THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOMB, EDITORS.
VOL. III.
NASHVILLE, JUNE, 1857.
NO. 6.

RELIGIOUS EXPEDIENTS

Our teaching has been from the commencement of the Gospel Advocate, that Christianity is a subject of authoritative revelation; and admits of no compromises, substitutes or expedients. We are to believe what is written, as it is written, or lay no claims to a belief in the religion of Christ. We have also maintained with our humble ability, that Christianity as revealed in the New Testament, is sufficient for all of our moral and spiritual wants.

We have regretted to differ with any, and we are really pained to know that men professing to be governed by the Bible alone, contend for modern expedients as necessary in our present circumstances. But we are happy beyond expression to know that some of our strongest brethren are taking the proper view. We are pleased to make the following extracts from the “British Millennial Harbinger,” for May, 1857, published by Bro. J. W. Nall, Nottingham, England:

“Will-worship and presumptuous meddling with divine things now pass current under the cover of expediency. With us it is always expedient to keep close to the Christian system as given by the Apostles. When it is ascertained that that divine system supplies to us, on any given point, a clear precept or a plain example, what right can we have to deviate therefrom, and still call the system we support Christian?”

It has been well said:

“If thought expedient then by the inspired apostles, why is it not equally expedient now? What right have men in this or any other…”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Age to set up their ideas of expediency in opposition to those of the divinely appointed founders of the church? We admit that the principles of church government laid down in the New Testament cannot work well in practice unless they be expedient; but the Divine will has determined what is expedient, and in recording the fact has not accompanied it with the slightest intimation that the plan promulgated was expedient for one country or for one age only.

For example, the peculiar fitness of a plurality of teachers, to edify the church is to be inferred from the fact that such a plurality was everywhere established by those who knew best what would operate successfully; if one man exclusively devoted to the duty of teaching would have succeeded better in disseminating the truth than the combined and cooperative efforts of many in each church, it is very strange that this ‘expedient’ method was not suggested by the apostles, or alluded to as a possible improvement which future ages might substitute for the apostolical scheme.

We hold, then, that the system of a plurality of teachers in each church, having been adopted by the apostles, and without reference to any limit either as to time or place, it is obligatory upon us for the double reason that it was expressly sanctioned by Divine authority, and has been determined by an unerring judgment to be expedient for the church in all ages.

Again, it must not be overlooked that in these days we have no infallible means of determining what is expedient. We entreat those who may hold the views on which we are now animadverting to ponder this remark. If we take upon ourselves to depart from principles laid down in the New Testament, who is to decide what is and what is not expedient? Or whether the change will or will not be for the better? If we leave the vantage ground of Scripture, and trust ourselves to the wisdom and expediency of post-apostolic churches, where are we, and where shall we be?

Popery sets up human wisdom against the sole authority of Scripture; otherwise the bishop of Rome would be without even the pretence of a warrant for his usurpation; his warrant is the wisdom of the fathers, and expediency would be appealed to on behalf of the boldest usurpations of the Papacy. Diocesan bishops are also aware of the weakness of the scripture evidence in support of their pretensions, and would gladly accept the reference to expediency.

Therefore, we ask, can we stand our ground in the conflict with the existing forms of ecclesiastical error, if we once admit that it is allowable to depart from a clearly stated Scripture usage on an important point affecting the constitution and government of the church?

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

163

If expediency be permitted to disturb the recorded practice of the primitive church, it is not difficult to foresee that doctrines—even essential doctrines—might be subjected by those who exalt human reason, to modifications and improvements to meet the circumstances of our time.

It appears to us that the grand preservative against error, whether in matters of doctrine or church government, is the recognition of the sole and infallible authority of the Divine will, in all points where that will is distinctly recorded in Scripture, without any express qualification or limitation exonerating us from rendering obedience to it in this age.

Another thought will not perhaps be out of place here. If the New Testament church be accepted by Christians as a model for imitation in all its distinct features, we can understand that the churches will be gradually brought nearer to one another by the very effort to imitate that model.

It is then expedient to take Christianity as God gave it. Most ingredients have been all the attempted emendations. In eighteen hundred years not one good thing has been added by it, and not one iota of it departed from without loss. If we have not yet had experience enough to teach us that we cannot mend God’s ways, it is to be feared that we are past help, and that others less marred must be called to teach the true expediency.

SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE

We read an essay a short time since, if we mistake not, on “Faith and Philosophy,” and for our life we could see but little of faith in it, and as to philosophy, there was not even an attempt to say anything, and we would not be surprised if in the present remarks we do not reach our caption. The fact is, in enabling others to learn, more depends upon unteaching them, and disembarrassing their minds, than in imparting information.

Speakers and writers very often employ words as blinds; merely to deceive the simple—words which neither they nor their hearers understand. For illustration, some two months since we were attending a meeting of modern spiritualists in Portland, Me., and the chief speaker—a quite a flippant and conceited declaimer—took great pains to say to his admiring auditors, that “Philosophy and Spiritualism, most perfectly harmonized, explained, proved and forever confirmed each.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“other.” Almost unconsciously we rose and begged permission to propound a question.

“We will answer,” said the speaker, “with much pleasure.”

“You tell us,” said we, “that philosophy and spiritualism explain and prove each other; pray tell us what you mean by a philosophy that explains spiritualism?” We state it as a fact, that the speaker could not tell even what he thought was the meaning of philosophy; and we were more than satisfied that he had never thought on the subject, and that the word was a perfect blank both to him and his brethren.

With this suggestion we hope that we are somewhat better prepared to approach our subject.

We know not a word used even with the learned, so destitute of meaning, as the term science. The opponents of religion are most free to seize upon the word and attach to it some wild notions, to enable them to talk against God and His authority; and religionists, very often fear and imagine there is something so deep, mysteriously profound and terrible in science, that they dread its influence upon religion. No marvel then, that men professing science but who understand not the Bible, are disposed to apologize for the word of God.

Against and several writers we have recently noticed, are most particular to speak of God, and revelation in connections that give full evidence that they believe not in any extraordinary revelation, or in the God of the Bible.

But we wish to say, that Christians have nothing to fear from truth, scientific or practical, let it come in what shape, or from what quarter it may. It is the bounden duty of the teachers of religion to know all science and philosophy; and above all, to be able to expose the tricks and impious assumptions of men professing science—falsely so called. One of the greatest mistakes of the age on this subject, consists in making the Bible teach what it really does not say. In having it for instance to assert that there was no world, age, or anything, before the period of man, which began some 5861 years ago. Moses said not a word on that point. His purpose was to declare authoritatively in opposition to speculators—men of science—who maintained that the world was self-originated—that is, come into existence by the self-agglomeration of self-created materials, that “God made the heavens and the earth.” As much as if he asserted, they did not make themselves—God is their author.

Again, geologists and others professing science, and wishing to be nominal church members, find it very difficult to reconcile the Bible and what they call facts with the work of the six days of creation.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

165

Hence most apologists for the Bible make the six days, six indefinitely long periods in which the world, like some huge beast, was growing into size and proportions. No necessity for such speculations. Moses tells the literal truth, and to believe his words, when correctly translated, there need be no difficulty. He has the earth originated and completed before the six days began. His statement is, “In the beginning,” or in the first place, “God made (originated) the heavens and the earth.” The earth was then finished and the first day had not dawned. He says of the condition of the earth before the first day, “It was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The work of the first day was dividing the light from the darkness, and no doubt when Moses speaks in Exodus of the heavens and the earth being made in six days, he employs the word made in the sense of arranged or fitted up. This is still our use of the word. We make clothes, houses, and everything, but we originate nothing. These thoughts we have thrown together merely to prepare the way for making a statement or two, that should be well considered, particularly by timid Christians.

Nine-tenths, if not ninety-nine hundredths of persons, who are wont to array science against the Bible, have not studied the meaning of the word science and have made themselves acquainted with but one branch of learning.

It is our conviction, that there is much less real science developed even in this exceedingly progressive age, than we are willing to admit. We are more than satisfied that science never taught, or developed a single syllable regarding morality, piety or the origin of the world; and but for the incidental declarations of the Bible, such as “By faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,” the profoundest philosopher of earth could not give a single sensible conjecture regarding the creation of the world or man.

We have all to gain in the highest scientific investigations, and should not the scriptures bear the test upon critical examination, the sooner they are cast overboard the better.

