THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. Fanning and W. Lipscomb, Editors
VOL. III.
NASHVILLE, JULY, 1857.
NO. 7.

NATURAL THEOLOGY

Our readers will please remember that Prof. R. Richardson says,
“Notwithstanding that Bro. Campbell is himself a teacher of Natural Theology in Bethany College, President Fanning has ventured to pronounce it false;” and they will also remember that we expressed our doubts as to the authority of the statement. Bro. Campbell has fully vindicated himself in the June No. of the Harbinger. We are much gratified to give this essay in our pages.

From the Millennial Harbinger.

NATURAL RELIGION FALSELY SO CALLED

The religion of the Greeks and Romans, so far as it existed in a definite and consistent form—that is, as it was conceived by enlightened and thinking men among them—was wholly drawn from their philosophical tenets; or more properly speaking, it was identical with those tenets. So writes the professor of ‘Natural Religion’ and moral philosophy, and civil polity in Harvard College, Boston, Ed. 1855, Francis Brown, A. M.

It was, therefore, properly defined by Paul: “an empty and a deceitful philosophy.” And was it not empty, because void of palpable facts, and documents of real arguments and motives? And was it not vain, because ostentatious, fruitless, and worthless?

And pray what is Natural Religion; or what is Nature and what is Religion? There is an aim, or an attitude, not a reality, of antagonism in the association of these words. For what affinity exists between…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Nature and Religion

Is not Nature the course of things? And is not religion supernatural? Can there be a natural supernatural? What means the first syllable re? Does it not usually indicate again, as in return, repeat, reflect, absorb, recede, etc.? In these and every one of these is found the idea of reiteration, repetition, or of performing the same act a second or a third time. At least a second time.

Religion is, in fact, derived from religio, to tie, to bind, indicative of an antecedent rupture or breach. Now as there has not been a breach or disseverance in Nature from its creation, there could not in fact, in the primary import of the term, be any such idea or existence as natural religion. There is nothing in the course of things, or nature, indicative of what is properly called religion.

Occurrences in the Christian Scriptures

Eusebeia occurs but four times in the Christian Scriptures, and is once translated worshipping, and three times religion, in the common version. The cases found are:
Acts xxvi: 5
Col. ii: 18
Jas. i: 26-27

But in not one of these is reference had to what we popularly call the Christian religion. We have in the common version, also, the word Ioudaismos occurring twice, translated “Jews’ religion,” but properly rendered, it should be translated or transferred, Judaism. We have, then, this now so common word in the New Testament, canonized in sacred desks, schools, and colleges, only four times—once translated worshipping and three times religion.

But we should add that we have a more beautiful and a more apposite word than either threskeia or Ioudaismos, which should be more popular than it is, and that is eusebeia, translated godliness, and once holiness (Acts iii: 12). Of this same family, in the Christian Scriptures, we have the verb eusebeo only twice. It is, in common version, represented by worship and to show piety. We have the adjective found four times rendered: thrice devout, and once godly. Also, the adverb eusebos is found twice, rendered godly. This is the whole family and currency of these important terms found in the Christian Scriptures.

Influence of Papal Rome

From Papal Rome we got the word religion, as a sort of general representative. Neither Luther nor Calvin ever noticed it, as they did not a few other terms and phrases. They canonized them, or their followers did; and we unscrupulously adhere to them and fight for them.

Pagandom, Papaldom, and Protestantdom have equally canonized them; except that we swear a witness, or compel a witness to swear.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

whereas the Romans ‘gave him religion’ and he took it.–that is, in our style, ‘qualified him,’ or made him swear by God to tell the truth, etc., etc.

In this tortuous course, men invented ‘Natural Religion’ after God gave us a ‘supernatural religion.’ This is now the popular style. But the grave question is, – Does Nature–Dame Nature originate, teach, suggest, or establish any religion? Nature is defined by our wise men as “the established course of things” – the constitution of things. And Alexander Pope taught our fathers:

“To look through Nature up to Nature’s God.”

This canonized deism or theism is of the same school with Natural or Physical religion. But it has been consecrated by all the pulpits in the land – as much as has been and yet is, the Pagan ‘Sunday.’

The Jews had a ‘Sabbath,’ the Pagans and Romanists have long had a Sunday; and we have got many of their descendants in Rome, Paris, Dort, Amsterdam, London, Westminster, Edinburgh, Boston, New York, and New Orleans.

Even our colleges in America have got Natural religion canonized, that is a natural supernatural religion! Be not startled, gentle reader, while we affirm that there is, in fact, solid, solemn, substantive fact, no such thing as Natural Religion. Yet we teach something so called in Bethany, as in every other college in the civilized world!! But we teach Paley’s Evidences of Natural and revealed religion, after Butler’s Analogy has been carefully read, and after these are digested, as we teach matters of general literature and science, the external and the internal evidences of the Jewish and Christian Dispensations of a mediatorial system.

As the Greek and Roman Pantheons are taught in schools and colleges to facilitate the acquisition of Greek and Roman Literature and Science, so teach we Butler’s Analogy and Paley’s Evidences. But as our strong tower, our rock of refuge from these plagiarisms and human traditions, we teach daily in our chair the three Bibles – the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian. These by the old Scribes and Printers, and even by the Binders of London, are called the Bible and Testament!

There is a Papal spell, or a Grecian Patriarchal spell, incubus-like, brooding on the brains of many a Periwig doctor of the style and livery of the Addisonian age. To these we would prescribe a vegetable diet and much open air exercise.

But from this episode to return, we make this bold statement, that there is no religion, natural or revealed, in either heaven or…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Hadees

There is no need of any religion in heaven. There is nothing to pray for, nothing to ask, nothing to reconcile, nothing to sacrifice, nothing within or without its inmates to improve or aggrandize. There is no religion in hell. There is no dispensation remedial or propitiatory in heaven. There is worship, praise, or adoration; there is fulness of joy, and there are everlasting pleasures.

We substitute for what is called natural religion the harmonies of the universe, the concurrent vouchers of creation, Providence, and moral government, as displayed within the area of human knowledge of every sphere accessible to the eye of reason or to the ear of faith, as in eternal harmony with the remedial economy called Christianity.

PROFESSOR R. RICHARDSON’S SECOND NOTICE OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

With increased anxiety, we invite the attention of the brethren to the matter, manner, and spirit of Doctor Richardson’s remarks in the June number of the Millennial Harbinger, under the head of FAITH versus PHILOSOPHY – No. 5.

“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.

We have just had before us a notable illustration of the latency and insidiousness of the sensualistic philosophy. We have seen how deeply imbued with it an individual may be without being at all conscious of it, and while he is loudly declaiming against all philosophy. And if such may be the case with one who is of some reputation for education and intelligence, how much reason there is to fear that the genius of Locke holds its secret councils in the hearts of multitudes who are still less capable of detecting its presence!

In the further prosecution of our subject, and that we may render some aid to such of those referred to, as may be disposed to undertake the important task of candid self-examination, we shall now briefly indicate some of the natural results and tendencies of the philosophy in question.

One of its most striking features is that it constantly seeks to resolve everything into sensation, or into mere words. It is, hence, naturally and directly antagonistic to everything spiritual in religion, so that one cannot so much as say with an apostle that “the things of the spirit are spiritually discerned,” without being at once charged by those of this school with teaching “strange things.”

But I am not at all surprised at this, for it is the nature of this sort of philosophy to indispose and untie men’s minds to receive anything that is not merely outward and formal, and to estrange them from all inquiries and experiences that transcend the material.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

197

Experiences which have regard to the “hidden man of the heart.” In these respects, its influence is the same in all, and this becomes more and more manifest in proportion as the mind becomes imbued with it. It gradually dries up the fountains of spiritual sympathy, and creates in the heart a species of impiety towards the spiritual and invisible which doubts its presence and denies its power, and thus substitutes, in religion, an interested obedience to things external, for the confiding heart-trust of unselfish love—an experience which is merely sensible and exterior, for the self-consciousness of the soul and the earnest of the Spirit.

These individuals must have taken up strange views of reformation in general, and of the present ‘Reformation’ in particular, to suppose that one extreme is remedied by another, and that a mere nominalism is to be administered to religious society, in order to cure it of enthusiasm. They have yet to learn that extremes meet like east and west or day and night, and that the metal cooled amidst the frost of an Arctic winter will ‘burn’ as readily as that which is heated in a furnace. They have been mightily annoyed and scandalized at the modern ‘Spiritualism’ of one Ferguson and his coadjutors! It is right they should feel thus, for a grosser delusion or a more unhappy apostasy from truth, reason, and scripture, has rarely been witnessed. But let me ask them to define the practical importance of the distinction between disquieting the spirits of the departed, to “bring them up, by incantations, ‘knocks,’ or other modes of suasion, moral or immoral, in order that they may deliver oracles which may serve as addenda, corrigenda, or substitutes for the Bible, and the delivering oneself up to the sensualistic philosophy in religion—to the guidance of the spirit of John Locke, evoked, not from the tomb, but from the ‘Essay on the Human Understanding.’

A substantial printed volume may afford; I fancy, communications quite as influential as any revelations ever whispered in the dark, or spelled out by a spirit in his psychomantric primer. It is most true that it is a cardinal feature of this religious reformation, to direct the attention of men to words, even to the precious words of Holy Scripture. But it was never intended that these should be made a substitute for the things which they reveal, or that mere grammatical and logical should replace spiritual discernment, and be permitted to establish themselves as a barrier between the soul and spiritual enjoyment. Yet this is precisely what is done under the influence of the sensualistic philosophy, which sees nothing but metaphors in spiritual beliefs; which, after the senses, ascribes everything to signs and to language, and whose essential character is the negation of all the great truths which escape the senses. ‘Scholasticism,’ says Cousin, whose language we have just employed, ‘had converted many collections into substances, many words into entities; by an exaggeration in a contrary sense, Locke converted substance into collection, and made words of things; and thus mark it well, necessarily, and by the force of his system. Admitting only ideas explicable by sensation or reflection, and being able to explain the idea of substance by neither, it was necessary for him to deny it, to reduce it to qualities which are easily…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

attained by sensation or reflection. Hence the systematic confusion of qualities and substance, of phenomena and being, that is the destruction of being, and consequently of beings. Nothing, therefore, substantially exists, neither God nor the word, neither you nor I; all is resolved into phenomena, into abstractions, into words.

So completely, indeed, does our sensualistic philosopher satisfy and occupy himself with words that he can neither understand nor relish the things of the Spirit. To him they are unacceptable ‘novelties.’ They are denounced as ‘metaphysics,’ because, being of the sensualistic school, he can have nothing to do with anything that may not be presented to the senses, and he accordingly limits himself to physics, since everything must be physical that is not metaphysical.

We have but two great departments in this universe of ours, that of mind or spirit, and that of matter. Metaphysics treats of the one and physics of the other, and he who inveighs against the former, as does our friend Fanning of the Advocate, gives conclusive evidence, if he understands himself at all, that he is wholly devoted to the latter. Hence the need of éclaircissement, for no individual can be permitted to declaim incontinently against the one half, and that the ‘better half’ of God’s universe, and at the same time attempt to occupy an ambiguous position as if he himself belonged to neither, and was superior to both.

Persons who profess to be educated are justly expected to use words in their true significations, and must be held strictly to the issues which they themselves are pleased to make. The tendency, however, to scout everything that is spiritual and not physical or material, is characteristic of the sensualistic philosophy. Locke, the master of the school, went so far even, as to intimate that mind or spiritual being might be, after all, a mere modification of matter—that matter might, by a peculiar modification, produce all the phenomena of thought.

He says: “We have the ideas of matter, and of thinking, but possibly shall never be able to know whether any mere material being thinks or no; it being impossible for us, by the contemplation of our own ideas without relation, to discover, whether omnipotency has not given to some systems of matter, lithely disposed, a power to perceive and think, or else joined and fitted to matter so disposed a thinking material.

