.

These beliefs were recorded that we might believe them, as would have been the case if one had been present when these facts were made known. We might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing we might have life through His name. Here the personal nature and terminus of faith is clearly stated. It does not terminate on the facts recorded, but these are recorded that our faith might reach forward to something which is not recorded; to something which could not be recorded; to something which passes wholly beyond the vision of this wretched or divine philosophy under review, and the power of the Redeemer Himself, realized in the inner consciousness and affections of the soul.

Of this something that is more than the belief of facts, this something which is not, and cannot be recorded in the historical form which alone the sacred philosophy limits, we have a noble illustration in the case of the father of the child possessed of the dumb spirit. It was this touching which words could not express so well as tears, and which caused him to utter that remarkable sentiment, “Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief,” an appeal which, in the very confession of unbelief, evidences the truest faith; a personal application which is as dear and moving as the nature of that faith in Jesus. This alone is the Christian faith.

The belief of the facts recorded is now necessary to it, but the belief of facts is not it. The Christian faith has thus with a historical basis, but the belief of history is not the Christian faith.

Nowhere in the scriptures is the Christian faith spoken of as a belief in facts. Everywhere it is referred to as a belief (or faith) in Christ. “Dost thou,” said Jesus Himself to the man who had been born blind, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” He did not ask, “Dost thou believe facts?” nor does the one addressed in turn inquire, “What are the facts?” but “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?” He looks for a person in whom to trust, and to his heart, prompted to trust, a simple declaration was then sufficient: “Lord, I believe, and I worshipped him.”

Let it be observed that neither this individual, nor the many others who are expressly stated to have believed on Christ during his personal ministry, had heard the word facts, strictly speaking, at all. These facts had not yet occurred, and, though precluded, were not anticipated, nor were they comprehended, as to their true nature, until after the ascension of Christ. Yet many are said to have “believed on him,” and various individuals, as the Centurion and the Canaanite.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

24:7

Women are highly commended for their faith by our Lord himself, and although it is not to be for a moment supposed that this rested upon the facts of the gospel, there was not only no defect in their faith, but it was of the noblest, truest and purest character. All such cases, however, will be at once comprehended, when it is perceived that the Christian faith is not the belief of the gospel facts, but a simple trusting in God as the Son of God. This trust, we see from Scripture, may be based upon:

Example: as in the case of Philip (John 1:15)
Special revelation: as in that of Simeon (Luke 2:26) and the Shepherds (v. 11)
Divine wisdom: as in that of the Samaritans (John 4:39)
Miracle: as in that of the nobleman at Capernaum (John 4:53)
Sensory demonstration: as in the case of Thomas (John 20:25-28)
Presentation of the entire plan of redemption: embodied in the gospel as in the case of the multitudes who were converted during the ministry of the Apostles and of all who have been converted since the record of the love of God, as exhibited in the gospel, using not only the only real and legitimate basis of our faith.

The Christian faith, however, is not the mere reception of the historic testimony, but a subsequent result of this, as exhibited strikingly and in few words by Paul when he wrote to the Ephesians that the Jewish converts who had believed in Christ had obtained an inheritance in him, ‘in whom,’ he adds, ‘ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.’ With them, ‘faith came by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,’ but it did not consist in either hearing or receiving the word as true, but it was a testimony in Christ, based upon the gospel facts presented and not a mere loyal reliance; an assurance of the heart, and not a mere conviction of the head, or ordinary understanding which is all that is concerned in the verification of facts. It would, indeed, be absurd to speak of ‘trusting’ in facts or believing into or on facts.

We truly trust or believe in persons. We also believe persons and we believe facts, but such belief is not in the Scriptures confounded with the Christian faith. The use of the preposition ‘in’ to express the relation of belief to Christ is a matter of so frequent and indeed, continual occurrence in the New Testament, that it is surprising to me how it can be so generally overlooked. Surely in connection with belief it does not lack that well marked significance of which so much is said when it occurs in the formulas of baptism.

To make the difference still more clear we would further remark that if faith consisted in the belief of historic facts, it could admit of increase. It might in one sense be enlarged in its extent, provided we could increase the number of facts believed. But as the gospel facts do not admit of any addition, it is impossible for such a faith to be increased in this way. It is equally impossible for it ever to be increased in degree, for when the gospel facts are once received as true, this faith has attained its highest power. The facts can never be received as more than once. They must be sincerely believed in the very first profession of faith, and never afterwards can be more than sincerely believed. Hence this faith can never be increased in degree.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

But the Christian faith is a growing and increasing principle of religious life and action, and consequently a mere historical belief of facts cannot be the Christian faith.

“When, however, we understand the Christian faith to be a trusting in Christ, we may comprehend how it admits of increase. We are induced to trust in Christ from our conviction of the truth of the gospel in the first instance, and under the influence of this reliance upon Christ, we give ourselves up to his guidance and enter into fellowship with him, into the nearest and most intimate spiritual relations. The more we know of him, the more we experience of his infinite love, mercy, wisdom, and power, the more we confide in him—the more reason we have to trust in him.

As our trust in those who are worthy increases, the better we become acquainted with them, so does our faith in Christ increase the more we have fellowship with him—the more we learn of him—the more we experience of his perfections. An increase of faith thus depends, not upon external and remote testimony, upon mere declarations of ancient witnesses, but upon actual and present Christian life, which itself, springing from faith, produces faith, as the grain of corn produces the stalk which in turn produces the full corn in the ear.

The righteousness of God is thus revealed in the gospel from faith unto faith, and it is thus most truthfully and appropriately written, ‘the just shall live by faith.’ As the powers of life, feeble in the infant, increase in strength up to manhood, so does faith or trust in Christ, the very life of the Christian soul, grow in capacity and power, the more it is exercised during that spiritual progress which is at once the implication of its presence, and the means of its own development.

All faith thus increases in perfect harmony with all the Christian graces—and necessarily involves their increase, as the extension of the roots of a tree is accompanied by a corresponding development of its branches, its flowers or fruits. An increase in knowledge is indispensable to the growth of faith. He must be a poor disciple, indeed, who has ceased to learn from so competent a teacher as Christ.

In order to healthful growth, the intellect must be constantly gaining new insight into the sacred mysteries presented in the gospel, and a more accurate and clear comprehension of the Scripture teaching. The more deeply the soul becomes imbued with this divine knowledge, the more faith it has in Christ; the more it can trust him as a teacher, because it is the more impressed with the wisdom of his instructions, with ‘the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God.’

But the false philosophy of faith which we are endeavoring to expose, admitting of no increase of faith, necessarily arrests all spiritual progress. It produces, as the thoughtful and pious brethren everywhere must notice, a perfect stagnation in everything appertaining to Christianity. No progress is made in the religious life; there is no growth in knowledge or in grace. Its advocates have not a new thought, but a worn-out one from the Sacred Scriptures.