Finally, we declare it as our last and most certain conclusion that all the boasted light of science and philosophy of the nineteenth century, in reference to God, heaven, our origin and destiny, consists in a few straggling rays of light stolen from the heavenly oracles. Without the words and ideas of the Bible, men could neither think nor talk on spiritual subjects. The Apostle asks, “What hast thou, that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?”

T. I.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

SUNDAY SCHOOLS AND SUNDAY SCHOOL BOOKS

It is written, “Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man,” and we were not made for the Lord’s day, but the Lord’s day was made for us and our children. If therefore, there is a paramount obligation resting upon the disciples of Christ, it consists in our duty to God, to ourselves and our dependents, in improving the first day of the week. It is not merely a day of rest—a day to visit friends, prepare business for the week, go journeys or give to declamation, political, or religious—but it is pre-eminently the day for labor in the Lord’s vineyard.

For many months we have earnestly labored with our feeble ability to convince the brethren that there is religious work for us to perform in order to acquire religious health and exert any beneficial influence upon our fellow creatures. In the present suggestions we desire to present not only the obligations resting upon us in regard to our duties to children and servants, but to endeavor to set forth the proper manner of performing our duties.

In the first place, we regard it the bounden duty of Christians “To bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” (Eph. vi. 4,) and it has long occurred to us as most unnatural, unreasonable and incongruous for parents to commit the instruction of their tender offspring to strangers. Mothers are the appropriate teachers of infants and juveniles; fathers should give lessons in riper years, and if practical to send to higher schools, let no pupil be dismissed from parents before the age of ten to fifteen years.

Not only is it the duty of parents to give the first lessons to their children, particularly in what are regarded the primary branches of a common school education; but they are also the natural, legal, and consecrated teachers of their children in morals and religion. If in the family circle, there is no pious breath for youths to inhale, difficult will be the task to bring them under proper influences in after life. Solomon said, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it,” and we may safely add, if the training is wanting in childhood—if parental influence is vicious, there is but slight hope of future amendment.

The sudden, remarkable and almost miraculous conversions of our times, in the first place give evidence of an utter destitution of training in youth, and secondly, the converts are generally so totally devoid of preparation for religious life, that their profession answers no good end. The good seed must be sown upon prepared soil, to bring forth fruit, thirty, sixty and an hundred fold.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 167

The honest and understanding heart, or as translated in another place, “the good heart,” which is the properly educated heart, affords the only foundation for Christian practice. The hundreds and thousands of persons who join the church without preparation offer a terrible lesson upon the negligence of the moral training of youth. We are disposed to attach a high importance to parental responsibility, because we believe it necessary to stir up the pure minds of the brethren to a sense of their duty. It is generally of little use to attempt to instruct youths in morals, manners or even decency, when parental instruction has been wanting, or of a vicious character.

Most good men have good fathers; and we can call to mind but few, even passable men, whose mothers were not noble women. It becomes us, however, if we respect our caption, to call attention to the manner in which parents should direct their influence to the moral improvement of their children, and indeed all children over whom they can exercise influence, and particularly to Sunday schools.

That the churches of Christ are the only authorized Sunday schools of the New Testament we entertain not a remaining doubt. Christians are required to meet on the Lord’s day, and they are expected and enjoined to teach, exhort and correct each other with the view of the highest improvement. That it is their privilege and duty also to teach the children of the congregation on Lord’s Day, we are as well satisfied as it is their duty to furnish their households bread. That it is, however, necessary, prudent, wise, advisable, or proper for Christians to form, organize or be in any way connected with a Sunday school different from the church, we are not satisfied. All mixed Sunday schools, guided and taught by saints, sinners and infidels, we regard as unauthorized and useless in Christian communities. It is an acknowledgment, in the first place, that the church is incompetent to disseminate “the true light,” but skeptics, and scoffers at God and the word of His grace, are to be invited to teach the children of Christians. These things ought not to be. Such mixed Sunday schools surely cannot be a permanent blessing.

Finally, it is in place to inquire as to the best series of Sunday school books. We suggest with great respect, that it has never seemed to us wise to spend the Lord’s day in teaching children their alphabet, spelling, reading, writing and ciphering; and the little story books used in Sunday schools, we have always regarded as out of place. We do not say that human productions may not be profitably employed in Sunday schools; but we are confident we have seen no series of such.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

works at all safe or useful. As an instance, some months since, while we were preaching in a congregation of disciples, we discovered a singular looking little black book in the pulpit; and we made free to open it, and to our surprise, we found it was a popular Sunday school book, on “Natural religion,” an infidel production as we had seen. On the very first page, at a moment’s glance, we discovered that the author assumed the dogma that religion is natural—not revealed miraculously from God, but a strict following out the dictates within. None of the question books that we have seen, will bear the test of scriptural comparison.

It is, however, at least respectful to say, that brother James Challen & Son of Philadelphia, have given notice that they will issue a series of Sunday school books adapted to the purposes of Christians. We cannot pronounce for or against the works till we see them; but if the brethren will submit them to us, we will deal with them most candidly. It is our most solemn belief, that the scriptures are better calculated to profit all who are qualified to attend Lord’s day school, than any other productions; and if we were permitted to recommend a series of books suited for unconverted children, we would have them study Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Acts of Apostles; and for converted children, we would recommend above any other series, the one found in the New Testament, beginning with Paul to the Romans and closing with “the Revelation of Jesus Christ” sent to John on the Island of Patmos.

In our hasty remarks, we have merely attempted to notice the chief points; but we submit the whole matter without argument. Our main purpose is to give our readers what we have taught from the beginning; and whilst we feel that we are unquestionably in the right, we trust if our brethren should see that we are in error, they will have the kindness to show the better way. Our candor should, at least, entitle us to respect.

T. F.

“CAMPBELLISM DEMOLISHED.”

Someone has sent us from Arkansas, a pamphlet of 40 pages with the above caption, but in glancing over its pages, we see nothing requiring an answer, and have finally concluded to offer a friendly suggestion to Mr. Langley, the author, and other writers of his class. Alexander Campbell and his brethren are not disposed to defend Campbellism real, or imaginary. They contend for the authority of the

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

169

Scriptures alone, and if in their pleadings for the word of life, they should teach anything erroneous, no doubt they would receive the proper correction. Alexander Campbell never professed personal infallibility, and he is willing to admit that he has made mistakes, but this concession interferes not with his main position as a religionist. If Mr. Langley or others will presume to doubt the infallibility of our position in supporting the authority of the Bible, and the Church of Christ, and not a Campbellitish, Methodist, Baptist or any other sect, it will be demonstrated that the religion advocated by the disciples of Christ is no modern invention. It is exceeding wickedness to say the very best of it, to palm upon us what we dislike more than others can. We believe God, and have hope of a resurrection through Christ.

We ask no one to believe what is not in the scriptures, and we will recognize no people in the “narrow path” who will not in name and in fact, plead the authority of Jesus Christ alone.
T. F.

MISREPRESENTATIONS

It is not necessary to go far to hear misrepresentations of our position and sentiments, particularly by our Baptist friends. One has only to hear some of their preachers allude to us in their discourse, or to read Jeter’s book, to find them thick enough. My object in this communication is not to examine these as generally heard and met with; but to notice a discourse which the writer lately heard, by a prominent Baptist preacher of this region of country. It was a singular mixture of misrepresentation of our sentiments of scriptural truth, inconsistency, and misquotation of scripture.

In speaking of the operation of the Spirit, and giving his views upon it, he said that some had “no Spirit but the Word”—thereby repeating the old stereotype slander, that we make the Word and Spirit of God identical or the same—a thing we have never believed or taught; and which originated from our teaching that the Spirit of God operates by or through the word alone, and rejecting all direct abstract operation, separate and apart from the word of God. He gave as his view, and that of his church, that the Spirit operates by or through the gospel, in contradistinction to the view he imputed to us, which we hold in common with them; and then said, that he dare not limit the operation of the Spirit to the word of God, as the instrumentality, as we know not, he continued, but that it operates outside of the word, and quoted in proof.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Paul to the Romans: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are dearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”—passages which have no applicability whatever to this outside operation of the Spirit, but to the knowledge of God, which the heathen world once had and lost, and of which the works of nature contained a sufficient illustration to have kept them in mind of Him. Here was not only a misapplication of scripture, but an inconsistency, in asserting that the word of God was the instrument of the Spirit’s operation, and then admitting or contending for an operation outside of it!

Again, another inconsistency; he condemned an abstract operation of the Spirit, and denied holding it; and confirmed an outside or abstract operation! Such is the character of the preaching by which we are opposed and misrepresented by those claiming to be orthodox, and to be specially called and sent by God!