What certainty of knowledge can any one have that some perceptions, such as pleasure and pain, should not be in some bodies themselves, after a certain manner modified, as well as that they should be in an immaterial substance, upon the motion of the parts of the body?” (Book IV, Ch. III, § 6).

I would remark here, that I do not wish to be understood as accusing of deliberate materialism, those who have been laboring so diligently to engraft the philosophy of Locke upon the present reform…

The natural division of things that exist, is into body and mind, things material and immaterial. The former belong to physics, and the latter to the science of metaphysics.

Webster’s Dictionary: A metaphysical science, as contradistinguished from physical, concerns psychology, which treats of spiritual being or existence, and ethics, which treats of rights and duties.

In signaling his antipathy to everything that is not physical, the sensualistic philosopher is not always content to denounce metaphysics, but often is at the unnecessary pain to include by name in his anathemas, “moral philosophy,” a department which is as naturally connected with psychology as corollaries are with the propositions from which they flow, and consequently included by Metaphysics.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

199

They seem to believe in spiritual existence, and some of them even go so far as to admit, if not that the Spirit of God is present in the body of Christ, at least that such a doctrine is somewhat taught in the Bible. They seem, in relation to spiritual things, to be very much in the position of chemical philosophers, in relation to certain subtle agents, as light and heat, which resist our powers of condensation, and whose true nature is left to be determined in the future progress of science; it being thought entirely possible that they may be ultimately found to be mere qualities of matter.

Thus our sensualistic philosophers hesitate to decide in regard to spiritual influences. They seem to incline to the opinion that they may all be resolved into the mere qualities of facts; that they are a species of aura which emanates from words, and surrounds the truth as a sort of atmosphere of spiritual electricity, which the future investigations of some of the farndays of the sensualistic school will prove to be as material in its nature, as, in the same school, they already reckon words and ideas.

Do not then, charge them so much with materialism on this question, as with an absolute vacuum. I do not allege that they have a bad meaning, but that they have no settled meaning at all. They do not understand themselves, nor the empty philosophy which they have unwittingly embraced under the guise of religion, which insidiously directs their religious thoughts, and like a demon beneath the veil of an angel, mocks at all their endeavors to make spiritual progress.

As a specimen of the method by which philosophers of this school contrive to throw uncertainty over the whole subject of spiritual religion, we may take a not unfamiliar comment on Paul’s exhortation to the Ephesians, v. 18-19.

“Be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord.”

Should one quote this as showing the need of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the propriety of praying for that Spirit, he will be met by the remark that the Scripture is its own interpreter, and that the epistle to the Colossians being obviously a sort of counterpart of that to the Ephesians, will serve as a safe and direct means of explanation.

All this being admitted as true, as it undoubtedly is, his attention will now be directed to the fact that the corresponding passage in Colossians reads thus:

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

Now, let me ask, what is the obvious meaning of such a reference as this? What is the design in thus attempting to replace in the mind of an inquirer, the former passage by the latter? Is it not to induce the conclusion that ‘the word of Christ’ of Colossians is ‘the Spirit’ of Ephesians; and that, these expressions being interchangeable, we may fairly regard ‘the Spirit’ as nothing more than ‘the word of Christ,’ so that when an individual has the word dwelling in him, he has, by necessary implication, the Spirit dwelling in him?

Is it not an evident attempt to show that the word and the Spirit are the same? Or rather is it not an effort to resolve the Spirit into mere words, in obedience to the behests of the sensual?

200

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Artic Philosophy? If it be not this, then we have no hesitation in affirming, that the effect at least, is to throw ambiguity over the whole subject and leave the inquirer in utter darkness and doubt as to the real distinction between the Spirit and the word.

But what trifling this is with the Scriptures! Suppose an idealistic philosopher, denying the value and necessity of the Word, and relying upon some imaginary spiritual light within, as sufficient to guide us in religion, should reverse the order and proceed to explain Colossians by Ephesians. The injunction “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly,” will now mean, “Be filled with the Spirit.” The word is now resolved into Spirit, and as in the former case, the inquirer is relieved from any direct dependence on the Spirit of God, so is he in this case by a rhetorical legerdemain.

Precisely similar, released from any dependence on the written word! But all such efforts, either to condense spirit into word, or to evaporate word into spirit, are alike adverse to true religion and incompatible with the word of God itself. In the Divine volume, the word is never thus exalted against Spirit nor Spirit against word. The connection and train of thought, in every instance, will justify the reference to the one or the other, as the case requires.

Nor has it ever been the design in this reformation to institute any opposition between the Spirit and the word of God. All that it claims is, that the word and the Spirit shall NOT BE SEPARATED. It belongs not to it to dogmatize upon the manner in which either the Spirit or the word acts upon the heart, but to speak on this point reverently and as the Scriptures speak, if they be found to speak on it at all.

It has been called upon, indeed, to protest against certain vain and enthusiastic notions of ‘spiritual operations,’ which have extensively prevailed, and which have had a direct tendency to render the word of God of none effect, and it seems to be now just as needful that a similar protest should be entered against some who profess to be its advocates and yet have been so far carried away in the blindness of their zeal for the written word, that they have adopted and inculcated a philosophy which renders the Spirit of God of none effect; which carnalizes everything spiritual about Christianity, and makes the Bible either a rubric which prescribes forms and ordinances, or a species of mere logical machinery, independent and self-moved, to which the eternal destinies of mankind are exclusively committed.

In the midst of their tirades against “miraculous agencies, ghosts and sights and dreams,” they seem to have lost sight of the real connection between the Word and the Spirit of God, and they do not hesitate to claim for the ‘Word ALONE,’ all power in the work of human salvation.

The passage quoted from Ephesians, “being filled with the Spirit,” is evidently introduced as an appropriate opposition to being “drunk with wine.” In Colossians, where the apostles had already spoken of the works of the Spirit exhibited in the “new man,” the mention of the Spirit would have been inappropriate, while that of the word of Christ was in harmony with the whole connection.

Regret. That the two of this unfortunate error are so abundant.

As a specimen, I have only room at present for the following, taken almost in toto from the Gospel Advocate:

“God by an effort of his omnipotence in the beginning, caused the light to shine in the midst of darkness; but from the time He looked upon his finished work and pronounced it very good, we have conveyed this, as all other natural things, not by a perpetual miracle, but as the result of established law. So, by an exertion of creative power more grand and glorious if possible, God has given to a benighted world the light of the new creation. He has given…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 201

It argues, indeed, but little real love or reverence for the Bible, when men will thus presume to add to the language of Scripture in order that this may be made to express the doctrine of their favorite philosophy. And it argues but little consistency for men to do this, and at the same time, complain of others because they, in accordance with their religious philosophy, must need make Paul say that “we are justified by faith alone.” The Scriptures nowhere affirm any such propositions. They belong to theory and philosophy, and not to religion. They constitute standards, not of faith, but of opinion. They announce a departure from Bible Christianity, for there is no surer evidence that men are dissatisfied with the things of the Bible, than when we find them dissatisfied with its language.

It is a fact which we regard as highly significant, and as further indicative of a want of true regard for the Scriptures, that those who…

Additional Extracts

“Our trust and our hope is still in the gospel as the power of God unto salvation. It is the seed of the kingdom of Christ, by which every subject is made alive in Christ Jesus. It is the great enlightening, instructing, admonishing, and purifying agent of the body of our Lord. And finally, by it we shall be enabled to overcome the world and its trials, and at last triumph through faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”
“If there is not power in the Word to make all who receive it children of God and heirs of the promises, then we are utterly hopeless.”
“To the word of the gospel spoken by Christ himself and by his holy apostles, we can only turn for our cure, certain, confiding, steadfast hope.”

Commentary

The former of these extracts is from an article by F. M. C., a correspondent, the latter by W. Lipscomb, one of the editors of the Gospel Advocate. The reader will notice particularly the assertion of F. M. C., that God “has promised no influence independent of the human understanding and his great word.”

This word, he adds, “is the embodiment of great spiritual ideas, which passing through the understanding, reach the deepest deep of the human heart.”

The word is the “embodiment,” it seems, and the ideas are the soul or spirit, although it is the whole of it, according to F. M. C.’s philosophy.

Conclusion

The whole object, indeed, in adducing this saying, is evident—to show that this word is the Spirit, and if our friends in the council have really come to this conclusion, and disbelieve in the efficacy of prayer for the conversion of sinners, and the actual indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of Christians, it is certain that we should understand their position clearly.

202

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

are thus apparently the loudest in praise of them, are precisely those who quote them the least in their discourses and essays, who are the least addicted to the devotional study of the sacred volume, and who are found the least capable of developing new truths from its pages, or detecting the perversions and misinterpretations to which it has been subjected. Their regard for it, indeed, is quite of a peculiar character. It has, they think, conferred upon them peculiar advantages. It has relieved them from all care of their own souls; from all concern about their internal spiritual condition; from all fears of visions, ghosts or spirits. They need no longer trouble themselves with earnest efforts to lift themselves to the contemplation of the spiritual and unseen, for they find all this now reduced to visible words and embodied in sensible forms, and the relief they experience is like that of the idolator when he has succeeded in embodying his conception of his divinity, and is enabled to contemplate with facility, in the carved substantial image, those features and qualities which before, were with difficulty discerned amidst the dim and shadowy visions of the soul.

This extravagant religious nominalism has, on this account, been very appropriately termed Bibliolaby. It is an ignorant, pretentious adulation, a blind, unreasoning partiality, which, in reality, degrades the Bible, by placing it in false position, and ascribing to it exclusive power and attributes which it never claims for itself: It is not a just appreciation of the importance of the word of God, nor an intelligent admiration of its perfection, but an overweening exaggeration, a positive misrepresentation, in fact, of the real nature and design of revelation.

It is the glory of the present Reformation, that it has sought to exalt the Bible, and to debase tradition and opinionism. Its plea for the Scriptures as the means through which the Holy Spirit is to enlighten and sanctify men, is not to be improved upon. But it is a matter of serious regret, that it should be pervaded by any who profess to be its advocates, and that the noble enterprise of recovering the religious community, from speculation and discussion should be converted into a cold and heartless nominalism, prolific of unprofitable controversy, but barren of religious fruits.

H. R.

SECOND REPLY TO PROFESSOR ROBERT RICHARDSON

Courteous Reader: We very much regret the necessity of the controversy with Prof. Richardson. As a writer, Doctor R. has long held a high position before the brethren, and from his connection with Bethany College, what he says is not only entitled to consideration, but must exert considerable influence either for good or for evil. We have, however, feared the present result for years, and to a few of our intimate friends we have, on frequent occasions, communicated our thoughts most freely. Some three years ago we respectfully expressed to Bro. A. Campbell our fears in regard to speculations amongst the brethren,

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 203

and earnestly besought him, as an important duty to the world, to examine “Modern Spiritualism,” under the imposing title of “Philosophy,” with the view of exposing it.

In the present reply it is our purpose to notice, first in order, very briefly, a few of the minor points in the June number of the Millennial Harbinger, and then we desire to set forth, in a manner which we think cannot be misunderstood, the system which Prof. Richardson is endeavoring to inculcate amongst the brethren.

The manner in which Doctor Richardson assails the Editors and correspondents of the Gospel Advocate affords unmistakable evidence that he feels we are not pleading for the same religion. Doctor Richardson knows that if his new position is true, our teaching is false and injurious; and we assure our brethren and all whom it may concern, that we are more than satisfied, if we teach the Christian religion, Doctor Richardson does not. As previously intimated, we differ across the whole heavens. When we objected to his teaching, as set forth in an address by Mr. Russell of Missouri, we did so after surveying the whole ground, and weighing all the difficulties that might arise. We consider it but justice to Mr. Russell and Dr. R. to say, that by the term “infidel” we simply desire to denote one who does not occupy the true Christian stand-point. In our definition one may be both religious and philosophical, indeed, believe many things about God and his administration and yet be an infidel.