“We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth.” – 2 Thess. 1: 8.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

249

With which to gladden the soul.
If they are writers or preachers they continue to present themselves from year to year without the slightest improvement. They are ready to argue, debate, discuss, at all times, in the usual round of the stereotyped platitudes, into which their minds have been cast and will still bound in the earnest adherence of their favorite theories, but are unprepared to converse either with their own hearts or with one of the spiritually-minded brethren, for such, upon the character, the sayings, the doings, the predictions of Christ, or upon their own inward and spiritual state.

In the absence of a prayerful, humble, thoughtful, earnest spirit; a reliable and inspiring mind; a persevering and childlike faith in the divine, and the consciousness and aid of the Holy Spirit, what can be expected of religious light or of spiritual progress or enjoyment?

To return, therefore, I would remark further before leaving this part of my subject, that if the Christian faith was the direct result of testimony as theory is generally supposed, then the degree of faith would depend upon the amount of testimony. It is certainly true that where there is no testimony there is no faith, for there is no basis on which faith can be built.

But is it true that where there is testimony there is faith? Does a man necessarily imply a building? Can he ever begin to build without being able to finish? Or must there be a foundation on which they can begin to create a superstructure? The Savior’s rule for the cultivation of faith would, indeed, often be very different from that required by his philosophy. It is, indeed, the very reverse; and hence it is fair to conclude that there is the most certain faith, that the very opposite appears in the various cases in which the faith of individuals is commended.

In these it would appear that the faith was fed because the evidences were presented to others, comparatively scant; or, in other words, because with a very moderate amount of evidence, there was exhibited a reason and condition that was pleasing to God.

I would not be understood to say, however, that faith could ever be considered as compared with the evidence upon which it rests. We may have testimony without faith, as we may have a foundation without any building. Or we may have much testimony and little faith, as we may have a large and wide foundation with a very low and mean building upon it. Or, finally, we may have less testimony and greater faith, as we may have a smaller foundation with a larger noble and substantial superstructure. This is the faith commended by our Lord.

The first is the faith improved by our own mystic philosophers. They seem to think that a foundation necessarily implies a building, or that the foundation will naturally and of itself grow up into a building. This is one extreme. The opposite one is that of some of the popular religious parties who seem to think that faith is something communicated by a direct spirit and supernatural operation, without, or independent of, testimony. This is to have a supernatural without any foundation, which, when people exercise…

250

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

common sense, (as they, by the by, too seldom do in religious matters) they regard very justly as a ‘castle in the air.’ There is again, an approximate error, which consists in believing more than the testimony warrants. This is credulity, and is fitly represented by a building too large for the basis on which it rests.

“It will be, then, apparent how true and just is the plea so forcibly urged by the advocates of the present reformation, that testimony is indispensable to faith. This has been so often and so clearly presented, especially by Bro. Campbell, that we regard it as placed for the future beyond the reach of controversy. And we cannot sufficiently estimate the vast amount of benefit which has resulted to religious society in general from the establishment of this single position, which is at once a guard against fanaticism and a security for truth.

During the discussions which have occurred in relation to this matter, great emphasis has very properly been placed upon testimony and upon fact in opposition to the animal excitements and inner dreams which modern religion has introduced as substitutes; and, so far as the argument is concerned, it has not been thought necessary to trace the relation of testimony further than to the facts themselves. It is of this that our sensationalistic philosophers have taken advantage, so as to make the impression that faith is regarded as resting immediately upon testimony, while the truth is, that the facts rest upon the testimony, and that faith rests upon the facts. Facts then, stand in pretty much the same relation to faith, as testimony does to facts, and it is this link in the chain, connecting believed facts with Christ himself; that is wanting in the scheme of these philosophers.

Now the absence of that single link is sufficient to dissever the soul from Christ.

In endeavoring to elucidate this important matter, we have shown from the Divine testimony that the Christian faith is belief on Christ, a trusting in Christ, a personal reliance. We have seen, that in this view of its nature alone, faith may be increased so as to effect spiritual progress, and I would here remark further, that it is in this scriptural view of it alone, we can clearly comprehend how it is that ‘with the heart, man believeth unto righteousness.’

To ‘believe with the heart,’ however, is not to believe sincerely, as some imagine who fail to perceive that ‘heart’ is here in antithesis with ‘mouth’ in the next clause of the sentence, and that it represents the inner nature with its powers and affections.

If faith be understood as a trusting, the meaning is clear, for it is with the heart we trust. Trust is inseparable from regard. In whatever respect we trust an individual, in that respect we have regard or esteem for him. Faith then in relation to Christ is necessarily associated with the affections, and it is thus, part of its very nature that ‘it worketh by love.’

No one has a right to philosophize and make distinctions unknown to Scripture, as to any numerical order of succession in the origin of the religious convictions and emotions of the soul. These may be simultaneous, for aught we know, as our perceptions and our instincts seem to be, and there

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

251

may be an accession, but a perfect synchronism. If there be a succession, it is for the church to define and mark out the intervals by his disburdenment, but it is for the Christian to trust in Christ, and to hearken with reverence to the indications of his word. Moreover, it is his duty to keep his mind wholly free from that vain philosophy which, as we have formerly shown, seeks to resolve spirit into word, and which we now would find would still reduce the Christian religion to the mere historic bed of facts, divesting Christianity of its energizing life, its beautiful root, and its saving power.

But I cannot do it more appropriately than with the following extracts from the pen of Bro. Campbell, in the last number of the Harbinger.

The foundation of the Christian Church is not a creed— it is a philosophy; it is not merely a human effort; it is a Divine institution. Divine and Divine as human—human as Divine. It is a living faith in the Divine power, mingled and sacrificed of Jesus the Christ that capacitates a little man for a mansion in the skies. Philosophies, orthodoxy, and dogmas have no place in the workings of God, enter not into the Christian faith, hope or love, and are not to be demanded of any man preliminary to his baptism, or to his personal introduction into the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

THIRD REPLY TO PROFESSOR ROBERT RICHARDSON

_Correspondence:—Although some have intimated that we were hasty in our judgment of the new theology, Prof. Richardson fails not in any manner to approach nearer to the legitimate conclusions of his system. On reviewing his essay in the July Harbinger, we had thought we would not more than respectfully refer to his efforts; but some of our best brethren said, “No; if these things are true, we have no further use for the Bible, and we desire to have the whole teaching examined.” We therefore laid the entire essay before our readers. We present our views of this teaching, and if they are wrong we are willing to have them exposed.

Heretofore our main purpose has been to show what this strange doctrine is; but we think it now due to the cause to examine a few of its features, with reference to their practical bearings. We consider our labored argument requisite, and therefore, our notes shall be brief.