Another misrepresentation: He said that at the beginning of the Christian dispensation the church was not divided into a multitude of sects as now—that there were no Baptists, Methodists, Campbellites, etc., thereby making us out a sect like the rest, and “Campbellite” as our denominational name; whereas we have always denied the imputation of being a sect, and the name “Campbellite” is a nickname given us by our opponents, which we have never acknowledged, but always denied. Indeed, we have uniformly rejected all party or sectarian names whatever; and acknowledge none but those permitted in the New Testament, worn by the primitive church and her members, as “Christian,” “Disciple of Christ,” etc. and “Christian Church,” “Church of Christ,” etc.

Another, and a most gross misrepresentation: He represented us as making baptism the cause of spiritual life, or the means by which it is obtained; whereas we teach that it is only the means by which we come into the enjoyment of the spiritual life already obtained, and without the previous existence of which baptism is of no avail. When an individual believes on the Lord Jesus Christ with all his heart, he is begotten again by the gospel or word of God, through the influence of that faith upon him, which comes by the word of God, and by which he dies to the love of sin, or it is destroyed, his heart changed, and he receives spiritual life, by the operation of the Holy Spirit upon him through means of the word, “the sword of the Spirit,” by which the heart is circumcised, its enmity to God slain, and the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

person “renewed in the spirit of his mind” and “made alive unto God;” and then, when he is baptized, he is “born of water and of the Spirit,” and enters upon the enjoyment of this spiritual life. This embraces the process of conversion and regeneration—not as taught in the human creeds and systems of the day, but as taught in the BIBLE. We would not notice these misrepresentations, but because they are so common, old and stereotyped, and continue to be reiterated, after being refuted again and again—so dull or perverse are those who misrepresent us!

As we have exposed the misrepresentations of our preacher, we will give him credit for the truths he advanced, for he said several good things and uttered a good deal of truth. He represented the baptism of the Holy Spirit as consisting of the miraculous displays or effusion of the Spirit, which took place on the day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius on the occasion of the visit of Peter; that there had never been a case of this baptism on any other occasion; and that to pray for this baptism was wrong, absurd, and without any promise. We give this as the substance of his remarks on this subject. He was undoubtedly right here; as well as on the baptism of fire, which he represented as the destruction of Jerusalem. He also advanced several other important truths, to some of which we have already referred, as the word of God being the only medium of the operation of the Spirit and of faith.

But he was guilty of a good deal of misquotation, or rather partial quotation of scripture—hardly ever quoting the whole of a passage, where the sentiment militated against his theory. I noticed that he several times “dodged” passages and parts of passages, on the design of baptism, where remission of sins was involved. Such is the course to which an unscriptural system leads a man, and drives him to pursue.

What a superior advantage over such a man, has that one who has no sectarian system to sustain, nothing but the Christian system itself! Untrammeled by the shackles of party, he is not afraid to declare “the whole counsel of God;” and boldly marches up to every truth of the Bible, as he has all in his favor and knows how to put the right construction upon them. How many able and noble minds are paralyzed by sectarianism, and how much zeal badly expended, and effort thrown away and lost!

A HEARER.

Near Conyersville, Henry Co., Tenn., May, 1857.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

PROFESSOR RICHARDSON’S NOTICE OF THE SENIOR EDITOR OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

In the Millennial Harbinger for May, 1857, we find the following notice of ourselves, from the pen of Professor Robert Richardson; to the matter, manner and spirit of which we respectfully invite the very serious attention of our brethren in the Lord.

FAITH vs. PHILOSOPHY – No. 4

“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 been endeavoring to show that the introduction of human philosophy into the pleadings of the present Reformation is not to be disputed, at least on the score of improbability. The lessons of history, the tendencies of the mind itself, the facility with which men slide into speculation, and the insidiousness and latency of philosophical theories, all conspire to prove that there is no intrinsic improbability in such a supposition.

As an illustration of some of these points, and a confirmation of our main position, we have now before us the case of brother Fanning, to which it seems especially proper for me to pay some attention, as he has been pleased to introduce my humble name into the Gospel Advocate, and I have no desire to be ungrateful. He places me with others who, in his opinion, manifest “a settled policy to introduce novelties among the brethren.” I would be pleased if it were allowed me to return the compliment in kind, for I remember him who said: “Every scribe who is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.”

The oldest things of 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 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.

I must, however, acknowledge my obligations to him for bringing of late, the subject of human philosophy so prominently before the brotherhood. And I would furthermore, take this occasion, also, to express my entire concurrence with him 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 Christianity. We do not need it at all, and its introduction can only result, as it ever has done, in the perversion of truth and the hindrance of the gospel. Nevertheless, I have to regret that the ardor of Bro. Fanning’s zeal against philosophy has hurried him into extremes, and that, probably for want of time to make himself acquainted with the subject and with the facts, he has allowed…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

113

He himself to do great injustice both to philosophy itself and to certain individuals whom he supposes to be infected by it.

He appears to think that philosophy of every kind has a direct tendency to infidelity, and under this impression, he very consistently wages war against it. He would proscribe totally, it seems, from schools and colleges, all works upon Philosophy both mental and moral. I do not know whether or not he likewise anathematizes physical and chemical philosophy, but, however it may fare with physics, certain it is that he has no toleration for metaphysics of any sort, either in religion or psychology; in church or school; college or university.

He says:

“There are striking contradictions in the professions of school directors. For instance, in all the schools amongst the disciples of Christ, the Bible is represented as the only foundation in morals; and still the directors have introduced the various philosophies, mental and moral, of the times.”

The revelations of God and the philosophies of the world agree in no particular. Moreover, no one can believe in the truth of miraculous revelation and of any system of professed wisdom originating with men. All metaphysical systems and moral philosophies are not only subversive of the truth of religion, but we declare our solemn conviction that no one who respects the Bible can believe in any system of philosophy in existence. Hence we think the schools generally are well calculated to make infidels. It is well known that the universities and colleges of Germany, and indeed, of Europe, have generally renounced the miraculous inspiration of the Bible, through the influence of the various systems of philosophy in use.

Furthermore, we are inclined to believe that the different systems of Natural Theology and moral philosophy are well calculated to overthrow the hope of Christians. These are sweeping declarations, it must be confessed, which so unceremoniously denounce the best of men as infidels, because they believe that there are true systems of professed wisdom originating with men! I do not think it necessary here to say anything in confutation of such assertions, but would simply commend them to the attention of educators of youth, especially to the aforesaid school directors; confident that, emanating 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.

It is, however, entirely pertinent to the subject before us, that we should hear a few sentences from the analysis which President Framing proposes to give us of the different systems of speculative philosophy which have existed in the world. These, with sufficient correctness, he resolves into two theories, and says:

“We state, with much confidence, that the two theories, viz: Knowledge from the external world, and Knowledge from our supposed inward spiritual nature, in our judgment, comprehend all the professed philosophical systems of the world.”

In describing the two systems, he says in relation to the directors:

“It is probably supposed, as I have known some to do, that a foundation was not so comfortable or commodious as the house that could be built upon it. It is hardly conceivable how a foundation could, in any case, be made to serve the duality of both foundation and superstructure in mental science.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Former: “Philosophers of almost every grade and religious theorists generally agree in maintaining the doctrine of deriving all knowledge of God and the things divine from the external world. This is called the cosmological argument, or the argument from effect to cause, taking for granted that all men, unenlightened as well as the enlightened, would conclude that the world and all its parts are the results and not causes. This is the doctrine in all philosophical books; it is found in every Sunday School under the name of natural religion, and it is preached from Protestant pulpits generally. There are, we believe, a few individuals in the respective denominations who doubt it.

Without any hesitation, we pronounce the doctrine of Natural Theology, in all its shapes and bearings, as deceitful and subversive of the Christian religion. It will be sufficient to place before the intelligent reader these extraordinary assertions and this pronouncement against Natural Theology. He will be able to draw his own conclusion, and to recognize at once President Fleming’s true position. We might, perhaps, merely suggest that Natural Theology does not assert that all knowledge of God and things divine is derived from the external world; for this would deny the truth of revelation and all other sources of knowledge. On the contrary, it admits the superiority of Revelation, which, says one of the ablest writers on the subject, ‘converts every inference of reason into certainty, and, above all, communicates the Divine Being’s intentions regarding our lot, with a degree of precision which the inferences of Natural Theology very imperfectly possess.’

Natural Theology

Lord Drouglum’s Disc. of Natural Theology, 1818.