We are not pleased to apply the word to any one, and we particularly dislike its use in connection with persons whom we have recognized as members of the body of Christ. But from the various experiments in speculation which we have witnessed, we feel confident that it is certain moral death for men to adopt any ancient or modern human theory of religion.

We wish also to state, that the teaching of Prof. R. is by no means new to us. It was not introduced amongst us in Tennessee by “one J. B. Ferguson,” as Prof. Richardson may suppose. Thirteen years ago a Professor of the same school of two Professors who “have been instrumental in giving shape and character” at Bethany, put forth Dr. R.’s recent speculations in our College chapel, and it will be remembered by a hundred living witnesses that, without the least hesitation, we at the moment pronounced it infidel and highly pernicious. Some of our readers are aware that a Presbyterian preacher at Gallatin, a few months since, condemned it in the same individual, not only as infidel, but as most immoral in all its tendencies. We have seen no adequate reason for changing our views.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

2d.

Dr. Richardson, in a very special manner, calls attention to the “Latency and insidiousness of the sensualistic philosophy” in us, without being at all conscious of it. Again, the Doctor employs still severer language in a connection that leaves no room to doubt that he points at the conductors of the Advocate. He says,

“I do not charge them, so much with materialism, as with an absolute vacuity. I do not allege that they have a bad meaning, but they have no settled meaning at all. They do not understand themselves.”

We give not these statements for the purpose of replying to them, but merely to show Prof. R.’s state of mind. It is singular that while men are dying under the influence of the Professor’s system, they make such terrible exertions to drag others down with them. It may become our duty to notice Prof. R. personally before we are done with the case; but our purpose, at present, is to give all who may desire it as clear a view of his moral standpoint as possible.

3d.

Prof. Richardson quotes several extracts from the Gospel Advocate to prove, as he says, we teach, “that the word, indeed, is regarded as being itself the Spirit.” Such a statement from Prof. R. is indeed surprising; but we feel that he is not of us. We have heard such things to be sure from partisans, but such language we do not recollect to have seen from a professed disciple of Jesus Christ. Why does not Prof. R. take Brother Campbell’s teaching in hand? His language is stronger even in the June number of the Harbinger than any we recollect in the Advocate.

Is it possible that Prof. R. really thinks that we believe the Holy Spirit and the word of God are identical? Such a thought never entered our heart, and the quotations from Professors Lipscomb and Carmack justify no such a conclusion.

The Holy Spirit we have always taught is the Advocate—God’s agent to call us to our Father; but this it does through the living oracles, the church and influences therewith connected. It is true, we have never been able to find any authority for believing that the Spirit, without words—the means of approaching the soul through the understanding—has convinced any one of sin or converted a rebel to God.

The Spirit has visited no heathen nation in his converting power—has turned no one from darkness to light, and has borne witness to no one that he is an heir of God and joint heir with Christ, without the living word. But as to the manner of the Spirit’s influence through the gospel and means ordained, we have no information further than the statement of Paul, that the Spirit is ministered by…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Hearing of faith, and, therefore, we aspire to no speculations on the subject. As we have always believed and taught, it is the rejoicing of Christians that they have the Spirit of Christ bearing witness to their spirits, that they are heirs to an inheritance above. As intimated, Bro. Campbell expresses our views quite plainly. In the June number of the Harbinger, he says,

“The Spirit in regeneration never dispenses with the word. He is always working in, through and by the word on the understanding, the conscience, the heart, the affections of men.”

He adds,

“The metaphysicians, the abstract, speculative doctors are of necessity abstractionists. No man can live on Alcohol. Where no word, no vision is, the people perish.”

But we need no more.

The Doctor says, our “whole object is to show that the word is the Spirit,” and asks, “If his friends in Tennessee have really come to this conclusion, and disbelieve in the efficacy of prayer for the conversion of sinners, and the actual indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of Christians?”

To these enquiries we promptly reply.

First. If Prof. Richardson would quote any “random” full page from either of the writers he has seen proper to notice, on the subject of converting power, he could but perceive the charge, that we make the word the Spirit of God, is without the shadow of a foundation. We repeat that this effort astonishes us.

Regarding the indwelling of the Spirit we state, that we are as well satisfied that the Spirit of God dwells, really and truly, in the body of Christ, and in every branch of the heavenly family, as we are that there is a spirit in the body of man, or that sap is the life in the vine.

In reference to the intimation regarding “the efficacy of prayer for the conversion of sinners,” which the Professor supposes we deny, we can but express still greater surprise. As intimated in a previous number, while at Bethany, in February, the chief sister of the place informed us that she had learned by letters from Missouri that Mr. Russell was engaged with the denominations in praying at the mourner’s bench for God to forgive aliens, but, really, we were not expecting the advocation of the practice by Prof. R.

But we have it before us. We scarcely know whether to make a reply. A suggestion or two must suffice.

While prayer is the constant exercise of the Christian heart, it is possible to pray, as the Apostle says, “amiss!” We are authorized as Christians to pray for each other, and Paul writes,

“I exhort therefore that:

First of all, supplications, prayers,

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings and for all that are in authority; not that God would convert them, but that the saints might, “lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”

Christ said, “I pray not for the world, but for them who shall believe on me through their word.” God has done so much for the world in the gift of his Son, in the rich provisions of the Gospel, in the exceedingly great and precious promises regarding the future; and, moreover, has sent out so many zealous messengers to pray the world to be reconciled to him through his Son, that really we would be at a loss to know what more to ask the Lord to do for the conversion of sinners.

We are aware that the system is developing itself in the two Professors with whom we have had to do, that the gospel means of salvation are quite inadequate, and we are to expect much greater developments. Hence even Prof. Milligan says, “Let us not cherish the delusion, that this great moral revolution will be effected by the word of the Lord alone. The world will never be regenerated by such cold and lifeless speculations.”

When men give up the Holy Oracles as “cold and lifeless speculations,” not adequate for the conversion of the nations: it is not to be wondered at, that they invoke other powers for help.

While, however, we hold the Gospel is God’s power to the salvation of all who believe it, our labor should be to preach it zealously, and pray our fellow mortals to be reconciled to God. Our Father in heaven is ready, willing and waiting to be gracious to the last, and the Savior says; “Come unto me all you that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls.”

Our want of space, however, forbids us noticing all the points.

Prof. Richardson has said in his fifth essay, and therefore, we will employ the balance of our space in presenting a fuller statement of the Doctor’s theory. Without the least inclination to boast, we respectfully suggest that for many years we have been necessarily compelled to examine the pretended philosophy of the age, and we rejoice to be assured that we not only know what it is, but we believe we can make so plain a statement of it that all who desire may see it.

In the first place, however, it becomes our duty to give a brief notice of the effort of Prof. R. to make us a disciple of John Locke, and to convert our belief in Jesus, through the words of the apostles, into a system of sensualistic materialism. It is proper to say that the Professor is sufficiently compassionate as “not to charge us so much with…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 207

Materialism and with an absolute vacuum. We beg permission to say to Prof. R. that we are scarcely willing to claim any commiseration on the ground of our ignorance. We profess not to know mysteries, but we think it in our power to give his religious stand-point.

We feel no disposition to defend men, and therefore we care not to become the apologist for Mr. Locke’s philosophy. Prof. R., though, does great injustice to Mr. Locke. He quotes a passage to prove that Mr. Locke taught, that mind or spiritual being might be, after all, a mere modification of matter, that might produce all the phenomena of thought. The reader will be surprised to hear Mr. Locke answer for himself.

He was speaking of the power of thinking and said, “The soul is agreed, and all men, to be that which thinks,” and adds, “that God can, if he pleases, superadd to matter a faculty of thinking.” His statement is, that mind alone thinks, but it is in God’s power to organize matter to think. Prof. R. may regard our teaching as he says, “Antagonistic to every thing spiritual in religion.” “It is mere nominalism,” he says. “The tendency is to scout every thing spiritual and not material.” “It carnalizes every thing spiritual,” etc., etc.

The reader may justly ask, what is the meaning of these sweeping and unqualified charges against the Editors of the Gospel Advocate? Prof. R. answered this question in the May number of the Harbinger. He says, President Campbell maintains the proposition:

That man is incapable of learning the being and attributes of God from the works of nature. This is our first sin.
That he is incapable of deriving knowledge from his own inward spiritual nature. Our second sin of ignorance.
For his conception of spiritual things, he is wholly dependent upon revelation; that is, upon words of divine communications addressed to the bodily senses. That we teach man to trust in God through the truth, is our third and greatest sin.

This is Prof. R.’s exposition of our supposed dangerous seminality and materialism. Without attempting to answer these grave charges, we ask the brethren if these are not the things President Campbell has taught for the past quarter of a century? The brethren have all taught, that we are not to look to external nature, or to the self-consciousness for spiritual light, but to the revelations of God in the blessed Bible alone.

On this broad foundation we still stand, though we will hear all that may be said in opposition to it. But on this point Prof. R. has betrayed himself: He has shown who his real teachers are. He quotes Victor Cousin, the scoffing idealist as conclusive authority.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Against Locke

We are glad to reach the point from which we can examine Prof. R.’s system in a manner that will admit of no dispute. He must permit Cousin’s translator to explain the criminal empiricism of Locke. He says, as a philosophical term, it is held in no invidious sense, but rather to designate a system which makes experience the exclusive source of knowledge. This is the Baconian spectacle of investigating truth.

Again: sensationalism, in philosophical language, is taken in no bad sense. Some French philosophers reduced reflection as a source of knowledge and analyzed all human ideas into sensation as their sole principle. Hence the term sensationalism, to distinguish it from the empiricism of Locke. Thus Prof. R. will please observe in his use of empiricism and sensationalism, that the former is applicable to Locke’s teaching, because he maintained that knowledge is from sensation and reflection; and the latter to some of the French speculators, in consequence of deriving knowledge, as they supposed, from sensation alone.

Cousin’s most merciless charge upon Locke is, “That he firmly believes in revelation and Christianity.” Again he says, “If the immortality of the soul is solely grounded upon the promise of God, who is to be believed upon his word, that is, the Christian revelation, it conforms the human race to materialism pernicious to Christianity.” So then the crime of Locke consists in believing in God and immortality through the revelations in the Bible, instead of “the universal and perpetual revelation of reason,” as Cousin calls it.

That the brethren and Prof. Richardson may be reminded of our religious position before completing our statement of the New Theology, we may freely declare:

That we do not believe it is in man that worketh to direct his steps, either at the outset or from “self-consciousness,” or external nature, as Prof. R. maintains.
We contend that we are to depend upon the revelations in the Bible for our belief in things invisible, or in better style, that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Now, reader, we are prepared not only to show what Prof. Richardson’s system is, but we also feel it our duty to show from whom he received it. Not that we assert that he has read all the authors we may quote, but he has admitted the authority of one of them in opposition to Locke, and they all touch the same thing. From two points of observation we may be enabled to survey Dr. R.’s whole system.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

209

He repudiates, as useless, the understanding in the investigation of spiritual truth.
He adopts the old heathen doctrine of direct spiritual knowledge, by something he calls his self-consciousness. We quote but few words to establish the truth of our statements. He says, “The scriptures themselves do not reveal truths to him who relies upon his method of knowing.” “The understanding must comprehend a single scriptural fact.” “But it is the spirit itself that can perceive the truth spiritually.” “The direct knowledge (consciousness) is itself to our higher spiritual nature.”

We will notice a few authors in order to show the full import of these things.