The caption of these essays, “Philosophy,” implies that Prof. Richardson is teaching faith in opposition to Philosophy. But do the facts in the case warrant such a conclusion? At the very outset, Prof. Richardson makes an effort to connect us with the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

system of induction—discursive reason—deducing conclusions from facts, as inculcated by Francis Bacon, John Locke, and all others who have been of the least service as teachers of the world. At the same time his purpose has been to introduce a dreamy and mystic philosophy, which professes to arrive at truth by the “inner consciousness” and independent of facts and arguments. All who know anything of the German, French and American higher-law view are aware that its friends repudiate and despise all law and all constituted authority. Such persons must see, that Doctor Robert Richardson and his coadjutors have not only taken the initiatory steps, but they are to all intents and purposes, teachers of this philosophy. They attack philosophy in word, while they endeavor to teach it in fact.

We fully agree with Prof. Richardson, that “the interest of religion is one of the almost practical importance. The questions are so vital, that if the teaching of Prof. Richardson and friends is true, all that has been done in the last half century to convert the world by the Living Oracles is delusive; and we must now reluctantly admit that God has not owned our labor. Worse still, we are required to abandon our senses, our “ordinary understanding,” the written word—indeed the Bible—for the fables of Neologians and direct Spiritualists. The brethren will see before the case is disposed of that a clear elucidation of the questions at issue is of momentous consequence to Christians.

We call the particular attention of the brethren and friends to Prof. Richardson’s statements regarding the difficulties in inculcating his system, owing to the exceeding obtuseness of his readers. He says:

“I am aware that the particular point now under consideration (Fail not through the word alone) is one of great delicacy, and that as there are comparatively few whose minds are accustomed to make those distinctions which are essential in such cases, ours is not wholly exposed to their hasty misconstruction and misrepresentation!”

He says again:

“These distinctions are extremely nice, and it is hence difficult to render them evident to the common mind.”

It will be observed, that Prof. Richardson is preparing the way for charging such as may oppose his new doctrine with “misconstruction and misrepresentation.” In all sincerity, we tell Prof. Richardson that we understand him perfectly—we know the whole system, and we will not designedly “misconstrue” his teaching in the least particular.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 253

We deem it due to ourselves, however, and an act of justice to the Disciples in Tennessee, who have suffered “death oft” from the influence of this crazy and haughty system, to mention, in the most respectful terms, that we have heard of one person who intimated that we did not understand Prof. Richardson. Such an insinuation we cannot suffer thus to pass unnoticed. It is an unfair course of warfare upon us, and we beg the preachers of “this reformation” if they are friends of the system to say so plainly.

We wish to know our brethren, and we say, in all kindness, that while we regard the word of God as the only authority in religion, we can fraternize with no one who countenances the new theology. It is the most dangerous form of infidelity known to man. It is covert, it is insinuating, and it is double-faced.

But the reader must see that if the “questions are of too delicate a character and the distinctions too extremely nice, to be rendered evident to the common mind,” they differ widely from the questions and distinctions of the scriptures of truth. Men of great soul and great intellect may think of important questions being too abstruse for “the common mind.”

Why does not Prof. Richardson speak plainly, and tell his readers that the “distinctions” of his new system are entirely too abstruse for plain Christian people? We have never noticed an effort made by the friends of this system, in which the first attempt was not to convince those addressed that they were exceedingly ignorant, blind, and incapable of seeing its beauties. “The common people heard the Savior gladly,” and the way of the Lord was to be so plain that a “fool should not err therein.” The beauty and transcendent glory of the Christian religion consists in its matchless simplicity; and in its entire appropriateness to the understanding and wants of such erring and fallen creatures as ourselves.

From the days of Simon, the Magician, who “bewitched the people of Samaria by giving out that he was some great one” to this hour, men have deceived their fellows and themselves by affecting wisdom above what is written. This mere pretense affords indubitable evidence of the danger of the theory.

Regarding Faith

Prof. Richardson makes some remarkable statements.

He thinks the brethren have greatly erred in making “Faith consist in the belief of the facts of the Gospel.” In reply, we regard it respectful to say, that “Jesus of Nazareth commissioned his apostles to ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel’—the facts concerning his birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension to the throne of the universe; and no ‘nice distinctions’ ought to render evident to the common mind.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

254

These facts, wherever believed, proved the power of God unto salvation.

Prof. Richardson speaks of something he regards as a “dangerous philosophy” which teaches that “the power resides in the facts believed.” Why does not Prof. Richardson tell Alexander Campbell at once, that all his teaching on this subject is false? Does he lack independence? Brother Campbell says, “No testimony, no faith; for faith is only the belief of testimony, or confidence in testimony as true.” Again he says, “The value of faith is in the importance of the facts which the testimony presents.” True faith is the belief of truth, says he. To conclude the matter, Brother Campbell says, “If faith purifies the heart, works by love, and overcomes the world, the object is in the facts referred.” If Prof. Richardson would take his position openly in opposition to the teaching of the brethren, we might respect him for his honest independence, but we are not pleased at his apparent readiness to advocate at the same time two systems—direct faith, and faith through testimony—as opposite as the poles. To our mind, contradiction is the most striking feature of his essay.
He reaches the climax of his system and new discovery regarding faith, in charging some of having “Announced facts as the ultimate object and terminus of the Christian’s faith; and in stating “That the true Christian faith reaches beyond the recorded facts, to the person concerning whom the facts are related.” “Christ,” says he, “is the proper object of faith.” Does Prof. Richardson intend to insinuate that our brethren are simpletons? He regards “his distinctions too nice” for the “common mind”! We have been in the gospel field almost thirty years, and we testify that we have never found a man or woman, black or white, so consummately ignorant as to suppose the “facts are the ultimate objects of faith,” or that Christian faith could exist short of belief with all the heart on the Savior, or confidence in the person of our Blessed Redeemer. On this subject we have always delighted to quote the words of our Lord, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word.” These living words needed no expounder in the days of the apostles.
Why, in the name of all that is good, will Prof. Richardson combat a phantom? Some of our colored brethren recently waited on us to say, that they knew of no son of Ham in all these borders who regard the mere facts of the Bible as the objects of their faith. They all trust in the Lord Jehovah, who is the Father of all, and in His Son, our Blessed Savior, who is exalted to the right hand of God. Christians

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 255

“Love God with all the heart, soul, and strength, and they regard the word of God as the lamp of life, the sure word of prophecy that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

But to prove that ‘faith consists not in the belief of (through it should be, T. T. F.) historic facts,’ he says, ‘It could admit of no increase.’

When we read those words we did really hope that Prof. Richardson might possibly be able to suggest something, at least new in form, regarding the growth of faith; but we have looked in vain. He gives us no new light. He says, ‘We trust in Christ from our conviction of the truth of the gospel.’ This is what we all have taught, and under the influence of this belief he adds, ‘the more we learn of him’—(this is fatal)—’the more we experience of his perfection.’