The same author, after referring to the arguments against Natural Theology, says: “An objection of a very different nature has sometimes proceeded unexpectedly from the friends of revelation, who have been known, without due attention, to contend that by the light of unassisted reason we can know absolutely nothing of God and our future state. They seem to be alarmed at the progress of Natural Religion, lest it should prove dangerous to the acceptance of Revealed; lest the former should, as it were, be taken as a substitute for the latter. They argue that the two systems are rivals and whatever credit the one gained was so much lost to the other. They seem to think that if any discovery of a First Cause and the structure of the world were made by natural reason, it would no longer be true that ‘life and immortality were brought to light by the gospel.’

Although these reasonings are neither the most famous advocates of revelation, nor the most enlightened, we do well to show the groundlessness of the alarm which they would create. To their place it is worthy of our consideration that the greatest advocates of Natural Theology have always been sincere and even zealous Christians. The names of Bayle, Clarke, D’Aubigne, Keim, and others attest the truth of this assertion. None of them were likely to lend their support to any system, the evidence of which put the outworks of Christianity in jeopardy. Some of them, as Clarke and Paley, have specialized themselves in strenuous and able defenders of the truth of revelation.

Natural Theology is not susceptible to the support of revelation. All the soundest arguments in behalf of the latter presuppose the former to be valid. Witness the profound work of Judson on Natural Theology and Religion to the order of Nature; the most argumentative read philosophy ever submitted to the world.

Doyle and Newton were not sincerely attached to Christianity as many men in any age, and they are like the most zealous advocates of Natural Religion. Lord Drouglum regards the evidence of the ‘self-evident’ as founded upon the previous demonstrations of Natural Theology.

The latter, he says, is the key to the former, and opens our understanding to the genuine spirit of the Scriptures, but also, unto our belief so that we may enter upon the serious contemplation of that divine power, the characters of which are so deeply engrained in the works of creation.

However, upon no defense of Natural Theology here, but merely to quote these authorities: notwithstanding the concurrence of the most eminent minds of the world as to its value, and notwithstanding the fact that Brother Campbell himself is a teacher of Natural Theology in Bethany College, President Fleming has ventured “without any hesitation” to denounce the doctrine of Natural Theology in all its shapes and warnings, as deceitful and subversive of the Christian religion.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 175

Proposes to prove the being and attributes of God from the works of nature, in harmony with Paul’s declaration, Rom. i: 19-20, “That which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” But President Fanning boldly asserts that Natural Theology in all its aspects and bearings is ‘false.’

Now as Natural Theology teaches that man can learn the being and attributes of God from the works of nature, and President Fanning pronounces this ‘false,’ he, of course, according to the established principles of logic, maintains the contradictory to be true, viz., that man is incapable of learning the being and attributes of God from the codes of nature. The reader will note this, as we shall have use to make of it presently.

“We shall now hear him upon his other school of philosophy. The doctrine a priori, from cause to effect, or which says we possess in our constitution either the elements of all spiritual truth, or the natural power to originate knowledge, heavenly and divine, has been maintained in all the speculative systems, from the Hindoo Vedas to modern spiritualism. It is somewhat remarkable that this doctrine prevails in all the schools and colleges of the land, or if there are exceptions, save F. C., we know not of them. They all use the books which advocate the meditative divine knowledge of feeling, which is above the understanding.

We regret most sincerely to notice a very strong tendency even amongst the disciples of Christ who profess to take the Bible alone as their standard, to adopt the doctrine of inward spiritual ability to grasp the truth, without help from God or man. We were much surprised in reading the August No. of the Millennial Harbinger, to notice an address by one W. J. Russell, of Mo., who, on graduating, delivered one of the most infidel productions we have seen. We had hoped to see a rebuke from Bro. Campbell, but none has reached us.

I cannot pause here to notice the intelligent and discerning reader will, perhaps, be inclined to think it somewhat remarkable that L. T. should be the solitary exception. I cannot have no terms in which to express my apprehension of the extreme tendency manifested in this assertion concerning the tendencies of the colleges established throughout your brethren and of the schools generally. If such be their tendency, it is certainly much to be deplored. The world, however, have the consolation of being informed by President F. that since there is no college without an exception, so Franklin College is, in the present case, the fortunate exception which prevents the rule from being universal.

President F. again refers to our infidel young men of Missouri. These charges of infidelity, etc., which he has so boldly made against our colleges, and some of our preachers, have already been eagerly seized upon by Baptist editors and enemies of our cause in order that they may turn them to our discomfiture. Under these circumstances, it has become necessary for some to repel these unjust accusations, and to define the position of the individuals who present them, in order that the authority which attaches to them may be properly estimated.

The authority to which Bro. F. refers was one of the most unqualified exercises of the students, who, being counselled without the advantages of experience, will be expected to be somewhat deficient in their modes of expression and conveyance of their addresses. It is, to be sure, unusual for persons or education to be reflected upon with a certain degree of leniency, and rather to encourage those thus entering upon the stage of life than to denounce them and their well-meant efforts with rudeness.

The discourse in question was delivered before the faculty of Franklin College and a large congregation, and was regarded as, upon the whole, so meritorious that Bro. Campbell deemed it worthy of publication and of the following commendatory introduction:

The following address delivered at our late commencement, on the 4th of July, by W. S. F. from Missouri, will be read, we doubt not, with much interest, by all our readers who have a taste for either the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

The awkwardness and inaccuracy of this account of the other scheme of philosophy, which, as is elsewhere more correctly stated, professes to derive knowledge from our inward spiritual nature. All we wish to say, is this, that as President Fanning denies the truth of the basis on which this philosophy rests, viz.: that knowledge can be derived from our inward spiritual nature, he, of course, as in the other case, maintains the contradictory, to-wit, that man is incapable of deriving knowledge from his inward spiritual nature.

And now, we wish to come to a fair understanding upon the whole premises, and to ascertain, in as few words as possible, how the matter really stands. President F. maintains, as we have shown, these propositions:

That man is incapable of learning the being and attributes of God from the works of nature.
That he is incapable of deriving knowledge from his own inward spiritual nature.

And now, gentle reader, what is all this but President Fanning’s own philosophy; his adopted theory of human nature; his approved speculative view of man’s powers and capacities? What are these propositions but the basis of a system of philosophy which is as well defined, and as clearly recognized as any of those against which President F. inveighs? According to this philosophy of man, he can receive no impressions except those from material things around him, so far as either his mental or bodily constitution is concerned, and he is consequently by nature a materialist, utterly incapable of deriving either from the external world or from his own soul, any conceptions of spirit or spiritual things. For these he is wholly dependent upon revelation, that is, upon words, divine communications addressed to the bodily senses, which are, in this system, regarded as the only avenues to the soul.

But we are not left to gather President Fanning’s belief in this regard. Notwithstanding this, President Fanning has hoped to see a rebuke from Bro. Campbell and Dr. Russell, with whom he is entirely unacquainted, as no “full young man” would expect from either of them. The least that we should expect from either would be to show in what the infallibility consists, and where it was to be found. But it is much easier to assert than to prove, and President F. does not attempt to sustain his assertion; for the few philosophical phrases which he quotes, but do not undergird, are nothing to the purpose.

It seems, however, never to have occurred to President F. that the philosophy to which he objects is not so much in this address itself, as in want of ability to comprehend it. So far as regards Bro. Russell himself, he has always been regarded as one of the most promising, thoughtful, and devoted young men in our ranks. He is beloved for his Christian deportment; his gentleness, his spiritual mindedness, and highly esteemed for his intelligence and his acquirements. He has been found thus engaged in the field of evangelism, and is now laboring for a peaceable Christian community.

Yet the editor of the Gospel Advocate, because the style of a certain college address does not suit him, does not hesitate to publish him to the world as an “infidel.” President F. thinks himself justified in making such a public charge of infidelity against a highly esteemed brother, who is in good standing among the brethren; then we certainly think that his charge of infidelity should be greatly reformed. Such instances can hardly be advanced to justify what some friends of this Advocate are reported as saying or that he should be gently handled towards those who claim from us that “justifiable censure” in that it detracts from no man that he is justly entitled.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Philosophy and Its Opposition

Philosophy, merely from his opposition to other systems, runs through most of his writings and seems to govern all his religious views. Whether the subject be the “Church of Christ,” or “Preaching for a Salary,” or “Metaphysical discussions,” it is all the same; like a heraldic lion, either couchant or rampant, we find this favorite scheme of human inability—this overhanging idea ever present in his ecclesiastical amulets, structuring all his views and sharpening his opposition to ‘Philosophy,’ under which head he embraces all speculations that are contrary to his own.