1st. Victor Cousin, Prof. E.’s first authority, states the a priori dogma, which is identical with his “self-conscious” knowledge, thus: “I may neglect the external world and fall back upon myself in the entire interior world of consciousness; and even there I may derive from reason a single idea, which becomes the basis of a demonstration of the existence of God.” Further, he says, “The idea of God is a primitive idea.” This system he denominates “Modern Spiritualism.” Again he says, “I unfolded the fact, instantaneous but real, of the spontaneous perception of truth, a perception which passes into the inner consciousness, and becomes a necessary conception.” The reader can have no doubt as to the identity of the teaching. Victor Cousin is not a believer in revelation or a friend to Christianity.

F. W. Newman, a despiser of the Bible, says, “The soul is the specific sense in which we come into contact with God.” “No book can teach us, if our hearts do it not.” “The spirit within is the real guide, and not the text any more than the scriptural example.” “A book revelation is impossible.” “An instinct of the soul is higher than all law.” Dr. Richardson calls it “the higher law of our nature.” Mr. Newman says, “The instinct is God’s provision for the progress of the moral sentiment.” The teaching is still the same.
Henry James. Prof. R. informs us that truth is “beyond and above the outward forms,” and we are not “to trust to words alone.” That Henry James is bold enough to place this doctrine in a satisfactory light. He informs his readers that “the letter,” as he calls the word of God, “is the rudest and most perilous husk of the Spirit, and is the only enemy the spirit knows.” “The letter of a law must be seen to be intrinsically sterile and worthless, before we can do the least.”

210

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

honor to its spirit. The longer we preserve the shell of a nut the
greater the damage to the kernel.

Still Henry James states the difference between the Christian religion and modern animal impulses in a clear manner.

He says, “The Natural theologian”—Prof. R. defends Natural Theology—”contends that we know God’s character sufficiently by the light of nature, to understand our duties towards him. The advocates of revealed religion, on the other hand, maintain that some additional light is needed to instruct us.”

He says our knowledge of spiritual matters is all “from within.” This is equivalent to Dr. R.’s direct perception of the spirit.

Theodore Parker advocates the “intuitive knowledge of God,” and speaks of making the Bible “an idol.” Prof. R. and J. B. Ferguson speak of personal glorying in the “letter.” Parker says, “Conscience remains; God’s voice is nature, his word in the soul.” “We have the standard,” he adds, “of Moses, David, Socrates, Zoroaster, Paul, John and Luther.”

“It takes nothing from the Bible,” he adds, “but its errors.” “He calls us from the outward letter to the living word within.” He is as good a “higher law” man politically, as Dr. Richardson is religiously.

David Frederick Strouss, the apostle of modern infidelity in Germany, says, “I have the mind that goes beyond the sensible history,” (or as Prof. R. says, “The things sensible, external, and historical—the mere machinery of religion—a mere mechanical affair,) and entered into the domain of the absolute, the former (the history) ceases to be essential.”

This is the direct perception of Prof. H., and in the speculative world is known as “Transcendental philosophy.” Theodore Parker calls it “absolute knowledge.”

We have made these extracts in order that all who are concerned may know Prof. R.’s teachers. No form of infidelity has exerted so pernicious an influence. It professes a direct spiritualism, claims the authority of philosophy, and its advocates affect a haughtiness that is insufferable.

We still defer the discussion of the merits of the system. When the brethren see what it is, the discussion of the matter will not be difficult.

T. FANNING.

Baltimore, June 2, 1851.

Bro. Fanning: The May number of “The Gospel Advocate” is at hand, containing my communication of the 9th of March, upon the Scriptural Propriety of the State or other Co-operation Associations.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

211

for the spread of the Gospel, and your brief reply to my interrogations.

In a previous communication you say, that “It will be for the brethren to decide the question as to the utility of such organizations to keep the church alive.” So far as I know, no person has ever advocated such co-operations for the purpose of “keeping the church alive.” Do you know of any, Bro. F.?

They have been advocated as necessary to the increase of the number to be saved. In speaking of such associations, you say, that “all sects declare their creeds compatible with the spirit of the New Testament.” Who has heard of any State meeting making a creed? Do you consider an agreement made by the messengers of churches, and approved by their congregations, purely in reference to the preaching of Christ, either among congregations or otherwise, to be the work of creed making, when there is not one article of faith embraced in the agreement?
In answer to your statement above, that “It will be well for the churches or brethren to decide the question as to the utility of such organizations to keep the church alive,” I replied, that such a decision had been given by the brethren in the States of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Texas, and I thought Tennessee. To which you reply: “It is singular to hear a teacher of Christianity refer to State authority to prove that a principle is good.” You have made a sad mistake when you say, that I have referred to State authority for any such purpose. I only referred you to the action of those States in order to show that they had decided the very question which you say it will be well to decide. I did not say that their decision was to be received as of divine authority. Right or wrong, however, they have given in their verdict.

I asked this question, “May two or more congregations unite in their means and efforts to send the Gospel to a destitute State or Nation?” You reply, “Yes.”

“If so, state the authority of the apostles for such a co-operation.” Your proof, you say, will be found in 2 Cor. viii, 10. “And we have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches: and not that only, but who was chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, (our gift or contribution,) which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind; avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

It must be admitted that the churches did co-operate in both the contribution for the poor saints, and in the selection of a messenger to accompany Paul and Titus to Jerusalem; (who was probably Doctor Luke); but can it be fairly argued that this case is justly applicable to the work of evangelizing by them as congregations? In the 19th chapter of this first letter Paul charges the church at Corinth, that they lay by upon the first day of the week such an amount as they were willing to give for the poor at Jerusalem, and that when he should visit them, “whosoever they should approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality to Jerusalem.”

The work of gathering the contributions was evidently by the direction of Paul and Titus, and not by the action of any one congregation. If you say that such actions apply equally to all cases of co-operation, some difficulties must first be removed in order to my conviction. Let us admit that ten or one hundred congregations unite in an evangelical effort to send the gospel to the destitute, either at home or abroad, and for this purpose it is important that a conference be had upon all the premises. How then can such a conference be obtained? Must this be done by a general mass meeting of all the congregations, or by their messengers? Who shall collect the men and means necessary for such efforts, and how shall the general objects of such an agreement be accomplished? It will not do to refer to Cor. viii, 19, for the details.

We cannot see what you think is to be seen. There is not one case of church co-operation to be found in the New Testament for evangelizing as far as I can see, and it devolves upon you and those adopting your views to furnish one if you can. A divine model for such a co-operation appears to me to be wholly unnecessary. Neither the Council at Jerusalem, or the sending out of Paul and Barnabas by the Spirit and Prophets at Antioch can be plead as a warrant. The love of God must ever be the moving cause of all such efforts; and the general tenor of the Spirit’s teaching the foundation or guide in all such cases.

The word of God must be translated, printed, bound, and circulated by the church, because she is the ground and support of the truth.

But how can this be done without a conventional arrangement? And who would ever think of asking for divine authority for so doing; and a model by which to work by? You say, “Send the gospel into all the world, and when the church is not able to send a messenger let her ask the aid of others?” Brother Thompson, of Louisville, seems dis…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Proposed to complain that the churches both in Kentucky and Missouri are unwilling to give their money to him as agent of the Louisville congregation in order to send an Evangelist to England; but has that or any other congregation to appoint agents to collect money for any such purpose without first obtaining their consent to such work? Where is to be found a precedent for it? Would you give your money to such agents and churches without first being advised of the wisdom and propriety of such movements? All such efforts will fail. No one congregation can assume such a position and hope for success. What guarantee have they that the church will pursue the course most approved by them? Whatever the churches do advisedly by their messengers upon any subject, they will be held to do by their own act, and it is not in my power to see how such a co-operation can be judiciously gotten up, and controlled without such messengers.

The State meeting of Kentucky claims no authority over any congregation, nor do they exercise any control over any evangelist farther than to direct him to the proper field of labor, connected with such other objects as belong exclusively to the work of their voluntary agents. No church is bound either to send money or messengers, and consequently it can have no existence or executive rule only as they are pleased to give it. It is, therefore, purely a creature of their making; and I give it as my deliberate judgment, that without cooperative efforts our progress must continue comparatively small. Since the organization of the Kentucky State Cooperation a great improvement has been manifesting itself among the brethren. They are learning the spirit of general benevolence, and not to look altogether upon their own things, but upon things or interests of others. A missionary spirit is essential to the vitality of any congregation.

“The Spirit and the Bride say come; and let him that heareth say come; and let him that is athirst say come; and whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely.”

This principle must pervade the whole body of Christ. It is in fact the test of its fellowship with Christ. We want no ritual or special form for such a work, but you think that the use of the word “ritual” is unfortunate. How so? Does it not clearly indicate the correct or proscribed way of doing a thing? We have no such model, nor can I perceive the necessity for such a rule to be given by divine authority, no more than I would feel its necessity in the building of a house of worship. It is the business of parents and husbands to provide for their children and companions, but who can find a ritual for such provision?

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

The principle of duty is clearly defined or given, but the how is left to them. The church must convert the world, because she is the light of the world, and this can only be done by preaching Christ; but all the prudential means for the accomplishment of the work has been left to the good sense of the church.

These are important matters, brother Fanning, and if you can show a better way I hope you will do so. It is important that we seek for unity of action as far as obtainable in all the Master’s interests.

Yours truly,
G. W. ELLEY.

P. S. – Since I last wrote you we have had twenty-four additions to the church. Eight of whom during the past week we have now with us brother John O’Kane, from Indianapolis, who has labored with much acceptance here and at other points where sixteen additions were gained to the church.

G. W. E.

NOTES ON BRO. G. W. ELLEY’S ESSAY REGARDING CO-OPERATION

It occurs to us, that Brother Elley and we are much nearer together than when we began; and we see no good reason for sincere men differing in the least. Perhaps our approaches are owing to a better understanding of each other’s teaching, and more especially to a better understanding of the word of God. It may be necessary, however, to notice a few points in Bro. E.’s remarks.

In regard to our intimation, that some maintain the authority of human institutions to keep the church alive, brother Elley asks, “If we know of any one who advocates such a co-operation?” Bro. E. seems to us to answer his question in his next sentence. He says: “They,” (human institutions – the creations of church members,) “have been advocated as necessary to the increase of the number to be saved.” If the church is the light of the world and the salt of the earth, we should calculate that as a body she is God’s choice for accomplishing all his grand designs in the moral world. If correct, we see no necessity for other bodies to increase the number of the saved. Brother Elley says, “There is not one article of faith” in these agreements. In a previous number we pointed out 10 articles of faith in regard to one institution.
Bro. E., in the second place, makes some very good suggestions indeed in reference to the cooperation of the churches in ancient times, in “choosing messengers and sending contributions;” but, finally, defies us to show authority for “one case of church cooperation for evangelism.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 215

“politely.”
Bro. E. has not understood us. We never admitted the right of several churches agreeing to make evangelists, or even of colleges, or certain officers of co-operations doing so. The only body on earth authorized to educate, ordain and commission an evangelist is the church of Jesus Christ. Even the practice of calling in evangelists and members of other churches to ordain ministers of the word, is utterly subversive of the order of the New Testament.

But, if we are not very much mistaken, we can show most clearly church co-operation for evangelizing purposes. As stated, each church in the apostolic age commissioned her own evangelists, and sent them forth into the world to preach, plant churches, put in order the things wanting in the respective congregations, and in fact to exercise a watchful care over them.

Regarding the support of evangelists, the church which sent them was bound by every consideration of duty to God and man to supply their individual wants, and make provision for their families; but the churches planted by the evangelists and congregations for which they labored, were also specially bound to give them food and raiment, with every needed comfort for their families. Paul was recommended by the church at Antioch, and no doubt received help from it, yet he said to the Corinthians, “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.” (2 Cor. xi, 8.) Paul gives a general rule in reference to church co-operation in evangelizing. He says, “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their (the Jewish Christians,) spiritual things, their duty also is to minister to them in carnal things.” (Rom. xv, 24.)