It is apparent that Prof. Richardson is fighting a shadow. He presumes that men can comprehend the whole length, breadth, height, and depth of the meaning of the gospel at first glance—a thing impossible—and that consequently no growth of faith can take place from their influence; yet he admits an increase of faith from ‘learning more’ of the Savior. While we are not disposed to object to some things said by Prof. Richardson on this point, we are quite as well pleased with the teaching of the apostles, to which we respectfully invite attention.

Paul speaks of the faith of the Thessalonians growing exceedingly under persecution and tribulation, and Peter says, ‘The word of the Lord endureth forever, and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.’

‘Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies and all evil speaking, as new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word that you may grow thereby.’ What is this sincere milk of the word, by which babes in Christ grow but ‘the love of the truth,’ by which we are saved?

But says the Apostle, ‘God shall send,’ some, ‘strong delusions that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth.’ Condemnation results from a failure to believe the truth. But we forbear. Christians grow…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

In grace and in the knowledge of the truth, and their faith increases in exact proportion to their devotion to the Lord’s word and the Lord’s service in the church.

But it strikes us that Professor Richardson is endeavoring to expose a heartless, soulless, unfeeling, ignorant, sensual, and materialistic people, who do not exist amongst the disciples of Christ. There is a meaning, however, in this which must be obvious.

Professor Richardson, in his sixth essay, seems to rise above the ordinary understanding to “something which is more than a belief of facts;” “something which is not and cannot be recorded in material forms”—forms of words—to something “realized subjectively,” for the “inner consciousness,” and he finally attains to a region in which he speaks of the “order and origin of the religious convictions and emotions of the soul,” as possibly being “simultaneous, as our perceptions and instincts,” and so soon as he rises with his pupils in Missouri to a state in which an “innate faculty, with his instincts, furnishes the primary data of all knowledge,” there will be no room to doubt as to his religious position.

But last, and worst of all, Professor Richardson quotes from Alexander Campbell to sustain his system, when he certainly knows that Bro. Campbell never taught, or admitted the truth of such doctrine. From the first line in the Christian Baptist to the last line in the Millennial Harbinger, there is not a full sentence from the pen of President Campbell that gives the least countenance to the infidel teaching of Cousin, Strauss, Newman, and Theodore Parker, recently adopted, we regret to say, by men we once regarded as Christians and sincere friends to the Church of Christ.

But facts alone have changed our mind, and we regret most earnestly their existence. We have spoken with all much leniency as the subject seemed to us to admit, and our fervent prayer to God is, that his servants may be “kept back from presumptuous sins.”
—T. F.

PERSONAL

In reply to many kind brethren, who have earnestly urged us to spend more of our time in the gospel field, we take this means of assuring them that we not only appreciate their motives, but we are making every effort in our power to narrow down our worldly engagements, and as soon as we can see Franklin College so organized as to relieve us from our hitherto weighty responsibilities, it will afford us heartfelt satisfaction to consecrate whatever ability we may possess, in a more direct manner, to the cause of Christianity.
—T. FANNING.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

SUPPORTING EVANGELISTS — NO. 5

MONTHLY MEETINGS

It is evident, I suppose, that the prime object, on the part of the evangelist, in his monthly engagements generally, is to gain support. Hence the connection between monthly preaching and the support of evangelists. Generally, I say, not always. Some are, no doubt, far superior to such considerations, while others, with equally good hearts and heads, make monthly engagements for stipulated salaries, when the salaries are secondary considerations. Nor would I be understood as saying that those who allow the salary to be the main cause of their engagement, are not equal in every good quality and grace to the best.

Circumstances may, perhaps, cause them to think it best for them to go where the largest sum is offered, if they can, though they must travel far, and pass by many poor churches, and neglect many urgent opportunities to do good. Still there is something about monthly evangelical engagements for money so exceedingly suspicious, that it is somewhat difficult to avoid associating the livelihood with them. “And unto the poor the gospel is preached,” will come before the mind, especially when large sums are received, and the poor and better opportunities for doing good are neglected.

The churches, too, we are liable to regard as selfish, particularly since it is generally true, that the churches best able to pay for monthly preaching are, also, best able to do without it: they have larger numbers, more wealth, and hence it is easier for them to get a congregation, and overcome prejudice and persecution; and they not unfrequently think they have more sense, more education and general intelligence, etc.

The poor sometimes conclude, that it is because they are able to hire others, that they are not more ready to lay their own hands to the “hewing of wood and drawing of water.” They think so generally with the rich, cases only here and there excepted. For themselves, poor souls, they work as the only chance, feeling that no thanks are due them, and that, upon the whole, they may be the better for their misfortunes. They think that if these rich churches were really like the first church, they would, besides doing their own preaching and tending, raise up, educate, send out and sustain evangelists to reap the world-harvest; that if they could not send out some of their own members as evangelists, they might sustain some poor evangelist, who, for want of support, is not doing much, and allow him to enter the doors, and occupy the fields opened and prepared by the Lord of the harvest that they are rather calling in those sounding out the word of the…

258

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Lord, etc. Hence an unpleasant feeling between the rich and poor churches.

There is, however, something worthy of consideration in regular appointments, whether monthly or semi-monthly, weekly or quarterly; and when all causes are guarded against, this regularity should be secured, if possible, in all church services.

Suppose a congregation to meet every Lord’s day, and observe the ordinances, the members generally attending, whether the evangelist is present or not, that when he is present, he preaches the gospel, and encourages the congregation to go on with their own worship; that if he takes part in the regular weekly worship, he does it as a servant, and not as the pastor of the church in the present popular sense of the term; that he holds himself ready to aid in more perfectly setting in order whatever may be wanting, to continue the meeting, if need be, to visit, etc., always as the servant of the church, and always putting the church forward, giving it credit, acting by its authority, and securing respect for it in his absence; then, I suppose, there could be no reasonable objection to his monthly meetings, provided there might not be more good accomplished by the same labor elsewhere; nor could there be any objection to his receiving a reasonable amount of money, or food and raiment, proportioned, somewhat, to his labors and his expenses. I say not his necessities, for I think an evangelist has a right to receive an amount sufficient for his support, though he might live without it.

Perhaps I should leave others to say what is the course, and what the influence exerted by the common hired monthly preaching. But I am free to give my opinion, risk what I may.

I knew one evangelist to travel near two hundred miles to a monthly appointment, for a time, and the church, or at least the wiser part of it, concluded they were the worse for his visits. Another evangelist had his monthly meetings near enough generally, if not always, for him to make the entire trip, and perform the entire labor on Lord’s day, so that he lost no time, more than other people, in attending church. During the week he attended closely to his merchandise, and did, I believe, a very thriving business. Still he received, as I learned, a pretty fair support for his Sunday labors. Others receive more or less for similar labors, which, instead of hindering, perhaps in some instances aids their other business.