Occasionally, we have such declarations as the following:

“The new-born babe knows just as much of God, heaven and eternity, philosophically, as Locke, Kant or Bacon ever knew from their natural resources.” – Gospel Advocate, vol. ii, p. 356.

Moral philosophy not only assumes the ground of natural ability in man to teach the character of his Author, but also professes to demonstrate the existence of God from external nature. Dr. Paley’s stereotyped syllogism is familiar to every school child. It runs thus:

Whatever exhibits marks of design has an intelligent Author.
The world exhibits marks of design.
Therefore, it has an intelligent Author.

We are not disposed at present to offer an argument for or against this reasoning. We simply state that the fallacy is in the minor premiss, and we believe the conclusion is false. – Gospel Advocate, vol. i, p. 357.

The Capability of Man

“At no time have the wisest manifested capability to originate a single moral idea or principle of government.” – Id. vol. iii, p. 37.

The political, philosophical, and many religious systems of the world serve to convince the human race of the utter incapacity of man to originate any correct system of government or morals or even to imitate the models which God has given. – Id. vol. ii, p. 354.

It will be perfectly clear, then, to every reader who understands the meaning of the word philosophy, that President Finney not only believes but advocates a system of philosophy which takes very decided ground as to man’s capacities and powers. It is, in plain terms, the system of Locke, which teaches precisely the same things, and of which President Finney himself gives the following account, which is sufficiently accurate for our purpose.

“There are,” says he, “but two ideas in Locke’s system of philosophy. He maintained that all of our knowledge comes through sensation and reflection. His notion was that the mind is a blank sheet upon which may be written impressions, according to external influences, and, moreover, that all of our information is from without. Secondly, he believed the mind capable, by its own faculties, of reflecting upon its own operations.”

The remarkable assertions in the above extract will surprise no one to understand. It seems that the conclusion above, which states that the world has an intelligent Author, is not to be presumed by means merely that the argument is invalid.

We should have quite a curiosity to see his argument either for or against reasoning, though we entertain no doubt that it will, when forthcoming, be found to answer either purpose equally well.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATES

What he called reflection, to manufacture the material thus received through the senses, into correct thought and ideas; that form and consistency are given to whatever comes into the mind through the senses, and that beyond these sources, we can gain no knowledge. The reader will see, at once, that these views of Locke and those of President Fanning perfectly coincide. Sensation furnishes all our ideas. Reflection merely compares them with each other. As God and spiritual things are not objects of sense, we can obtain no knowledge of them from our perceptions of nature. Neither can we from the workings of our own minds, since reflection is wholly occupied with the ideas furnished by perception, and is incapable of originating any. Man is thus left, in Locke’s view, which is precisely that of Dr. Fanning, wholly dependent upon revelation for all his ideas of God and spiritual things.

In corroboration of the fact that Dr. Fanning is really a philosopher of the school of Locke, we may adduce his favorable expressions in regard to both Locke himself and his philosophy. He says: (vol. xi: p. 4) “It is a little singular, that while the most, if not all modern writers oppose Locke, they admit that his modes of thought and investigation are correct.” But the most extraordinary compliment which he pays to Locke is found on page 30, where he says: “I hold Locke, the real author of the Baconian philosophy, and all correct thinking in England, since his day, was born in 1632.” To attribute the authorship of the Baconian philosophy to Locke would really almost appear like a sort of presumptuous flattery, especially when it is remembered that the great Bacon died in 1626, some six years before Locke was born.

But we would particularly advert to the second item of commendation, viz, that “John Locke is the author of all correct thinking in England since his day.” Now the question arises, Is thinking in America the same affair as in England? Can thinking be carried on correctly in England upon one plan, and correctly in America upon a different one? I would not say how it might be among the Chinese, who live on the other side of the world, and whose heads, (and, of course, their bodies too, if these be material images as Locke supposed) are turned in the opposite direction from ours, and with whom it may be, for aught I know, very natural to reverse our order of things, (as they do, for instance, in their custom of putting tails to their heads; wearing white for mourning, and putting off their fireworks in the daytime, lest otherwise they should not be seen); but I think I can answer for the Americans, who are of Anglo-Saxon lineage and speak the English language, that their thinking is pretty much the same as that which is performed in England.

Anyway, if possibly President Fanning may have committed a slight error here in mistaking the natural philosophy, or one term for another. It is not very easy to conceive how Locke could be the master of Lord Bacon, owing to the peculiar difficulty of his birth untimely after Bacon’s death.

This is a continuation of what was stated above.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

179

John Locke is the author of all correct thinking in England since his day; depend upon it, he is understood by President Fanning to be also the author of all correct thinking in America during the same interval. Surely, then, unless President Fanning thinks incorrectly or not at all, it must be admitted that John Locke is the author of this thinking, and that he is, however unconscious of it, a philosopher of the School of Locke, or, what is generally termed a SENSUALIST DOGMATIST.

I have now done with this case, but I have by no means done with my subject, having made use of the case of Bro. Fanning because it afforded a striking proof of the insidiousness and hurtfulness of human philosophy, and it is entirely possible for an individual to be thoroughly imbued with it, without having the slightest suspicion of the influence by which he is directed. This is, with us, at present a very important point, and we have selected the case of Bro. Fanning in illustration of it, not for its own merits, but because, while he has made himself so conspicuous as an opponent of philosophy, we regard him as an excellent representative of a considerable class who habitually inveigh against philosophy, yet are, all the while, in like manner, its victims.

And this, because they look at revelation and religion through the medium of his philosophy, which thus, as it were, becomes a part of their religion, and exercises a most unhappy influence in regard to matters affecting the best interests of Christianity and the highest enjoyments of the Christian life. It arrests their progress in everything except in the pursuit of superior knowledge. They imagine themselves to have entered the most holy place, when they are, as 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 own robe, and they assume the position and authority of teachers when, like some in the apostle’s days, they have need to be taught even the first principles of the oracles of God.

Among these, are not a few who bring a reproach upon the cause of the present Reformation by their unbecoming love of controversy, and by the crude and erroneous exhibitions which they make of the real purposes of this religious movement, which was never designed to establish a new philosophical system of religion, but to put an end to controversy by a simple acquiescence in the plain teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

President Fanning has here, either by accident or otherwise, fallen upon a very appropriate word to denote philosophy: Philosophy. One of the most profound thinkers of the age, says: “Philosophy is a necessity. Every man philosophizes as he thinks. The worth of his philosophy depends upon the value of his thinking.” If the philosopher, rightfully says Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics, “must philosophize to realize the right,” then philosophy must manifest the strong, and any neglect thereof, therefore, philosophy.

This being so, and Locke being, in President Fanning’s estimation, the author of all correct thinking, it is not very remarkable why, upon his own principles, he should exclude his disciples from the connection of communion in Franklin College. What cultured men like Bacon and Locke (President Fanning) will excuse for philosophizing, is not a little remarkable about the laws of their own minds or human duties and relations, has been examined. Yet very prominent study in a course of education, in a point of view, however, must be admitted, after all, however, that to suffer, and thus much as possible, the labor will, no doubt, be greatly lessened by eschewing loud, Montaigne and Moral Philosophy and any books that treat or exhibit the theory or the practice of the same.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“I have commented freely upon Bro. Fanning’s writings and expressed opinions, because these are public property and justly amenable to examination. As he has, himself, been so liberal in charges without reserve against myself and others, he surely will have no reason to complain because I have advanced a single proposition in relation to himself, with the respect due to him 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. Here, I am with him heart and hand, as I am also with him in his avowed opposition to human philosophy in religion.

I cannot, indeed, go with him so far as to say, as he does, ‘that no one who respects the Bible can believe in any system of philosophy in existence.’ I believe it to be entirely possible to be at the same time a philosopher, a metaphysician and a Christian. I believe that Locke respected the Bible, and at the same time believed in his own system of philosophy. I think that Bro. Fanning respects the Bible, although he believes that Locke’s ‘thinking’ or philosophy, is the only correct one. Although I regard human philosophy, when divorced from religion, a hindrance and an encumbrance, I am of the opinion that there are some, even under such circumstances, who may be Christians in spite of it. The various religious parties of the day are founded, in a good degree, upon philosophical theories of religion, but I presume it is universally admitted that God has a ‘people’ among them.