One other passage will give all the light required. Paul was not a member of the congregation at Philippi, but he planted it, preserved it in the faith, and received aid from it in his evangelizing labors. He said, “Even in Thessalonica, ye sent once and again to my necessity. Not because I desire a gift, but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.”

From these scriptures we learn that evangelists were assisted by the congregations wherever they labored; and in this view there was, in fact, co-operation by the churches in evangelizing. To be sure there were no written rules of agreement or of confederation, or articles of faith regulating this co-operative labor; but upon the principle that “The ox that treadeth out the corn” is not to be muzzled, an authoritative and safely. The churches should recommend their ministers for the work of evangelists, and they who are able to accomplish the work of the Lord should have the support of the brethren wherever they labor, but such as upon trial should not prove the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

selves skilful workmen, should not have reward of the brethren, and indeed, should not be encouraged in the gospel field. Nine times out of ten the preachers who complain at the brethren because they do not support them, do not deserve it. Our candid judgment is, that every teacher who performs his duty faithfully to the world, the church and the brethren, will lack for no good thing. The Lord will put it into the hearts of the saints to sustain him. John T. Johnson always had enough and to spare. He worked for the Lord, and his Master was not unmindful of his wants. The same may be affirmed of all true ministers. From this very full statement, we flatter ourselves that we are more inclined to encourage co-operation than Brother Elley. The difference seems to consist in a necessity on his part, to create bodies for co-operative purposes not known in the Bible; and which, in our judgment, are not only needless but well calculated to obstruct the operations of the churches by engaging to perform their labor.

3. Brother Elley’s enquiry as to the manner of publishing and circulating the Bible

We answer in a few words. We have examples in the New Testament of messengers of the churches carrying out the operations of the various congregations, and we see no difficulty whatever in any number of churches agreeing to translate or revise and publish the scriptures, hymns chosen by the churches for the purpose, just as messengers were selected to bear the contributions “into Judea.”

Brother Elley asks, “What right has the congregation at Louisville to appoint agents to collect money for sending evangelists to England, without first obtaining the consent of the congregations?” We answer, that the Louisville Congregation and Messenger are wrong in every particular, except the first step. The brethren at Louisville in a most praiseworthy manner, proposed to encourage the sending of a few Evangelists to England; but instead of consulting the congregations with the view of securing a large co-operation, sent Bro. Thompson through the country to collect funds for the Louisville church to appropriate. This error well nigh obstructs all cooperation, and makes it mainly the work of a single congregation. In this particular, the church at Louisville, regarding the labor of sending preachers to England, occupies precisely the ground of the Missionary Society of Cincinnati, and the State Cooperation at Lexington. The officers of these respective bodies say to the churches and the brethren, “We have a noble enterprise in view, and if you will send us your money, we will wisely appropriate it, and publish our proceedings in the papers and tell all the world what each member does.” This is a

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

217

Fair translation of the matter. We say still, that there is a scriptural plan for such labor. If the church at Louisville will send competent members to England as Evangelists, and ask any number of churches in Ky. or elsewhere, to consider the magnitude of the service, and cooperate in their own way, we hesitate not to say, that the Louisville missionary’s wants would be liberally supplied, as they would make them known to the respective congregations agreeing to carry out the good work. In this manner, another congregation in Ky., and still another might send successful ministers abroad, and have them well sustained. But each church must be left free to perform her own duty at her own time and in her own way. But on this plan the active energies of the respective congregations are called forth, and success is made sure.

Our want of space forbids further details at present.
T. F.

VISIT TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, NEAR CASTALIAN SPRINGS, SUMNER CO., TENN. – DEDICATION, CONSECRATION AND SANCTIFICATION BY BLOOD ONLY.

There are occasions when it is proper to notice the good works of brethren, for the encouragement of others to do likewise. It is known by many that for many years there has been a congregation of disciples a few miles east of Gallatin in the county of Sumner. It was planted on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, and whilst the brethren performed their own service, they were certainly a spiritual people.

For some considerable time the disciples could boast of quite a large proportion of their number who were able to communicate one another. We may mention among other Bro.’s Peter Hubbard, Dr. D. W. Mentlo, Willis Dush, Albert G. Branham, Carroll Kendrick, Page Parker, etc., but Bro.’s Hubbard, Dush and Parker are no more, Bro. Kendrick is in Texas holding still for the truth, our fundamental Bro. Branham has gone into modern spiritualism, and others have almost let the cares of the world, the deceitfulness of riches and the lust of other things choke the word. Yet there is good material in that section—none better. It is one of the fairest sections of God’s beautiful earth, and the population will compare favorably with any other of the country. Years ago, the brethren were inclined to hire out their worship—and if we are not mistaken it was taken to a great extent, by a family of preachers, who…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

brought much reproach on the cause in Tennessee. These are our conclusions, we care not to discuss and we are not inclined to say anything which should produce the least unkindness even in our bitterest enemies, with such as have even threatened our personal safety for years.

Suffice it to say that through this influence, universalism, latitudinarianism, modern spiritualism, strife, debates, backbiting, and much that is disagreeable to mention, got amongst the brethren. The effect has been to forever blast the religious prospects and hopes of some who were once regarded as pillars in the church of God. Not only has all Christian love fled from these members, but even the friendship that once existed as citizens has been disturbed. A few months ago, however, a few of the brethren determined to arouse themselves to greater effort, and the first work attempted was the removal of the old meeting house from an almost inaccessible point, and its erection into a new, commodious and beautiful room, on the turnpike road near Bledsoe’s Creek, at one of the most handsome and convenient sites for the purposes known to us.

Perhaps it is not wise to mention the names of brethren who have been active in this labor, but the impression rests upon us that brethren Dr. Bush and J. Harlow have been efficient, but we heard no complaint against any, and we believe all the beloved members saved from the wreck, were not only zealous in the work, but now rejoice in having the conveniences of worship. It is but an act of justice to say, that the godly women of the neighborhood took no small interest in arranging an attractive place for the meeting of the saints.

It was our good fortune to be called to the opening of the house, on Saturday and Lord’s day the 16th and 17th of May, 1857. We delivered two discourses on Saturday and buried two determined souls with the Lord in baptism, and preached on Lord’s day to as intelligent and well disposed an audience, in our judgment, as we could wish to see. We left on Lord’s day afternoon with regret, but should we be spared, we will return; and if the brethren will now keep house for God, he will send them many angels to minister the bread of life to their neighbors and children. We hope it will not be out of place to say that in obedience to expectations created by denominational influence, we delivered a discourse on Lord’s day forenoon on

DEDICATION

We endeavored to make the following points, viz:

To dedicate, is to consecrate, devote and separate for a special purpose.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

219

In the year of the world 2514, and B. Christ 1490 years, God ordered Moses “To anoint the Tabernacle, and hallow (dedicate) it with the promise that it should be holy.” (Ex. xl. 9.)
This is the first dedication of a house or tabernacle for the worship of Jehovah.
Solomon built a house or temple for God, which was finished 1004 years before Christ and was dedicated by sacrificing “Two and twenty thousand oxen; and one hundred and twenty thousand sheep.” (1 Kings viii, 63.)
The furniture of this house of God remained undisturbed only 33 years. Shishak, king of Egypt, pillaged the temple and took away the most valuable articles.
It was utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar 588 years before Christ. (2 Chron. xxxvi, 19.)
This temple was rebuilt by the order of Cyrus, king of Persia, after laying in ruins 52 years; Zerubbabel was the chief director. It was dedicated by the children of Israel, the priests, and Levites 519 years before Christ.
“They offered at the dedication of the house of God, a hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin-offering for all Israel, twelve he-goats.” (Ezra vi, 16-20.)
There cannot be a remaining doubt that the tabernacle and the temple prefigured the temple of Jesus Christ or church of God under the new dispensation.
The dedications also pointed to the consecration of the spiritual temple.

It is proper to state that the consecration of the temple was not an idle ceremony or meaningless ordinance. In the temple, the name of Jehovah was inscribed, and He could be approached only through His name.
Hence David prayed, looking towards Jerusalem, and was heard, in that he called upon the name of his God where it was written.
From this idea, the Samaritans, and even the heathen, received the impression that worship was acceptable only through certain consecrated houses and places. Hence also the notion amongst religious people, even of our own times, is that houses and grounds can and should of right be consecrated to God. What is more common than for persons to speak of “the house of God,” “the sacred desk,” meaning a structure of wood, stone, or earth, and a platform or box, from which the orator deals out his philosophy.

A few quotations from the New Covenant will best explain our views.
The woman at Samaria said to our Lord, “Our fathers worshipped…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

In this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John iv, 20-25.)

Christians are called, “The temple of God.” (1 Cor. iii. 16.) “Living stones, a Spiritual house, and a holy priesthood.” (1 Pet. ii. 5.) Consequently, the practice of calling a house, the temple or church of God is out of the question, and the idea of dedicating brick and mortar to God is foreign from the teachings of the Spirit.

To be sure, we are in favor of neat and comfortable houses in which to worship our Father; but the disciples of Christ as congregations constitute His church, and the churches of the Redeemer, constitute the grand temple of the Almighty.

We have noticed that the temple of Solomon was dedicated by blood, and the temple of God now is, and must be sanctified by the blood of the Lamb slain for sinners.

The Apostle says, “We are come to Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to the general assembly and the church of the firstborn who are written in heaven, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel.” (Heb. xii. 22-24.)

Again he says, “We (Christians) have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Let us go forth, therefore, to him without the camp, for here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come. By him, therefore, let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name.” (Heb. xiii: 10-15.)

In our consecration we are all made kings and priests to God, and have the unalienable right to offer our own sacrifices to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. The idea of human priests to sacrifice for the people has contributed much to the notion that dedicated temples or houses are necessary. The theory is wrong, for the idea of dedicating a house, man or thing without blood, is certainly mere solemn mockery of the true consecration of the temple.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

221

The people of God by the blood of Christ in the hearts of members. This blood reaches us through the appointments of the New Testament, sealed with the precious blood of Christ.
T. F.

TO EDITORS OF PERIODICALS AND PAPERS DEVOTED TO THE CAUSE OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Dear Brethren:—Think us not presuming for addressing a few words to you upon the momentous responsibilities resting upon us as writers in reference to the cause that cost the richest treasure of heaven. To some extent we are the teachers of a great people, and upon us, to a very considerable extent, depends the prosperity of our Lord’s cause in our generation.

Should we teach the truth, the people will rejoice in it, but should we promulge speculations for the will of God, the brethren will be blinded under their influence; disunion and strife will ensue, and moral death will blight all our fairest prospects as the disciples of Jesus Christ.

The first important point with us should be, if possible, to understand each other. We had thought, brethren, that we could harmoniously plead the authority and spiritual value of the new institution; but never were men further apart than some of us seem to be. What is the cause of this? Are the creeds of the denominations better calculated to bind men together than the platform of Christ and the Apostles? Or is it true, as has long been charged upon us, that we have no standard in religion, and in fact believe nothing?

We had fondly thought that the scriptures of truth constitute a perfect rule of life for Christians, and that all who believe could walk together in love. Have we been mistaken? Are the scriptures not sufficient? And must we admit that all the labor that has been performed by our veteran brethren in the last half century is in vain?

We have been led to make these enquiries from the fact, that several of our editorial brethren have recently thrust most poisonous darts at us for denying Christian fellowship to certain teachers who would move heaven and earth if possible to satisfy the brethren, since inspiration is “transmissible,” and is not confined, as we had thought, to the writers of the Bible.

We give a single example in order that the brethren may see our idea clearly. In the Christian Scientist, conducted by brethren O. A. Burgess, J. N. Carmon and John Lindsey, at Peoria, Ill., we find an…

222

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Essay on the “Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” taking the ground that “there is a higher reason in the soul, spontaneous, giving all manifestations—the elements of thought, which elements are universal and necessary and have their cause in the higher intelligence,” and we are to be responsible alone to the “higher laws of our being which are the laws of God.”