I desire no war with any one, nor would I bring the labors of evangelists into disrepute. They are not generally appreciated as they should be. I scarcely know an evangelist really devoting himself to…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

259

Evangelising, who is properly supported. Indeed, such are not generally, so far as I have learned, supported as well as the mere monthly preacher, who devotes nearly or quite all the time the Lord allows him for the purpose to the increase of his earthly store, and with as much earnestness as others! In fact, if a man lives by the gospel, he must, with rare exceptions, do it by one of three ways:

Traveling and holding successful protracted meetings—adding many to the church.
Occupying the place, and doing the work, to a large extent, of a sectarian pastor.
Holding monthly meetings where the largest sums are offered, or where the pay is best.

This last is decidedly the best plan for support, for many reasons. Churches will pay more for such labor than for any other. It allows more time for other things. The marriage fees will be greater, and the traveling expenses and loss on account of absence from home will be less. Hence the popularity of such monthly preaching. I do not expect to see it broken up. It would be almost as easy to destroy the love of money. Few things could be more unpopular than opposition to the popular hired monthly preaching. I may have presumed too much in daring to launch my feeble bark with such freight; but if it is blown to atoms and sunk, I trust the atmosphere will be somewhat purified by the explosion.

Each congregation anciently had a plurality of pastors. We profess to follow the apostolic examples and precepts. Still we, like our neighbors whom we would reform, have one pastor only for our city churches, and four churches for one pastor in the country! Very often, too, these pastors (we call them evangelists, sometimes) are not always very rich—not half so good as that which our stock had even in the parched and thirsty prairies! It may not be prudent to suggest the possibility of poison in the most popular evangelical pastures of the age in which we live. Nor need we say ’tis no wonder the flocks are no larger, stronger, or more healthy. Like pastors like flocks, is the natural order. It would be absurd to expect it otherwise.

But as I have not learned, like “parson Brownlow” and other political parsons, to say hard things quaintly, or at all softly, I may, for the present, at least, drop the pastors and pastors just here together, as twin brothers or nearer akin.

In my own monthly engagements, I have had the privilege of going elsewhere when I thought, upon the whole, more good would result by it; and I am free to say, I could not allow myself to lose this privilege—to sell it for any sum.

Nearly eight years ago, I knew a congregation to have the labors of

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Two evangelists monthly—preaching thrice a month—by those they regarded as amongst the ablest evangelists in the country—and the evangelists of no country surpassed those in that. The preachers were paid liberally, and all went on without the least dissatisfaction, I believe, and with, at least, as much good as common. The other Lord’s days the church met without an evangelist, held Sunday school, Bible class, broke the loaf, exhorted one another, sung, prayed, and made contributions—all just as when the evangelists were present except the sermon and the other labors of the preachers.

I asked one of the most intelligent members—a candid, sensible man—whether he thought the church was more profitable the days they had preaching, or the days they met without. He promptly answered in favor of their own meetings. There was, however, a worldly class of members and some of the world, who would not attend without preaching. It was customary—fashionable, and they must have it.

I have just before me a letter from an intelligent physician, who says of the congregation with which he worships, that they meet except for the world, quite independent of the preachers. Indeed, I have talked over the matter with several of their members, and they say they generally learn more when the preacher is absent. There are many such congregations; nor can there be any reason, I think, why all may not do better without the constant labors of the common evangelists—except as they may aid in the conversion of sinners occasionally. Young churches, of course, for a time need aid, as in ancient times—the evangelist laboring continually to “commit the word to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also”—that is, to qualify men for the bishop’s office.

A few conclusions, or inferences from the facts before us, may end these articles.

Sala.uo, Bell county, Texas, June 12, 1857.

C. K.

H.F.MAUK.—No congregation can long breathe the Spirit of God, but in the performance of the only service favorable to its enjoyment. The members must be “living stones.”

T. F.

A BAPTIST “EXPERIENCE”—REPENTANCE BEFORE FAITH—GOSPEL ORDER TRANSPOSED.

By a very common illusion of the night, when a ship on the ocean is approaching the shore, the ship appears stationary and the shore seems to be moving towards the ship. For many years past our Bapt…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

261

Our friends have been evidently approaching us in sentiment and practice, but it seems to be generally unknown to, or unperceived by themselves. That we are coming nearer together, is as obvious to them as to us; but they will have it to be the other way, and that it is we who are going to them, instead of them coming to us. Well, we are willing for them to have it as they please; and hope that their ship will continue moving on towards the shore, until they land safely upon the terra firma of the gospel, and get rid of the stormy sea of sectarianism, where so many of those sectarian crafts are afloat, and so many of them have been wrecked! In fact, as has been justly remarked, there is not a pulpit in the land, but has felt, to a greater or less degree, the influence of the principles and teaching of the current Reformation.

We have been led to these remarks, by witnessing the proceedings of a Baptist meeting, from which we have just returned, and hearing a couple of discourses delivered at it. The first preacher stuck close to his text, that he never left it at all; and the second never left his but once, and that was when he began his discourse, and never returned to it any more! The first was a labored effort to reconcile Baptist principles with the Bible, or rather, the Bible with them, and to interpret it so as to force it to harmonize with their inconsistencies and jarring and conflicting tenets. The second was a sort of rambling and discursive dissertation over the sacred volume—a kind of “scatter-gun,” or series of “random-shots,” so that, if one missed his aim, another might strike and have the desired effect.

Some of these did so, for on an invitation being given to “join the church,” a colored woman came forward, and presented herself before the church. As usual, she was told to relate to them “the dealings of the Lord with her soul.” Being rather luckwarm in doing so, the preacher put a few questions to her; as whether she reposed confidence in Christ, felt herself changed, and believed she was accepted by him; but not a word whether she had felt her sins pardoned, and had afterwards doubted whether it was so or not! These used to be regarded as all important and essential; but seem now to be disregarded pretty generally—evidence of the progress among the Baptists, of which we have been speaking. Instead of the long experience formerly told, a few pertinent questions, as those mentioned above, seem to be all that is required. Of course the woman’s replies in the affirmative were deemed satisfactory to the church, and she was received. And here I could but think of the contrast between the apostolic order and …

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

That of the Baptist church, which receives the individual first and baptizes him afterwards, while the apostles baptized first, and the church received the person afterwards. That this was the primitive order is plain from several places in Acts and the Epistles. It is said that on Pentecost, “as many as gladly received his [Peter’s] word, were baptized; and there were added to them about three thousand souls.” Mark, they were baptized first, and then added.

Again, shortly afterwards it is said: “The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved;” or, as correctly rendered, “The Lord daily added the saved to the church.” How saved? “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” First faith, then baptism and salvation from past sins, and then added to the church.