“It is what a system of philosophy is made the basis of religious thought: when the Scriptures must be interpreted so as to agree with it, and when the dogmas thus declared are imposed upon men as the orthodox Christian faith, that it becomes the groundwork of secularism. In regard to this matter, the platform of the present Reformation cannot be improved upon; for it proposes that all shall approach the Scriptures without a preconceived theory, and accept its plainly expressed truths in humble trust; while at the same time, each one is at liberty to entertain what opinions he pleases, (and these include all matters of philosophy and expediency) with this proviso, that he holds them as private property, and that he does not attempt to impose them upon others. This is the only ground on which a Christian union can ever be effected.

It is clearly, then, a departure from the principles of this religious monument for any one to adopt certain philosophical dogmas without limitation to any one or that, and then denounce everybody as an ‘infidel’ who will not receive them and interpret the Word of God in conformity to them.

“Nevertheless, since the philosophy of anything is its reason, there is a philosophy in religion, else there would be no reason in it. But it is a divine and not a human philosophy. It is Christ’s, and that is God’s philosophy. Hence it would be correct to say that Christianity contains the most glorious and sublime philosophy in the universe, since it is the divine law, or system of salvation, perfectly adapted to man through an instilled humanity of his system, derived and conditioned. It is because it is thus absolutely perfect in its own philosophy, that any addition…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

181

tion of human philosophy spoils it. Christ must be our ‘righteousness’ as he is ‘our righteousness, our sanctification and our redemption.’ But his precious teachings—this ‘wisdom which cometh from above,’ can hardly touch poor erring humanity without contamination. Thus the pure rain of Heaven when it falls plenteously upon the earth, produces streams, and becomes unfit to drink. This is when it is received merely upon the surface; just as it is the vain and superficial who corrupt the stream. But as the rain received by the ‘good soil’ sinks into its depths, and not only renders it fruitful, but re-appears in the bright and sparkling waters of life, so the divine truth received by the ‘honest and good heart’ will become abundantly productive and flow out again in streams of ‘living water,’ to refresh earth’s wayward pilgrims.

We trust our brethren will carefully examine themselves in relation to this important subject, and will not be waiting (as Bro. Fanning proposed to do) to ‘hear from Bro. Campbell,’ or from any other man, however distinguished, that they will carefully read their Bibles, and give ear to the admonition of the inspired Apostle: “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.”

B. H.

REPLY TO PROFESSOR ROBERT RICHARDSON

Correspondent: READER,—In the forty and seven years of our pilgrimage, and particularly, in the twenty-eight we have labored in the Lord’s vineyard, our journey has been rather pleasant than otherwise. Thankful to Heaven are we that much of the time we have been able to look on the bright side of human nature, when frequently there was no small amount to discourage us. Not only have we been successful in the cultivation of kindly sentiments towards our fellow beings, but we have even been scrupulous to entertain a fair degree of self-respect, without the least envy towards our living mortal. True, we have not, like Paul, been “in prisons,” received forty stripes save one;” neither have we been “beaten with rods,” “suffered shipwreck,” “been a night and a day in the deep,” or “fought with wild beasts at Ephesus” or elsewhere; but we have endured what is much worse—we have on several occasions been forced to taste a bitter cup from the hands of those who called us “Brother.” In our 14th year we enlisted as a moral in the cause of One who “has gone to prepare a place” for his friends; so soon we were able to hear the King’s reception, we threw His banner to the breeze for a life voyage, and we have not yet taken down our sails or put off the armor. We now hope not for peace, or even an armistice. When

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

We commit the flesh; our Master’s enemies oft whisper in honeyed strains, “compromise,” “compromise,” but our Captain says, “Onward,” there is no time for trifling—”fight the good fight of faith, take the kingdom by violence, and lay hold on eternal life.”

In our well-intended struggles for the cause we plead, we have necessarily been forced into severe conflicts with some of our brethren of earth; but while sin abounds, we can hope not for rest. Our inclinations, and especially our desire to merit the favorable opinions of men, oft urge us to abandon the field, and sincere friends whisper in our ear, “You will appear to love debates and strifes;” but we endeavor to heed them not, and pray God for strength to more skillfully wield the spiritual weapons furnished us. We hope by the favor of our King still to stand for the defense of the Heavenly Oracles “as they are written.”

In reference to the notice Prof. Richardson has seen proper to take of us personally, and our teaching generally, we at present will utter out a single thought. Such a mode of warfare we were not anticipating, and his essay is certainly not well calculated to promote Christian sympathy.

Should it become necessary to examine into our imbecility or madness, we would respectfully suggest that there are tribunals of the country for the purpose, but we really cannot account for Prof. Richardson’s course.

We beg permission to apply in the present case a noble sentiment, expressed by Brother A. Campbell, when standing at the noontide of his greatness in the midst of the scribes and elders of Boston. Said he, with a manliness peculiar to himself, “If I cannot overpower my enemy in all his strength, I will not meet him at all.” Our feelings are those of regret, but we are determined to treat Prof. Richardson with respect, unless we should be satisfied that he has abandoned, in fact, the cause of the Savior. Though, at the outset, we suggest in the mildest terms, that Brother Richardson cannot long occupy his present position. He must retrace his steps, or go overboard with all who have sacrificed the impulses of humanity to the inspirations of the Almighty.

We will endeavor to examine the main points of his notice in their proper order; and if we really differ essentially in our teaching, the fact should be known. We are unwilling, however, that the discussion should terminate as did the one with Brother Milligan. The issues should be clear and distinct, and we ought to be required to sustain our ground or abandon it openly, and admit it indefensible.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 183

It will be remembered that Brother Milligan, no doubt in great sincerity, took the ground, that “We as a church can do nothing for the salvation of the world.” “I ask,” he said, “no better proof of such an evangelical organization (as a Missionary Society) as that for which we plead, than the creation of so many religious and semi-religious associations, for the accomplishment of certain specific ends. They (human institutions) are the creatures of necessity, the offspring of pious hearts; those benevolence must and will flow, and for which the church, as it is now organized, furnishes no corresponding medium.”

Our reply was to the effect, that the church of Christ is sufficient for all Christian labor, and many of the brethren we are happy to learn, solely on the ground that we had the truth on our side, gave a most hearty approval of our teaching; and in a short time after, Brother Milligan, in an address, without admitting his error, took our side of the question, and failed to publish our last reply. We refer to this in no feeling of triumph. From an interview with Brother Milligan, at Bethany, a short time since, we are pleased to say, that he impressed us with the idea that he is a devoted student and a pious man; but he has not managed the discussion with us in a way to do justice to the cause we both profess to believe.

Labor Before Us

Brother Richardson attempts in the first place to show, that “It has not pleased God to bestow upon us the gift of discovering new things.” There is much expressed in his words, and no doubt much more is meant. The purpose is to satisfy the readers of the Harbinger that we are not competent to see that “the oldest things of Christianity are, indeed, in these days of apostasy, often the greatest novelties.” But fortunately he blames us not for our failure.

We need scarcely say to Brother R. that we never made very high pretensions in any department; and when we lack knowledge we are not ashamed to seek it. Yet we are satisfied to do the best we can with our limited means; and we assure all whom it may concern, that we believe we would sincerely rejoice if we knew that all our teachers were more talented and more learned than ourselves. We would delight to sit at their feet and take lessons of wisdom from their lips. Even in our weakness we will face men in all their strength, or admit our incapacity to do so.

As much that Brother R. says is of a personal character, it will be somewhat difficult to avoid retaliation, but we will be as respectful as the circumstances will allow.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

2d.

Prof. Richardson thinks that our “zeal against philosophy has hurried us into extremes, and for want of time to make ourselves acquainted with the subject and the facts, we have allowed ourselves to do great injustice to philosophy and individuals.”

It is charitable to attribute our profound want of knowledge on the “subject” to our youth. We would really be gratified to learn the age at which it is possible for one of ordinary ability to arrive at correct knowledge on the subject of human philosophy?

3d.

Prof. Richardson says, “It seems, would proscribe totally from schools and colleges all works on philosophy, both mental and moral,” and that he does not “know whether or not we likewise-anathematize physical and chemical philosophy.”

We respectfully reply that regarding metaphysical works in schools and colleges, we consider them well calculated to encourage skepticism and make infidels, unless teachers should be careful to show their true place in a course of education. Witness their ruinous effects in the German Universities.

With the view of furnishing the students of Franklin College all the aid in mental discipline that speculative philosophy can afford, we give the subject in our classes unusual attention. We have used the history of philosophy by Morell, Cousin, and Tennemann, a history translated from the French by C. S. Henry, and we are now using Schwegler’s History. In regard to speculations, we have used Cousin’s psychology, Upham’s philosophy, Reid’s and the work of Sir William Hamilton.