We state, in much kindness, that all men who believe the Bible and are acquainted with this pompous, shallow declamation, are aware it is stolen from some of our “higher law” politicians and European rejecters of God and the Bible, and is, indeed, the most cunning, and yet the most glaring, insidious and damning form of infidelity of our times. Our main purpose, though, is not to examine this unblushingly animal philosophy, but to call attention to the course of some of our editors.

The editor of the Sentinel calls special attention to the essay, and says, “It is the first of a series which we trust no reader of the Sentinel will pass by because of the somewhat abstruse nature of the essay; but if any are unwilling to do laborious thinking, they might as well not be here. The subject demands a philosophic treatment, and such essays are more appropriate in some heavy quarterly; yet as a people, we see we have not yet attained to that order of literature, but we deem it better that a little extra ‘strong meat’ should go forth in our monthlies than that such discussion should be untouched.”

The first point with the editor, it seems to us, is to degrade the brethren in their own estimation, by attempting to convince them that they “have not attained to that order of literature”—what have our old writers been doing for the past fifty years? Secondly, the editor wishes to satisfy the ignorant disciples that they must content themselves with a “little strong meat” in our monthlies, from these young teachers of an empty, vain, deceitful and infidel philosophy.

Above all, the editor desires to impress his readers with the idea that so far, little has been done by us, but now we have a different order of philosophic thinkers—who will be able to lift us from the literal world. The outward “persistence” of J. B. Ferguson, “outward forms” of Prof. Richardson, to “the larger, ‘romantic’ reason,” to “the intuitive reason or conscience” of the correspondent of the Sentinel.

We respectfully suggest, that most of the religious periodicals among us have not only published articles of this class for a year or two, without expressing the slightest dissent, but in circumstances to lead us to the belief, that the editors heartily approve of the teaching. Have you, brethren, carefully examined the subject, and have you determined to adopt the direct, “self-conscious” knowledge? We hold

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

223

Ourselves responsible to prove, in any way that may be desired, that no one can maintain the authority of intuitive knowledge without rejecting the Sacred Oracles. We wish to be entirely respectful; but we believe the time has arrived for taking our position in reference to this heartless paganism under the imposing style of modern spiritualism. We have more sensibly felt its ruinous effects in this section than in any other, and we feel that it is a sacred duty resting upon us to do what little may be in our power to resist its influence. Christianity is as incapable of making a compromise with it, as it was when attempted by Scotus Erigena, in the ninth, or St. Anselm in the eleventh century. No sentiment in modern direct spiritualism can be tolerated without a sacrifice of the spiritual teaching of the Scriptures. As to the final result of the present controversy we cannot be mistaken; but we pray the brethren to say plainly whether they are still for the authority of Christ and the apostles or the vain and deceitful philosophy of the age.

T. F.

SPIRIT OF CONTROVERSY

DEAR BROTHER FANNING:—In the June number of the Gospel Advocate, just received by me, I have read closely and with painful interest the critique upon you, by Prof. Richardson of Bethany College, extracted by you from the Millennial Harbinger; and I must confess that I have felt deeply mortified and pained both at the spirit and matter of his article.

While I regard the latter as containing sentiments at war with the teachings of the Bible, I look upon the former as inconsistent with that spirit of love and brotherly kindness which characterizes the gospel of Christ, and which it is calculated to produce. The exhibition of such a spirit and temper of mind in a brother seems to furnish proof of erroneous conceptions, and that obliquity of mind which results from them. Such should ever be our conduct, lives and intercourse with each other, that it may be said of us as was said of the primitive disciples of Christ: “See how these Christians love one another.”

And I am sorry to say that I cannot reconcile with the foregoing such expressions as the following, made use of by our brother R., of Bethany, in reference to yourself:

“The oldest things in Christianity are indeed, in these days of apostasy, often the greatest novelties.” But I do not blame Bro. Fanning for not discovering any of them, as I do not doubt that if it had…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

pleased God to bestow upon him the gift of discovering new things, he would have employed it. Certainly, I am confident that his failure to present anything of this nature to the brethren, has not proceeded from the fact that he has long since exhausted the treasury of divine truth, or that there is no longer anything new to be learned from the Holy Scriptures.

And then speaking of certain declarations made by you—”entailing as they do from the President of Franklin College, and being, as we have every reason to believe, his sincere convictions, they will receive all the consideration to which they are entitled.”

And lastly, and which is the worst and most insulting of all the article: “Surely, then, unless President F. thinks incorrectly or not at all, it must be admitted that John Locke is the author of his thinking, and that he is, however unconscious of it, a philosopher of the school of Locke, or what is usually termed a sensationalistic dogmatist.”

The irony, ridicule, satire, and sarcasm, (I cannot say irony,) which can be easily seen running through these extracts, are utterly inconsistent with the character of a disciple of Christ; and are excusable on no ground whatever. The last expression “a sensationalistic dogmatist,” is positively insulting—and the whole article shows a disposition to insult and deride.

The inconsistencies into which Brother R. has somehow been led, are as palpable and strange as the temper and matter of his article. After using the expressions we have quoted from him, how singular and inconsistent does it sound, to hear him say: “For himself (President F.), I personally, I entertain all due respect and kind wishes; and, I trust, I know how to appreciate his zeal and long continued labors in behalf of the Bible, as the only safe guide in religion.”

Can brother R. really believe what he says? And such a man too (as President F.) not having been able to discover any of the “things” of the Christian religion—and pronouncing so decisively on “subjects” and “facts,” with which he has had no time to make himself acquainted! A man of such acknowledged ability, (as President Fanning,) and having done so much for the cause of primitive Christianity; and yet of those who imagine themselves to have entered the most holy place, when they are, may yet, only in the vestibule of the Divine temple. They fancy themselves to be in possession of Christianity in all its fullness, when they have as yet but laid hold of the skirt of its mantle, and they assume the position and authority of teachers when, like some in the apostles’ days, they have need to be taught even the first principles of the oracles of God.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

225

Another inconsistency equally as palpable and glaring: “I would take this occasion,” says Brother R., “to express my concurrence with him [Brother I.] as to the unlawfulness of introducing human philosophy, of any kind, into religion. In this, I am happy to say, we are perfectly agreed. We certainly have no business with human philosophy in religion.” This is admitting, in substance, what President Fanning has been contending for. But, how will this accord with Brother R.’s defence of Natural Theology, which everywhere runs through his article?

Prof. R. endorses the infidel sentiment of Lord Bacon: “Lord Bacon regards the evidences of Revelation as founded upon the previous demonstrations of Natural Theology. The latter,” he says, “is a key to the former, and opens our understanding to the genuine spirit of the scriptures, but also unlocks our belief so that we may enter upon the serious contemplation of that divine power, the characters of which are so deeply graven in the works of the creation.”

We have been led to these remarks, and to make these quotations, in order to give some illustrations of the spirit of controversy, as exhibited among our own brethren; and to show how one man, in assailing the views and opinions of another, may be guilty himself of the very things he condemns, and into what self-contradictions and inconsistencies he may run, in endeavoring to expose another.

And, in conclusion, we would say to the brethren, let us, by all means, avoid controversies among ourselves as much as possible; and when they do happen, let us endeavor to be governed by the spirit of the gospel; and be cautious not to suffer ourselves to be betrayed into a spirit of an opposite character.

SENEX.

TERMS OF PARDON

DEAR BRO. FANNING: – Having given what I consider the teaching of the Bible on the necessary preparation of the heart of a sinner before he is entitled to membership in the church, I now proceed to the second proposition, to-wit: THE LORD HAS ORDAINED BAPTISM AND NOT PRAYER FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. In order to be better understood, we will subdivide the subject into three heads:

The law of Moses on the subject of forgiving sins.
The preaching of John the Baptist, and the law of Christ while on earth; and,
The Acts of Apostles and their Epistles.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

In the law of Moses we learn the first lessons on remission. Moses commanded that “the sinner shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord and unto the priest—a ram without blemish—and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done.” (Lev. vi, 6.) This was a sacrifice, a sin offering, and a burnt offering, and his sins were not forgiven until the last act was done. Prayer constituted no part of these works; for neither sinner nor priest was commanded to pray for this forgiveness.

Preaching of John the Baptist

In order to connect and explain the preaching of John the Baptist and of Christ, we will give the character and office of John the Baptist as detailed by the prophet Isaiah. He said, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” (Isaiah xl, 3.) John acknowledged that “I am that voice.” Highway signifies a public road free for all persons to travel in a lawful way. Thus we understand that John the Baptist was to prepare a public road for our Lord Jesus Christ.

The language of the prophet being figurative, we must infer what is its literal meaning. We understand that it means all that John the Baptist said and did after he commenced his ministry until Christ began to preach. For the purpose thereof of giving a more perfect idea of this road, we will present some of his principles and practice as recorded by the Evangelists.

Evangelist Accounts

Mark says that “John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” And he said, “there cometh one after me mightier than I.” (Mark i, 4 and 7.)
Matthew says that John the Baptist said to the people, “Bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” (Matt. iii, 8.)

John informs us that John the Baptist said, pointing to Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, and that this is the Son of God.” (John i, 29, 34.) Here is what we understand to be this public road, which John the Baptist made for Christ; and it was free for all sinners who chose to travel it on lawful terms from earth to heaven. This road was composed of:

Faith in Jesus, that he was the Christ, the Son of God.
Repentance toward God.
A change of heart, to wit: the bringing forth of fruits meet for repentance.
Baptism for the remission of sins.

Here, as in Moses’ law, prayer constituted no part of the works to be done by the sinner to obtain remission or forgiveness of his sins. Neither mourners nor priest was commanded to pray for it.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

When Christ began to preach he commenced in this road, and preached these same principles as taught by John the Baptist. They both taught the same doctrine and discipline as far as John went. Christ enlarged the road, but did not repeal or change this road. Under John’s ministry both the principles and practice of Moses’ law were changed. John preached a Savior to come, and Christ was the end of Moses’ law to every one that believeth on him. The sinner was now commanded to bring his own body instead of a “ram to the Lord,” and he must bring it to John instead of to the priest, and John made the statement instead of the priest, not by sacrificing of his victim for a sin offering and a burnt offering, but by baptizing him with water for the remission of his sins, once for all time to come, and the last act was performed before the remission of sins took effect.

But we will give some of our Lord’s teaching, that we may see that he traveled the same road that John the Baptist had made for him. He began to preach to the people saying, “Repent and believe the gospel.” (Mark i, 15.)

He said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John iii, 5.) “Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke xiii, 3.) “If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins.” (John …)

And he said that whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. x, 32.) And He made and baptized more disciples than John. (John iv.)

Here is in substance the same principle and practice that John taught. From this we understand that John and Christ were both baptizing in the same country, and at the same time, and Christ making no objections to John’s baptism. We infer from this that Christ or his apostles baptized in the same way, and for the same object that John did, to wit: for the remission of sins. By these declarations of the Savior, we understand that the sinner must believe, repent, confess, and be baptized before he can be saved, and consequently before his sins can be remitted.

And finding no change on record, we presume that this baptism continued to be practiced as long as the Savior remained on the earth, and that sins were not then remitted by means of prayer.

We may learn the principles and practice of the apostles after Christ’s resurrection, and throughout their epistles by the first sermon preached, to-wit: Peter at the day of Pentecost: he said to the sinners,

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts ii, 38.) Here is John’s baptism, except that it was now commanded to be done in the name of Jesus Christ. The object being still the same. Cornelius, his kindred and friends, and all who heard Peter preach at the house of Cornelius, were baptized for the same purpose, to-wit, for the remission of their sins; to remit the name sinner and take the name disciple or Christian as a door through Christ into the kingdom of God, and to give them an inheritance in heaven, and a token that they would from henceforth walk in newness of life. Acts 2:38.