As for “relating experiences” to the church, where was the church when Paul was baptized, to hear his experience?—where, when the jailer and his household at Philippi?—Lydia and her family?—and in every other case recorded, where was the church? If telling experiences was the apostolic order, we should have at least one clear, decided case of it, whereas we have not a single one on record in the New Testament! If that was the order, how could they have possibly baptized three thousand in one day, as on Pentecost? It cannot be shown, either by positive testimony or inference, that the apostles either practiced such a custom or permitted it in any way. Then, why should the Baptist churches persist in a custom for which they have no authority whatever in the word of God? Why not discard it, as well as all other inconsistencies with the word of God? Certainly, if honest, they should do so as soon as convinced from the Bible.

As while the Savior was on earth, the Jews had “made void the commandments of God” by their traditions, and by them had “made the word of God of none effect,” so now as regards the gospel, the Baptists have, by their “experiences,” completely “made void” or nullified the good confession, that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” the only one ever required or authorized by the apostles, of the subject for baptism! And here too they have inverted the apostles’ order in receiving members into the church before being baptized!

So also in preaching up and requiring repentance before faith, because Paul, in speaking of the Jews spoke of “repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” being required of them, our Baptist friends preach it, and contend for it as the gospel order—considering the impossibility of repenting before having faith! The Jews already believed in God, but were required to reform (repent).

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

263

towards him before they could have faith in Christ. Hence the proclamation: “Repent, (reform,) for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” and: “Repent therefore and believe the gospel.” But why elaborate a subject so plain and easy of comprehension?

As the Baptists here are such sticklers for taking the order just as it reads, why not do the same as regards the passages: “Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for (in order to) the remission of sins”—and: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord?”—and: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?” But no, this will not do—it conflicts with their theory of conversion! It is said to be “a good rule that will work both ways,” and of course a bad one that will not. Of the latter character, is this rule of interpretation of our Baptist friends. And here we leave them for the present, hoping that they may “have the eyes of their mind enlightened” to know what is the truth.
J. H.

WILL THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST ABANDON THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE FOR THE SPECULATIONS OF MEN?

It is a time of deep and painful interest. Many are inclined to faint by the way, and turn aside from the truth, but we entertain great confidence in the stability of most of the brethren. Ambitious men, who are not satisfied with what is written, and who vainly profess light beyond and above all that is revealed in the heavenly oracles, may disturb a few; but we entertain no fear in regard to such as read and understand the mind of God. We receive many encouraging letters from the brethren, and we think it becoming to give our readers a few extracts.

Bro. Green Ferguson, of Lowndes County, Miss., writes under date of June 14, 1857.

“Dear Brethren:—Each number of the Gospel Advocate inspires me with greater love for its editors, and especially for the truths it so earnestly defends. I have long desired to offer a word of encouragement, but this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so. Indeed, I feel that I cannot refrain longer. I was many years a member of the Baptist Church, but from reading the word of the Lord and some of Brother A. Campbell’s writings, I became satisfied that the church of Christ demanded all my service, and consequently I have been for some years past associated with the disciples.”

264

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“Let me say, that if your teaching in the Gospel Advocate is not correct, I am still ignorant of the truth. That you take the right view of the sufficiency of the scriptures and the church for all religious purposes, I am as certain as I can be of any thing. But you will meet with much opposition. I am for sustaining the (ox that treadeth out the corn; but, with you, I believe the whole clerical hireling system is not only corrupt, but such a class of preachers cannot, and will not, teach the religion of Christ.

“May the Lord bless and support you in the defense of the cause of the Redeemer.”

O. F.

The school teacher of our youth, Brother Ross Houston, of Sutherland, Texas, writes us a most encouraging letter. We must take the liberty of publishing a few extracts. He says:

“Dear Brother Fanning: I learn from the Harbinger, which I read, that you are publishing a paper, and that Dr. Richardson has been handling you pretty roughly for believing the Bible teaches all we know of God, of heaven and hell, of right and wrong. I know nothing about philosophy, but I know my children have learned all they know, and I would be glad to ascertain what anyone has learned of God and things divine that did not come through words. I have seen nothing but the Harbinger, and your views have not yet appeared in it, but would be glad to know who W. Lipscomb and F. M. Carmack are! They seem to write the truth; but what is to become of one who has advocated the word of the Lord for more than twenty years, as has R. R. and is now disposed to rid himself of it? Dr. H.’s system is dark and dreary. The Bible is our only source of light, and although I am now old and gray-headed—almost ready to depart—I have seen nothing to shake my confidence in the plan of salvation presented by the Savior. My health is precarious, and this may be my last letter to you. May God bless you in your good work is the wish of my heart. May we meet in heaven.

ROSS HOUSTON.

May the Lord sustain Brother Houston and family.

Brother C. C. Scott, of Jefferson County, Tenn., writes: “My soul was pained when I read Bro. Richardson’s attack upon you; but on reading the reply, I revived. Cry aloud and spare not.”

Brother A. Padau, of Texas, writes: “We are not of that class that flatter, we have conversed with many of the brethren regarding the controversy with the brethren of the Harbinger, and you have the approbation of all.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

265

“LOVEST THOU ME MORE THAN THESE?”

Such is the language of our Blessed Savior to Peter, who, after seeing his Master betrayed, and having himself thrice denied him, had gone back to his old occupation—as a fisherman. What burning humiliation must have stung him after his boasted devotion to his Lord? What must have been his mortification when Jesus, as if to pierce to the innermost depths of his soul and overwhelm him with shame for his forgetfulness and want of faith, again and again puts the trying question, “Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou me?”

To how many of us, my brethren and sisters, might not, and do not, our Savior put the same earnest question, “Lovest thou me more than these?” When worldly plans and speculations beset us and allure us away from the cause of our Master, let us remember that Jesus, through his gospel, addresses us as pointedly as he did Peter: “Lovest thou me more than these?” How do we answer him? Do we stop and consider the allegiance which we owe to Him as the first great concern, and determine that we will engage in nothing in this world that will prevent us from faithfully attending to all the requirements of our Master, that will impair our usefulness as servants of Heaven or bring reproach upon the cause of our Redeemer?

Or do we rush madly and recklessly into every wild worldly speculation, engage in all manner of disreputable and dishonest schemes for the acquisition of wealth or honor, and fritter away our days in the foolish, senseless, and soul-destroying dissipations of fashionable life and pleasure? What answer can we, in the fear of God, with a deep and earnest sense of accountability to Him, give to these questions? Do we love Christ and his glorious work of redemption more than these things? Are we ready to give them all up for him? Are we ready and do we make a sacrifice of all that stands as besetting sins to ourselves or stumbling blocks to others for the love we have for Him? If not, I do not see what claim we have to his favor—what hope we can have for salvation in his name. If while professing to be alive in Christ we are dead to every interest that pertains to his cause on this earth, and to every sacred vow we have made to him, we cannot expect the slightest share of his blessings.