In what is denominated moral science, we have employed the works of Paley, Wayland, Butler, Sydney Smith, Whewell, Alexander, Stewart and others. Our chief purpose in employing such books has been to give our students a knowledge of the speculations of men of renown. This we consider gratuitous, but if Prof. R. or others are honestly mistaken in regard to our course, it will afford us pleasure to give the means of correction.

As to his enquiry, “If we anathematize physical and chemical philosophy” in our college, we have only to say, that those who know us best, flatter us that no institution West has done more than Franklin College in Chemistry, Natural science and Natural philosophy. We have seen but one institution with a better cabinet for the purposes, and in our laboratory we have the best means for investigation. True, we read no prosy borrowed lectures to our students, but we work with them in circumstances favorable for improvement. How Bro. Richardson may regard the morality of such an institution we cannot imagine.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

185

4th. In the fourth part, Professor Richardson attempts a criticism upon our words, “In the schools amongst the disciples of Christ, the Bible is represented as the only foundation in morals.” He says, “Sensibile people suppose that a foundation is not so comfortable as the house,” and he thinks it “hardly conceivable how a foundation in morals could be made to answer for both foundation and superstructure in moral science.”

We answer Brother Richardson, respectfully, by saying, that our words convey the idea, that the brethren receive the Bible in the sense of a system, which is a foundation or rule of morality; and yet some seem disposed to substitute for the Bible, systems of human wisdom. We think the language is as sound as the declaration of Holy Writ: “Built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” The Apostles were in some sense, at least, a part of both the foundation and the superstructure.

It strikes us as very singular that while in one part of his notice Bro. R. seems to agree with us, that “we have no business with human philosophy in Christianity,” and yet, in other places, he certainly advocates the claims of Natural Theology.

He makes, on this subject, three points, viz.:

“Natural Theology does not assert that all knowledge of God and things divine is derived from the external world.”
“Natural Theology teaches that men can learn the being and attributes of God from the works of nature;” and,
“Notwithstanding that Bro. Carpenter is a defender of Natural Theology in reality.”

The first point can be decided alone by history. Bro. R. quotes authority which asserts, in our judgment, the opposite of what he wishes to establish. To prove that Natural Theology does not assert that all knowledge of God is derived from nature, he quotes, for instance, the words, “Lord Bacon regards the evidences of revelation as commanded upon the previous demonstrations of Natural Theology.” We state again, that Natural Theology assumes that everything divine is never immanent in nature, and there is of course nothing for the Bible to reveal. Two or three authorities will answer our purpose. Paley says, “Natural theology or Moral philosophy, is that science which teaches men their duty and the reason for it.” Chalmers says, “The school of Natural Religion is founded on the competency of the natural man to know God by the exercise of its own faculties, to be able to know the divinity of its own demonstrations.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 186

“by a worship and a law of its own discovery,” and emphasizes “the audacity of these presumptions.” We are, indeed, surprised that Bro. R. seems not to admit the high pretensions of Natural Theology.

But he says, in the second place, that “Natural Theology teaches that man can learn the being and attributes of God from the works of nature.” Bro. R.’s position is that we can learn the being and attributes of God from nature, but we cannot thus learn “all.”

Should Brother R. show anything divine, from whatever source, we think we will be able to prove it is precisely what natural religion attempts to teach.

Brother Richardson quotes Rom. i, 19, 20, to prove that nature reveals the being and perfections of God; but while we admit that it is almost certain the King’s revisers understood as he does, we declare, after what we consider a sufficient examination, that the Apostle had not the most distant reference to revelations of nature. If nature was then revealing things which had been “invisible from the creation,” we would be glad to know why she could not have revealed them at the beginning? This was not the point before Paul’s mind. He said, “That which may be known of God is manifest in them” (in men), for God hath showed it unto them—(not nature.) Being understood by the things that are made—(done or shown by Christ. Examine the Greek Text.) On the same subject he speaks again, ch. xvi, 25: “Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” This is our exposition.

But we are scarcely prepared for the third point made by Brother R., viz: “Notwithstanding that Brother Campbell himself is a teacher of Natural Theology in Bethany College, Pres. has ventured to pronounce it false.” This is, indeed, news to us. We had feared that some of the Professors at Bethany were giving themselves to Natural Theology, but in regard to Brother Campbell, we sincerely hope that Professor Richardson is mistaken. If he is not, Brother Campbell has abandoned his former ground. Think of it, brethren, Brother A. Campbell, who above all men living deserves the gratitude of the Christian world for his defense of “Revealed Religion” in opposition to the Natural Theology of the prince of atheists, Robert Owen, we are told is…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 187

now a teacher of Natural Theology in one of our Colleges. We cannot, and will not believe it. We visited Bethany, in February, mainly to ascertain the standpoint of Brother Campbell on this question, and if he is for the speculative theology, indications of which we have been noticing, we are mistaken.

Furthermore, we give it as our candid judgment, that in the day, yea, the very hour, that Brother Alexander Campbell admits himself a believer in the truth of any system of Natural Theology, his god-like strength will go from him as irrevocably as did Samson’s, when shorn of his locks by the insidious Delilah, and he will become a child. God forbid such a calamity. Shall “The Philistine” take our greatest and best man? bind him with fetters of brass? put out his eyes, and make him grind in the prison-house of Natural Theology?! This, too, after accomplishing a greater work than any man alive? It is too bad to think of it.

We have but little in the goods of the world, and less of its honors, and we say, in the sincerity of our soul, that we would greatly prefer becoming a beggar in the street, than to be satisfied that Alexander Campbell is teaching Natural Theology.

But be this as it may, Prof. R. asserts it, and says, “President Fanning” has “ventured without any hesitation”—notice reader, the word “ventured”—”to pronounce it false.” Has it come to this? Ponder this matter, believers in Jesus through the words of the Apostles. This is a mournful picture.

6th. Prof. Richardson fully sustains Mr. Russell, whose teaching we pronounced infidel—speaks of our “rudeness”—says we do not “understand” Mr. Russell, etc. We understand Plato, for he meant what he said, and Mr. Russell calls his “Platonic ideas.” We also understand the expressions “universal and necessary truths;” “Inspirations from the infinite mind;” “Spirit, either our own or that of God, acting within us, being the cause of the effect which we call intelligence,” which were employed by Strauss, Theodore Parker, F. W. Newman, Judge Edmonds or Andrew Jackson Davis, and we suspect he uses them in the sense of his masters. Time will tell.

Prof. R. is, to be sure, somewhat inclined to apologize for Mr. Russell’s “address” on the ground that it was one of “the usual college exercises, of a student without the advantage of age,” and tells us, “It is usual for persons of education and refined feelings to regard such efforts with leniency.” We reply by stating, that all men acquainted with colleges know that students are not responsible for their graduating speeches. It is understood the world over, that the addresses are put…

188

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

forth under the supervision and direction of the faculty, and are supposed to be the result of their teaching. Who doubts that Mr. R.’s speech was the embodiment of his instruction? Brother Campbell understood it to be such, or he would never have commended it. Yet, he says he never saw or heard it. But we promise our Heavenly Father and our brethren, that if we should find ourselves mistaken as to Mr. Russell’s teaching, to do all in our power to repair the injury.

Bro. H. says some of our “charges have been caught up eagerly by Baptist editors and enemies of our cause;” under these circumstances he feels it his duty “to repel these unjust accusations,” etc. When Alexander Campbell marked “Apostate” upon J. B. Ferguson, many said, this is putting a weapon into the hands of the enemy. We rejoice to know that the Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians of Nashville, did most nobly denounce the infidelity of this unfortunate man, without casting the least odium upon the brethren who adhered to the truth. We will trust them still in preference to any speculators living. This is a question of religious life and death, and we cannot be too prompt in meeting the insidious monster. It was not “rudeness” in Christ, or the Apostles, or in any believer since their day, to rebuke the sin of substituting new gospels for the old.

7th. Prof. R. is more than welcome to the amusement he affords himself by placing us in the ridiculous attitude of making John Locke Lord Bacon’s teacher, notwithstanding Bacon had been dead six years when Locke first saw the light. All we said we still believe. Prof. R.’s idea was not in our mind when we wrote. Notwithstanding Lord Bacon was regarded as the author of the inductive mode of examining truth, owing to his doubtful moral character, at his death his views were little known. Indeed, the world knew but little about them till Locke adopted his principles in his Essay on the Human Understanding. Hence Locke was, in the sense we intended, the author of this system. Alexander Campbell is, to all intents and purposes, the author of a valuable reformation, and H. W. Stone and others advocated the identical principles, and we believed and adopted them before we knew that such a man lived.