This appears to have been the design of baptism; as long as the apostles remained upon the earth we find no alteration. Sins were not in those days forgiven by means of the prayers of the mourners or priests, but by baptism. But this principle and practice is at the present day different with many people. Some of our friends, who are teachers, are telling mourners to pray to God to forgive their sins, and the teachers themselves pray to God to forgive these mourners their sins. Thus putting prayer in place of submission to Christ. We would be glad to be informed when, and where and by what authority this change was made.

“If any man be a worshipper of God and doeth his will,” he should “pray without ceasing;” prayer being as necessary to the happiness of the soul of a Christian as bread is for his body. But the Lord Jesus and his apostles did not direct sinners to work in this way to obtain the forgiveness of their sins.

JAMES YOUNG.

Remarks: Paul prayed before he was baptized or pardoned, and his prayer was heard. His prayer was, “Lord what wilt thou have me to do.” Jesus did not, and could not consistently answer it, for the work of reconciliation he had given to the apostles; but Ananias was sent to answer it. This he did in exhorting Saul to “Arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts xxii, 16.) Prayer should never be separated from obedience.
T. F.

IS THE WORD THE SPIRIT OF GOD?

Prof. R. Richardson attempts to show that I have taught the identity of the word and Spirit of God. The following are my words: “There are but two ways in which the Spirit has been known to act in the accomplishment of its mission under the new reign:
“`

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

229

By immediate and miraculous agency, the objects of which were to teach truth by direct inspiration, and to confer miraculous powers in confirmation of its testimony.
Mediately through the gospel, which it gave and sanctioned as “the power of God unto salvation.”

The miraculous manifestations of the Spirit were known only in the primitive, creative age of the church; and I unhesitatingly affirm the proposition, that

The Spirit of God now acts upon the hearts of the children of men only through the word of truth.

Prof. R., of course, takes the opposite ground. He must maintain (just as we suspected months ago) that the Spirit of God exerts an influence upon the heart otherwise than through the word addressed to the understanding. At whose door then, I ask, lies the sin of heresy? Who has proved recreant to the advocacy of the ancient Gospel?

I regret to see that the style of Prof. R. manifests too much of the spirit of the religious controversies of the day. He has made an effort to be very severe upon that class of professed advocates of the “plea for the Scriptures,” of which he has seen fit to publish us as examples. He assumes to dogmatize with reference to the teaching of the “present reformation,” denouncing our advocacy of the authority and efficiency of the Scriptures, as “an unwarranted, pretentious allusion, a blind, unreasoning partiality,” etc.

We have only to say to him that we think we understand the matter perfectly. We have no need of consulting a new oracle to learn what the principles and practices which the brethren have always maintained; and we are willing to submit the whole matter to a candid brotherhood, that they may decide for themselves who adheres most tenaciously to the simplicity of the Gospel.
J. M. C.

THE NEW COVENANT

Shawnee County, Texas.

Brethren: — To what people and time did the 8th chapter and 11th verse of Acts have reference? If it has reference to the present time, ought we not to cease to proclaim the word?
P. F. SOUTHERN.

We apprehend that the passage referred to by Brother Southern is not in Acts, but in the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. The language is: “I will put my laws in their minds, and write them in their hearts.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

and I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people. And they shall not teach every man his brother, saying know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least to the greatest.” (Heb. viii, 10-11.)

There are many passages of similar teaching to be found in the New Testament. Jesus himself says, (John vi, 45,) quoting from the prophet, “And they shall all be taught of God.” In the 10th and 16th of Hebrews we have the same teaching. Again in the Epistle of John, 2nd ch. and 27th verse we have language of the same import.

The very dear teaching of all these passages, and the many prophecies of the old Testament, to the same effect, is the superior excellence and spiritual glory of the new covenant—the Christian institution. The old covenant was an institution of the flesh, and could not make those coming thereunto perfect. Men and women were members of this institution not from choice, but because they were the natural offspring of the patriarch Jacob, and his descendants. No perfection of character was required to constitute them subjects of this covenant, and no offence undeserving of death could separate them from it.

The new covenant, the reign of the Gospel, is presented in contrast to this earthly kingdom. Men and women are not members of the new covenant by a birth of the flesh but a spiritual birth. They are quickened and made alive by the spiritual agency of Heaven, and born into the kingdom of Christ according to the form and manner appointed of God, and thus become heirs of the blessing, and promises of the new and perfect covenant.

No man can enter the Kingdom of Christ, who is not taught of God, and in whose mind and heart the law of God is not written, and all who are in Christ, from the least to the greatest, know the Lord.

The idea that persons ignorant of the law of Christ—ignorant of the law of pardon, redemption and love presented in the Gospel, can be subjects of the new covenant and enjoy its blessings, is most destructive of everything like intelligent obedience to the commands of Heaven.

The notion that poor ignorant mortals unacquainted with the glorious and merciful message of Heaven, can by blindly trusting to human direction, become sons and daughters of the Almighty, is one of the most fruitful sources of the mysticism, doubt and skepticism that becomes the minds of the people on the subject of the religion of Jesus Christ.

Men must be taught of God. His law must be written in their hearts and minds before they obey him with any proper understanding of the Truth. The means by which God teaches us, is the word or Gospel—the proclamation of the good news of salvation, and the calling of the minds.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

231

of the people to Christ as the author of redemption to wretched and hopeless mortals.

The difficulty of our brother doubtless arises from applying to the whole world, promises intended only for those enjoying the blessing of the new covenant. God has never promised to men who will not heed and receive his teachings, that they should know Him from the least to the greatest, nor that He will be to them a God, and they should be to Him a people.

To Christians alone are all such promises applicable, and to them alone pertain all the glorious privileges, blessings, and honors of the new and better covenant. Instead of it being time for us to cease the proclamation of the word, as our brother would seem to intimate, it becomes us to double our diligence and more and more earnestly labor for the spread and universal spread of the Gospel, that alone has power to make all who believe it and submit to its heavenly requirements, sons and daughters of the Almighty, and heirs of all the exceeding great and precious promises of the New Institution.

It should be a thought full of the noblest encouragement to us, my friends in the kingdom of Christ, that we are thus favored and blessed of our Maker. God has given us His whole will concerning us. His laws have been written in our hearts just in proportion as we have given earnest heed unto the Heavenly instructions of His word. Herein we have the full “mind of Christ,” and we have no excuse for ignorance of the whole duty of man. Upon our own heads must rest the entire responsibility. If we are faithful to God and to all the high privileges with which He has blessed us, we must grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord.
W. I.

CHRISTIAN ECONOMY

That Christians should exercise economy in all things, is, we presume, as necessary as that farmers and tradesmen should economize in their secular affairs. But to conclude that the ends and means of Christianity are the same, and subject to the rules and decrees as those of husbandry and commerce is evidently erroneous and unscriptural. Christianity, being unique in its nature, operations, and effects, holds communion with nothing of inferior origin and design, but personalizes its own efficiency and transcendent glory by promoting its own institutions and executing its own laws. It is immutable in precept and in…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

fallible in decree. It solves all doubts by the decision of its own statute, the word of God, and ratifies its decrees in the omniscient and plenipotent council of heaven. Emanating from a God who is a “jealous God,” the Christian religion must necessarily partake of that nature, and from the supremacy of its origin and isolate and divine excellency, repudiate any assimilation to, or affinity with, other systems or politics.

Secular economy reaches only to the souls and conflicts of mortals, while that of the Bible has to do with the welfare of souls, the temporal and eternal destiny of the children of God. The aim of the one is the emoluments of time; that of the other unfailing wealth and joys eternal. What is riches to one is chaff to the other. Hence the defeat of worldly wisdom in attempting to accomplish the purposes of a spiritual institution by the fleshly organized and financially finished inventions of men. The wisdom and power of Jehovah have furnished to His agents adequate means to the performance of His divine purposes that will result in His own glory and their exaltation; therefore, He will not permit the cupidity and preemption of His erring creatures to supercede the goodness and excellency of His righteous requirements; nor, indeed, can any carnal policy supply the place of the divinely constituted agencies of the Spirit.

But if there is any analogy between the economy of earth and that of heaven—the doings of the children of this world and those of the children of God—let us profit by a contemplation of it. We see in the affairs of this life hosts of individuals employed under the control of a single person, who, by virtue of law and custom, is their common Lord. Suppose one of these masters of men wishes to visit his kindred abroad or transact some business in a foreign land; and this without hindering his domestic improvements, overseers are engaged to take charge of the business and execute his orders. He commits all to their care and departs. When he is away awhile these overseers (“under-shepherds”) become weary of painstaking, grow careless, and the servants neglect their labors. Disorder and neglect in their lord’s business consequently follow.

Being friends to him and well-wishers to his interest and theirs, a remedy is heartily sought. Loosing sight of the orders and requirements of their employer, they begin to devise plans to better the condition of affairs. After some consultation in regard to plans of “expediency,” that would seem most convenient to themselves, they resolve to employ mercenaries to perform the business of the lord’s laborers, and both overseers and servants, for a small tribute to pay their deputies, can roam at large in luxury and indolence. These prosecute the business with…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

233

zeal according only to the wages allowed. The servants grow indifferent concerning their master’s cause. Seldom visiting the manor and receiving little or nothing of advantage from it, they soon become anxious to throw off all dependence, and thus they go. Thus are the goods of the owner wasted and his people dispersed. Surely when he comes he will hold these overseers responsible, and his servants to judgment. Where stand you, O elders in Israel, overseers in the kingdom of Christ? Is this the policy of earth? Is it heaven’s law?

Then, brethren, let the vineyard of the Lord be kept from the hands of foreigners and the people of the Lord ever be found a pure people. Withhold its office from the use of money-seeking sycophants and “mercenary priests.” Whether they be impostors or deluded brethren, the consequences of serving God’s by proxy are invariably depressive to piety and tend to apostasy, therefore watch -ye and pray. “Feed my sheep,” said the Master. Will the “undershepherds” tend the flock? Let the heirs of the kingdom till the garden and subsist on fruits until the day he comes, that they may grow in grace and enrich their inheritance. Let us come together on the Lord’s day to attend to the ordinances of his house, in “prayers,” in breaking of bread, in singing praises, and exhortation and instruction from His holy word, that we may know and do our duty, thereby receiving spiritual strength; and finally be prepared for the reception of our Master when He comes the second time.

J. R. W.
McKinney, Texas, April 11, 1857.

REPORT FROM ARKANSAS

Bros. Fanning and Lipscomb, – I returned last evening from a tour of two weeks through this, Johnson and Carroll counties. Saw many of my old acquaintances and friends. One young lady at Salem, Johnson county, made the good confession and was immersed. The brethren were revived, and we trust much good was done. Here I introduced the Gospel Advocate and obtained a few subscribers. The position you have assumed in regard to separating Christianity from human organizations and the philosophy of men, was the strong inducement in their taking the Gospel Advocate (a name I hope it will ever deserve). Dear brethren, the time has come when the pure gospel, in all its simplicity, must be pleaded for by its friends.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

There is too great a blending of the wisdom of men with the wisdom of God; too great a desire among Christians to enjoy the approbation of the world. Until the proper distinction is drawn between truth and error, false and true religion, and the practice of the world and that of Christians, the cause of Christ must and will suffer. Nerve yourselves therefore, brethren, for the contest; don’t be discouraged at opposition; fiery trials await all those who have the boldness to stand up for the truth of God.

But let them come, let us put on the whole armor of God, that we may be able to withstand the wiles of the Devil, and be able to stand in the day of trial. Let us look back to the trials and sacrifices of the apostles and primitive Christians, to the Lutheran struggle, and even to the dawning of the current reformation, and see what they endured for the truth’s sake, and from their example take encouragement. Twenty years ago I started out a one book man, and am still the same.

At a meeting the third Lord’s day in last month, at Mount Carmel, (a new meeting house,) in this county, three young persons, one lady and two gentlemen, obeyed the Lord. We have had some six or eight at other points in this county since my last report.