O let us beware, my friends, lest we too may be covered with shame in the day of accounts, when Christ shall say to us: You loved the things of the world more than you loved me. I say again, let us beware lest shame, awful shame and humiliation and degradation cover us in that fearful day.

W. L.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT

Mr. T. Fanning,
Sir, — Will you be so kind as to give an explanation or teaching of your (the Christian) Church on the operation of the “Spirit” through the word. I want information not a controversy.
WILLIAM SMITH.
Cane Creek, Miss., June 25, 1857.

REPLY

Dear Sir, — With such enquiries we are always pleased. If our friend desires us to give information as to the teaching of the brethren regarding the manner of the Spirit’s operating through the word, we are unable to do so. As to the fact, however, we have no doubt, and the best exposition is found in Gal. iii, 2-5: “He that ministereth the Spirit, doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?” The Spirit convinces the world by the hearing of faith, as on the day of Pentecost; and from that day to the present, we have no well authenticated case of a nation or even an individual coming under the influence of the Spirit of God but by the hearing of the word of life.
T. W.

Hannibal, Mo., July 6, 1857.

Bro. T. Fanning: — I write to you a few lines, especially as I have been noticing some pieces in your paper regarding church authority. I presume you have noticed one or two pieces in the Christian Age, written by Brother Isaac Errett, some months since in regard to the office of evangelist’s authority, etc. I was somewhat surprised, (indeed I may say not little,) to see his position as to the authority they possessed over the churches. I was pleased with the position you had taken in regard to what the church ought to do, (I might say her authority, etc.,) and what evangelists should do. You make one remark perhaps I do not understand. You say, “The evangelists have the general supervision of the churches.” I would be pleased to see your position defined. I am much pleased with your reply to R. R.
J. P. SMITH.

REPLY

The brethren must not understand us as maintaining any special or official authority of evangelists over the churches, further than what springs from their obligations to the congregations they may address, either by word or letter. It is undeniably the duty of the preachers of the gospel to see that the churches are in order, and with this view the care of the congregations should rest with great weight.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

267

upon their hearts. Further than a right and duty to endeavor to profit the churches by teaching, earnest exhortations and fervent prayers to the members, to cleave unto the Lord and the word of His grace, preachers possess no authority.
T. F.

GIBSON COUNTY, Mo., May 18, 1857.

Bro. Fanning:—I notice in the February number of the Advocate a remark from you to the effect that you think it right for the evangelists to have the general supervision of the churches. With my limited knowledge of the Scriptures I have been unable to ascertain how they became entitled to such supervision. You will, therefore, confer a favor on an enquirer after truth by pointing me to the chapter and verses of scripture where I can find answers to the following interrogatories:

Since the ceasing of spiritual gifts to the church who is an evangelist?
How and by whom is he appointed?
What are his duties?

A few disciples of Christ have been worshiping from house to house in this vicinity this winter and spring, in which meetings our children have formed a kind of portable or traveling Sunday school; a history of which you shall have at some future time, if we and our children continue to gain gospel knowledge as we have, and we think we have both the zeal and ability to improve and approach nearer to apostolic teaching.

Yours in hope of more light on earth, and life eternal beyond the grave,
SAMPLE ORR.

Answer:—Evangelists are preachers of the gospel, and, like Paul, they not only preach to sinners, baptize, plant churches and confirm the members, but they also are the properly authorized agents of Jesus Christ, to set in order what is wanting in the churches, to ordain elders—not to an elder’s office, for there is no such office, but to the bishop’s office—to see that no other doctrine than that of the Scriptures is taught, and “the care of all the churches” to some very considerable extent rests upon them.
(2 Cor. xi, 28.)
T. F.

WHITES OAK, Texas, June 29, 1857.

Bro. Fanning:—Dear Sir,—I wish to say (through the Gospel Advocate) to the brethren composing the North-Eastern Texas Co-operation, that it will meet at Forest Grove, seven miles West of Clarksville, Red River County, Texas, on Thursday before the third Lord’s day.

268

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

In September next, at which time and place we hope to see a general representation from all the congregations in Northern Texas. Brethren, the time has come when we must arise from the lethargy into which we have fallen and work while it is called to-day, for the night will soon come when we cannot work. Brethren, we have but few preaching brethren, therefore let us come up to the work prepared to do something. Brethren, come one, come all; preparations will be made to accommodate all who may come.

Yours in the Lord,
JAMES M. BAIRD.

OBITUARIES

Brother John G. Tompkins, long known and acknowledged in Kentucky as an excellent teacher of the Christian religion, died at the residence of Brother Christopher Brown, in Matthews county, Virginia, January 21, 1857. His sufferings were long and severe, but he bore them with Christian fortitude, and left the world in full confidence of the truth of the Bible, and that there is a rest in preparation for the people of God. Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord; they rest from their labors and their works do follow them.

“Will not our brethren who for several years co-operated with Bro. T., editorially, notice his demise? Do we forget our fellow laborers in the vineyard of the Lord?”
– P. F.

Sister Theonora A. Still, wife of Brother E. J. Still, of this vicinity, died, in the full triumphs of a living faith, May 21, 1857. It is rare to find one with fewer faults or stronger faith. She looked for the Messenger for months and was ready to go. Will the Lord support her husband and motherless children?

Our beloved Brother Crockett McDonald, of Moulton, Ala., is no more. He was to see us in June, in feeble health, returned home and died on the 30th of the same month. We knew Brother McDonald intimately for many years, and we feel that we are not saying too much when we give it as our opinion, that no one in his county, and, possibly, no one in N. Alabama, for the past thirty years, has exerted so good a religious influence. Brother McDonald was a slave to public business, and for some years past was not only post master, but Judge of the Probate Court, and was really worked to death. Judge Ligon and Judge McDonald both fell in the same town, but both fell at their post. We deeply sympathize with Sister McDonald and the family. We feel that this death is really a calamity to the church and to the country. We pray God to raise up other laborers in his vineyard. Did Brother McDonald leave no son who will rise up in the place of his lamented father?
– T. F.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

FRANKLIN COLLEGE

SESSION FOR 1857-8

The Directors of Franklin College, in obedience to a settled conviction as to the great importance of the measure, have determined to make several changes in reference to conducting the school in future. In the first place it has been thought advisable to make changes in the Board of Trustees. Not that any who have so kindly given their services are regarded incompetent, or not interested in the subject of general education, but some of the members have not found it convenient to attend the meetings; and with the view of receiving the advice of persons immediately interested in the Institution, the Board will be composed mainly in future of her own graduates. Most of the members of the Alumni society attend the commencement meetings, and feeling the deep concern they do in their Alma Mater, they will no doubt make efficient guardians of the college.