8th. Prof. R. has finally, he thinks, ferreted out our whereabouts, and affirms that he has furnished the “proof.” He says, “In plain terms,” ours is the system of Locke,” and “we are what is usually termed a sensationalist doctrinaire.” He also quotes from the infidel Cousin to prove that our culture was Locke’s, and strongly hints that all men who depend for their faith upon their understanding and…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

189

Belief of the Bible

Must be what? “Materialists and Sensualistic Dogmatists.” We wish, however, to intimate to Brother R. that our investigations lead us to call the different theories of men in regard to God, the origin and destiny of all things, as so many systems of philosophy, but John Locke denied all theories and speculations, and therefore was, strictly speaking, no philosopher.

Brother E.’s statement that we are “by nature a materialist;” we trust we can appreciate.

9th

Finally, Bro. Richardson makes the issue in plain terms, and we have but to repeat it. He says that in our view:

“Man is incapable of learning the being and attributes of God from the works of nature.”
“He is incapable of deriving knowledge from his own spiritual nature.”

This he calls our “philosophy.” We confess it has always tried us, when we preached, that “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved,” to hear seemingly discriminating men say, “Oh, that is just your opinion!” But it is much worse for Professor Richardson to attempt to make it appear that our belief through the word is our system of philosophy. This is not the worst feature in “the case.” He attempts to account for all of our church delinquency from the same cause. He has written four essays under the caption, “Faith vs. Philosophy,” and we doubt if any man can find a single philosophical system which he opposes. We are fearful that his is a “studied policy” perhaps to introduce “novelties” and a system of pretended knowledge that makes shipwreck of the word of God and the understanding of man. We may see before we are “done with the case.”

To Return

He says, “According to this, (our teaching) man is incapable, either from the external world, or from his own soul, to receive any conception of spirit or spiritual things. For these he is wholly dependent upon revelation, that is upon words, divine communications addressed to the bodily senses, which are in this system regarded the only avenues to the soul.”

This, gentle reader, is the head and front of our offending—no more; and for such a belief we are denominated a “sensualistic dogmatist,” and “by nature a materialist,” by a Professor in Bethany College. We think it in place to make a remark about schools. God knows we speak the sentiments of our heart when we say: that there is no man living whom we so highly regard for his work as Alexander Campbell, and there is not a school in existence possessing so many claims upon…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

The brethren as Bethany College. We are sorry that Bro. Richardson dragged up the subject of schools. We believe, it is true, that there are other institutions of high merit, but the claims of Bethany are still the highest.

It was our love to the cause, connected with Bethany College, that induced us to “venture” to call attention to certain wild sounds which fell upon our ear, whose meaning we happened to know perfectly well. We are not vain; we are not puffed up or mad; but we understand modern spiritualism, whether it reach us under a philosophical semblance or through ghost rappings. It is instant death, even to hold a parley with it.

Bro. Richardson admits in fact that our sin consists in maintaining that “the world by wisdom knew not God,” and that all of our knowledge of things invisible comes from God in the form of revelations. In other words, that “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” Here then we rest, and God forbid that we should ever swerve from our position or falter in avowing it.

Bro. Richardson takes the opposite, or he has done us great injustice by his vehement attack upon us. The whole tenor of his notice is in deadly hostility to our teaching, and yet it is a little singular that he seems slow to take his positive ground.

That Brother Richardson opposes this teaching, and the principles upon which we have long stood as a people, will appear upon the slightest examination.
His opposition to us, notwithstanding he seems to be with us, is demonstrable that he looks for spiritual light from other sources than the Bible.
He endeavors to prove that “the being and attributes of God may be learned from the works of nature.” (Page 268 of Harbinger.)
He fully advocates direct spiritual knowledge without the intervention of such forms as are in the Bible. As proof on this point we quote a few passages from his writings.

He says, there are certain persons who “glory in the letter; they rejoice in its facts; they boast in its evidences; but they regard it as a system terminating in the ordinary understanding; everything in religion must be brought within the scope of the understanding upon which it is supposed to act by means of the reasonings and motives which it presents. They ignore the spiritual in man.”

“The understanding,” he says, “can never rise to spiritual reality, till…”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 191

It goes beyond and above the outward forms. “It is the spirit alone that can perceive the truth.” All attempts then to reduce spiritual truths to the forms of the understanding must be futile and derogatory to the Divine word which addresses itself to our higher spiritual nature—to our self-consciousness, as the only auditor of its communications.
Millennial Harbinger, 1856, p. 505. If the understanding can be trusted at all, we can no longer hesitate as to Brother Richardson’s true position.

We may be told, again, that we cannot comprehend these things. German Neologists a few years ago maintained that English and American intellects were not sufficient for this transcendentalism. Now he that is may read. The country is full of it. It is heard in every steamboat and railroad car throughout the country. A single quotation we beg leave to make from our quondam friend, J. B. Ferguson, written when he and his friends thought the brethren too “sensual” and “materialistic” to understand him. “These”—communications in words—he says, “are gross conceptions, but they are such as human nature clings to till it can rise above the outward and perishing to the spiritual and eternal.”

Brother Richardson also says, “The understanding can never rise to spiritual reality, till it goes beyond and above the outward forms.” If we are not mad, these extracts fully set forth the same system. Our purpose at present is not to discuss the merits of the system, but to show what it is. Brother B. and we differ as far as it is possible for men to differ. But we suggest that inasmuch as one may be in ruinous error without knowing it, we will try and persuade ourselves it is possible—though it cannot be probable—that one may go even along the distance we have indicated, and not be fully aware of it. Of one thing we are certain, should not Brother Richardson and those who are with him, speedily retrace their steps, and re-occupy the foundation on which we have battled so long, we cannot anticipate a continuance of Christian harmony.

TOLBERT FANNING

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

FRANKLIN COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT

The commencement exercises of Franklin College will take place in the College chapel, on the forenoon of Thursday July 2, 1857, and the public exercises of Mrs. Franklin’s school will take place in the afternoon of the same day. The friends of the schools are particularly invited to be present.

W. LIPSCOMB, Sec’y.

CHANGES CONTEMPLATED IN FRANKLIN COLLEGE

The President of Franklin College, confidently believing that the prosperity of the institution depends very much upon relieving himself from so weighty responsibilities, contemplates very important changes in a reorganization of the Board of Trustees and Faculty, as well as the general management of the school, by the opening of the session in September. There is no situation in the west combining more school advantages, and with prudent management the college will continue to prosper. It has been in existence thirteen years and its number of pupils has ranged from 65 to 140, and this number might be more than doubled by slight exertion.

The effort will be made. The friends will not be approached for their money, but to interest them in a noble enterprise. Details may be expected as soon as practicable. From the anxiety also manifested by brethren and friends in different sections of the country, possibly efforts will soon be made to establish a much larger Female School than at present amounts in the State or South-west.

W. LIPSCOMB, Sec’y.

THE PERFECT PATTERN

Once, in all human history, we meet a being who never did an injury, and never resented one done to him, never uttered an untruth, never practiced a deception, and never lost an opportunity of doing good; generous in the midst of the selfish, upright in the midst of the dishonest, pure in the midst of the sensual, and wise far above the wisest of sages and prophets, loving and gentle, yet immovably resolute; his illimitable meekness and patience never once forsook him in a vexatious, ungrateful, and cruel world.

— Christ in History

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

RELIGIOUS EXPEDIENTS

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

163

SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

165

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

SUNDAY SCHOOLS AND SUNDAY SCHOOL BOOKS

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 167

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“CAMPBELLISM DEMOLISHED.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

169

MISREPRESENTATIONS

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

PROFESSOR RICHARDSON’S NOTICE OF THE SENIOR EDITOR OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

FAITH vs. PHILOSOPHY – No. 4

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

113

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 175

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Philosophy and Its Opposition

The Capability of Man

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATES

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

179

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

181

REPLY TO PROFESSOR ROBERT RICHARDSON

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 183

Labor Before Us

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

2d.

3d.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

185

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 187

188

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

189

Belief of the Bible

9th

To Return

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

FRANKLIN COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT

CHANGES CONTEMPLATED IN FRANKLIN COLLEGE

THE PERFECT PATTERN

Leave a Comment Cancel reply