Yours in the hope of the triumph of the truth,
J. S. ROBERTSON
Washington County, Ark., April 5, 1857.

QUERIES

We are asked to notice the following Scriptures, viz.:

“Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” (Col. iii, 18.)
Ephesians v, 22-31.

The writer says: “The point is to learn how far wives should obey their husbands.”

We reply, that the apostle in these passages is speaking of Christian husbands and wives, and the language is by no means applicable to others. It is presumed that the Christian husband would not require his Christian wife to do anything contrary to the name of Jesus Christ, and when he transcends not this limit, the wife is bound to obey him in all things. Should, however, the husband interfere in the least with the wife’s Christian obligation, she is required to obey God rather than her husband. In Paul’s judgment, if the husband even believe…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

not, the wife should not put him away if she can live with him; but if she find that she cannot enjoy her religious liberty, she must leave him, but not to marry another. (1 Co. vii. 10-13.) The same principle is applicable in the husband’s case. But we do not know that we ever saw a necessity for a separation from religious opposition of husband or wife. A Christian woman rarely fails to sanctify her husband; and a truly Christian man will generally find it an easy matter to teach his wife. Genuine piety is most difficult to resist.
T. F.

FRANKLIN COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT

The thirteenth annual Commencement exercises of Franklin College took place in the College Chapel, July 2, 1857, in the presence of several hundred anxious, and to all appearance, deeply interested auditors. Addresses were delivered by the following young gentlemen, viz:

J. L. Van Zant, of Marshall, Texas. – Subject: “Literature.”
W. F. Fulgham, of Fayetteville, Tenn. – “Signs of the Times.”
H. R. Moore, of Mississippi, delivered “The Valedictory.”

A. J. Caldwell, member of the Alumni Society, read an essay, which was received by the whole audience with the profoundest interest. In conclusion, the degree of A. B. was conferred upon the three students who gave addresses, and also upon Mr. A. L. Anderson, of East Tennessee, who had been a student of the institution, and who is regarded by the Faculty as a worthy graduate.

CHURCH NEWS

Bro. J. S. Robertson, of Washington, Ark., under date of May 17, 1857, writes: “The good cause is still advancing. Since my last we have had some five or six additions.”

Nine students of Franklin College and Mrs. Fanning’s School recently submitted to the Gospel of Christ. Love worketh no ill to neighbors.

FEMALE SCHOOL

MRS. C. FANNING’S FEMALE SCHOOL will open September 14th, 1857.

MINERVA COLLEGE

MINERVA COLLEGE, will open on the first Monday in September, 1857. Address:
S. E. JONES, near Nashville.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

A BAD PICTURE—THE NEW BIRTH—SECTARIANISM AND THE BIBLE

From a gentleman with whom I have no personal acquaintance, I have just received a letter which certainly reflects no honor on the present popular profession of Christianity. A few extracts will prove this. He says:

“After long study, and many wakeful hours, I have come to the conclusion that, if there is any such thing as getting religion, I can never find it. I have devoted much time to the subject of religion for the last three years. When I first came to Texas, I was about two months in your town, and heard you preach several times; I noticed the order and walk of the members of the Christian Church. I never saw so orderly members elsewhere. I conclude, therefore, to address you, being much concerned about my soul’s salvation.”

He then proceeds to give his “experience;” he “professed hope,” and was immersed; but adds: “I doubted whether I was born of the spirit even before I was baptized, but supposed I should feel more relief after baptism; in which I was mistaken. I soon found that, if there was any such thing as getting religion, I had mistaken the shadow for the substance.”

“Now, therefore, I ask you prayerfully to answer me soon and candidly, etc.”

There is no church of the Christian order in—. The Methodists have no church organized. The Baptists and Cumberland Presbyterians quarrel sometimes, and each has preaching once a month, etc.

If these things, or such things, were not already “public,” it might be wrong to speak of them here, to the great shame of the religion of the times—not the Christian religion. The Bible, blessed book! is not chargeable with any of these sad blunders. In it we do not read:

Of “getting religion.” The term is used only five times—three times after the Jews’ religion, one time of vain religion, and one time of pure and undefiled religion. It is said that the term means etymologically, binding back again, or making fast; but it is, I believe, used every time in the Bible to mean a system of worship, or the practice of it. It certainly has no reference to goodness, necessarily, else there could not be a vain religion. And it is clear that the Jews’ religion is not the Christian religion; nor is the religion of the Old Testament exactly…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Either. It is just as correct to call Mohamedanism a religion as to call Christianity religion. So we have Papal religion and Protestant religions—by the wholesale. Religion cannot be a change of heart, the pardon of sins, the new birth, or any such thing, because that which deserves to be, and is called true, is as truly a religion as is the Gospel of Christ.

Moreover, to make it either a change of heart, pardon, or new birth, would be to confound all religions—Jewish, Mosaic, Papal, Mohamedan, Protestant, Idolatrous, etc.—into one religion. Upon the whole, it would be as easy to account for the phrase “getting religion” as for the “Roman Catholic religion,” or any other absurdity; just as easy, and no more so.

The Bible knows nothing about the doubts of my correspondent, as to the birth of the Spirit before he was baptized. All his difficulties are of the same parentage.
I need scarcely say, the Bible knows nothing of the Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian church, of their monthly meetings, or their quarreling—and it does not make known, nor authorize any of these things.
The Bible is silent about the Christian denomination, the church of the Disciples, our order, or your order, my church, or yours. It speaks only of the church of God, and the churches—congregations—of Christ, which make up the one church of God. What a pity we cannot express our ideas in the inspired and infallible language! Is there not danger that our ideas are incorrect, when we have to use such varied and unscriptural phrases to express them? If we pretend to be governed by the Bible, why not adopt its style, its names, its church, its ordinances, etc.? How can we be consistent without?

Touching the inquiries about the new birth (John iii. 3-5), and those who are born again not committing sin (John iii. 9), I will only suggest:

These are not so important as more practical and plain matters. A common error, even with sensible men, is perplexing themselves with foreign, figurative, or impractical matters instead of attending closely and solemnly to the paramount inquiry—What must I do?
The entrance into the Christian kingdom was symbolized by a birth, a new birth, a birth from above, before the kingdom was fully established, and while the King spoke to the people only in parables. (See Mark iv. 3-4.) He told his disciples, however, that he would, after his coronation in heaven, speak to them plainly—without a figure. (See John xvi. 25.) The same, therefore, that was taught.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

only in figures before, was, after the resurrection of Christ, and from the day of Pentecost onward, taught plainly, without a figure. Observing this, enables us to see that, understanding the conversation between our Savior and Nicodemus—the new birth is not so practically important to us, as understanding what Peter meant, on the day of Pentecost, when he said: “Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins.” (Acts ii. 38). The best practical comment on, and the clearest and most satisfactory explanation of the new birth, is the practical manner in which the Apostles and Evangelists introduced persons into the kingdom. They certainly were born of water and spirit, though there was not a word said about it, and there is no reason to suppose they ever thought of it, because without they never could have entered the kingdom.

All Christians were in the “Kingdom of God’s dear Son.” (Col. i. 13.) They were all born again. Still, the apostles said nothing to them on the subject, so far as we are informed. They heard the gospel, believed it, repented, confessed their faith in Christ, and were immersed. This was all—and enough. They were born of water and spirit—from above; were regenerated, converted, changed, etc. all in this simple process.

John said, whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not—i.e., he does not habitually sin—he is a good man; the Holy Father does not get, beget, or induce any one to sin. An incorrect translation goes far to support error. Let us read the Bible closely, prayerfully, constantly, not to pry into figures, or what some call deep things, but to find our duty—simply what God desires us to do.

C. K.
Salado, Bell Co., Texas, April 29, 1857.

EXPLANATORY

Occasionally I still receive a new subscriber for the Christian Philanthropist, and others enquire whether it will be issued again. To such it may be proper to say here, that the Gospel Advocate was sent to all who had paid for the Christian Philanthropist vol. a, for six months, ending, I think, with January last; the Philanthropist having been sent for six months.

My removal, difficulties in collecting money due, and above all, the bad mails, induced me to make this arrangement, as the best, I thought, for the time being, and perhaps for the future, though of this I need not speak. I chose the Gospel Advocate because I thought it better suited to the wants of Texas than other papers; and in this I have not changed my opinion. I regret to find

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

no more copies of the Gospel Advocate where I go. Cannot those who are readers induce others to pay for and read it? I think that, if they desire their neighbors to understand Christianity, they could hardly render a better service.

The money sent for Christian Philanthropist I forward with the names etc. to the Gospel Advocate, hoping this may prove satisfactory.

C. K.
Salado, Bell Co., Texas, April 30, 1857.

OBITUARIES

Sister Mildred Franklin died at the residence of her husband, Bro. John Franklin, near Hartsville, Sumner County, Tennessee, on the 5th April, 1857, aged 47 years. She was a daughter of the venerable and lamented brother Col. Thompson Crenshaw, of Barren County, Ky., who left the Baptists and united with the disciples of Christ in the commencement of the reformation.

Lived a devoted Christian until May 21st, 1856; was 75 years of age, bade adieu to the church at Mount Zion, of which he had been a faithful shepherd for many years, and his spirit took its flight to the God who gave it.

When he joined the Christian Church his example was soon followed by his pious wife and all his children; thus forming a happy Christian family. His wife long since went to reap the reward of a godly life.

Sister Mildred was married to Bro. Franklin on the 3d March, 1831. She was then a Christian and he a devoted and consistent partisan, but he was long since taught the way of the Lord more perfectly, and mainly by her godly walk. With the Bible in her hand, she could easily put to silence the gainsayers. Her example as a Christian, companion, mother, and neighbor, I have not known surpassed.

I feel thankful that she lived to see many of her relations, neighbors, and two out of her four children, walking in the ordinances which she so much delighted to keep, and also to see her companion a valuable Elder in the church. We shall miss her examples, but hope they may live in our memory while she is resting in the bosom of our Heavenly Father.

She died of consumption; she had been quite feeble for several years, but was confined to her bed only three weeks before she died. She was fully apprised of the nature of her disease, but was not alarmed.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

In the least, was not seen to shed a tear, exhorted her family and friends to faithfully discharge the duties they owed to each other and to God, saying it cost nothing to do right and would pay well in the end.

I visited her frequently and can confidently say I never witnessed such manifestations of faith, love, patience, and hope. She would recite many passages of scripture, upon which she built her faith and hope, and said it was no excited enthusiasm that made her willing to leave a kind, agreeable husband and four loving obedient children, and other relations and friends, but it was because of the word, wisdom, and great benevolence of God, that the thoughts of death were no terror to her.

She asked the prayers of her brethren and prayed herself, that her patience might not fail and that her journey across the Jordan of death might be an easy one; which she inly realized. For about two hours before she died, she fell into a sweet sleep, and when she awoke, someone handed her a drink of water, and she said, “They that hand her a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple shall not lose their reward.” She closed her eyes in sleep again and awoke no more. She breathed her life out sweetly, without a moan or a motion. It is consoling to visit a house of mourning under such circumstances.

O let us live the life of the righteous, that doing the commandments we may have a right to the tree of life and be permitted to enter through the gates into the city of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

W.C.H.

Millennial Harbinger please copy.

Died at the residence of her father, near Chestnut Bluff, Dyer Co., Tenn., on the 2nd day of May, 1867, Mary, daughter of Elder James Gilliland, in the 19th year of her age. Seldom has it been our lot during our ministration at the bed of the sick to see a more perfect spirit of patience and resignation. She possessed a gentle and affectionate disposition; seeking more the good and happiness of others than her own pleasure. As a daughter, she was most dutiful to her now bereaved parents. Her brief, bright dream of earthly life has passed away as a sunset cloud, but only we trust to find a purer life in that bright world where peace and joy immortal forever bloom endless in the skies.

W. H. TRIMBLE.