NEW BOARD OF TRUSTEES

T. F. ANNING, ex-officio, President of the Board.
EDWARD TRABUE, Nashville, Tenn.
ISAAC PAUL, Esq.
J. W. RICHARDSON, M.D., Smyrna, Tenn.
Hon. A. O. P. NICHOLSON, Columbia, Tenn.
JOHN HILL, Lavergne, Tenn.
T. W. WATKINS, Murfreesboro’, Tenn.
A. L. JOHNSON, Hopkinsville, Ky.
E. D. WARDER, Louisville, Ky.
DAVID LIPSCOMB, McMinnville, Tenn.
P. R. RUNNELS, Jourdon’s Valley, Tenn.
JOHN GOODRICH, Fayetteville, Tenn.
Hon. J. H. GOODALL, Carthage, Tenn.
J. M. SOOLEY, Lebanon, Tenn.
N. B. SMITH, Salem, Tenn.
Hon. E. H. VONTREES, Georgetown, Texas.
JAMES B. CLARK, Jackson, Miss.
W. H. D. CARRINGTON, Austin, Texas.
JOHN VANDYKE, Paris, Tenn.
J. ROULHAC, Esq., Hickman, Ky.
A. H. APPLETON, Esq., Tenn.
JOSHUA K. SPILLER, Lavergne, Tenn.
JAMES HOLMES, Mason’s Grove, Tenn.
W. LIPSCOMB, Secretary.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

PREPARATORY DEPARTMENT

For several years past the institution has labored under serious embarrassments, in consequence of not being able to conduct such a Preparatory School as the officers desired. Juveniles and pupils have been thrown together in college with the vain hope of success, but this has proved impracticable, and thereby much injury has resulted in the instruction. To secure the ends therefore for which the college was originally established, arrangements have been made to open a Preparatory Department under the most favorable auspices. A serious difficulty has been to secure the services of competent teachers. Many can teach the higher branches, not at all qualified to manage a Preparatory School. The purest scholarship is indispensable to a well-qualified Juvenile teacher. Pupils seldom, if ever, recover from the effects of ill-directed early education.

The Trustees and Faculty are much pleased to inform their friends that Professor P. M. Carmack has consented to devote his entire time to this most important department of a well-regulated school. The “Elm Crag” buildings, occupied many years past by the President of the college as a preparatory school, and more recently by Professor Lipscomb as a private residence, have been secured for the purpose. The location is favorable, the buildings are well adapted to the object, and Professor Carmack and lady are esteemed as admirably qualified for the service. The Principal will board the pupils, supervise their dress and rooms, guard them in their conversation and habits, and make them, as far as practicable, an agreeable and parental associate. The purpose is to give parents, who wish to send their sons without advancement from home, the highest assurance that they will be most favorably situated for improvement, physically, intellectually, and morally.

COLLEGE PROPER

Perhaps the most important change is in reference to the property of the college, and the influences therewith connected. Much to the relief of the President, arrangements have been made in part for others to take interest in the property, and share the labors in directing the business. Such gradual changes will be made in this direction, as will place the success of the institution upon a much firmer basis than through the influence of one or two individuals. In future, therefore, either all of the Faculty will be the bona fide owners of the premises.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

271

or so far responsible for their use, and so dependent upon their own personal exertions for a support, as to secure their unremitting devotion to the college.

With the view of properly dividing the labor, a new officer has been created under the title of Vice President, whose labor will be to so far share in the duties of the President as to take the supervision of the classes, direct in the order of the institution, and to aid in the general business. The want of such an officer has long been sensibly felt, and the best of results are anticipated from it.

FACULTY FOR 1857-8

T. FANNING
President and Professor of Natural History and Intellectual Moral Science.
WILLIAM LISCOMB, A. M.
Vice-President, and Professor of Ancient Languages.
A. J. FANNING, A. M.
Professor of Mathematics.
T. T. BAUDOUIN
Teacher of the French Language and Assistant Teacher of Languages and Mathematics.

PECUNIARY REGULATIONS

Students who enter within one month from the opening of the session are charged for the full session. No student will be received, except upon special contract, for less time than a session, or from the date of entering to the close of the term. No reduction of bills will be made but for absence from ill health and by permission of the Faculty.

Persons unknown to the Faculty will be expected to give satisfactory reference before their sons or wards matriculate.

Inasmuch as all who enter are presumed to be gentlemen, to obtain an honorable dismission, the Faculty must be satisfied as to the deportment of students.

272

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

One-half the amount of charges is required when students enter the school, and the balance is due at the close of the semi-annual session. Interest is charged upon all sums from the time they are due. Parents and guardians are respectfully requested not to furnish their sons and wards with more money than may really be necessary for supplying their real wants.

Young men destitute of means may have educational advantages, by securing payment at a future day. This security may be obtained in several ways:

By personal security.
By liens of property.
By students inducing friends to keep a constant insurance on their lives.

The fourteenth Annual Session will open September 15, 1857, and continue ten months or forty weeks.

CHARGES IN PREPARATORY DEPARTMENT

Students will be furnished with board and rooms per week at
$2.50
Washing per month,
$1.00
Tuition per session of forty weeks for beginners,
$30.00
In Grammar, Geography, Arithmetic, and higher preparatory branches,
$40.00
Fuel and lights per session,
$10.00

Pupils will furnish their own bedding, tables, and all that is required in their rooms as in college, but all purchases will be directed by their teachers.

COLLEGE PROPER

Board and rooms, per collegiate year of 40 weeks,
$100.00
Tuition,
$50.00
Fuel-at cost,
$1.50
Washing per month,
$5.00
Matriculation-but once paid,
$5.00
Graduation fee,
$5.00

Modern languages extra; also a very small fee is charged for vocal music.

W. Luracomb, Secretary
T. FANNING, President Franklin College

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

PROFESSOR R. RICHARDSON’S PHILOSOPHY

FAITH versus PHILOSOPHY – No. 6

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Extracted Text

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

24:7

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

249

250

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THIRD REPLY TO PROFESSOR ROBERT RICHARDSON

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 253

Regarding Faith

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

254

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

PERSONAL

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

SUPPORTING EVANGELISTS — NO. 5

MONTHLY MEETINGS

258

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

259

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

A few conclusions, or inferences from the facts before us, may end these articles.

A BAPTIST “EXPERIENCE”—REPENTANCE BEFORE FAITH—GOSPEL ORDER TRANSPOSED.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

261

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

263

WILL THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST ABANDON THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE FOR THE SPECULATIONS OF MEN?

264

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

265

“LOVEST THOU ME MORE THAN THESE?”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT

REPLY

REPLY

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

268

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

OBITUARIES

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

FRANKLIN COLLEGE

SESSION FOR 1857-8

NEW BOARD OF TRUSTEES

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

PREPARATORY DEPARTMENT

COLLEGE PROPER

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

271

FACULTY FOR 1857-8

PECUNIARY REGULATIONS

272

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

CHARGES IN PREPARATORY DEPARTMENT

COLLEGE PROPER

Leave a Comment Cancel reply