THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOMB, EDITORS.
VOL. IV.
NASHVILLE, MAY, 1858.
NO. 5.
PRESIDENT A. CAMPBELL’S NOTICE OF THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE AND ITS SENIOR EDITOR.
Louisville, KY., March 20, 1858.
On opening the Gospel Advocate for March 1858, I find, in the first article, an allusion to myself under the caption of “President A. Campbell’s notice of the Gospel Advocate and its Senior Editor.” It is in the words following: “The impression sought to be made by some of the Editorial Corps, (the senior editor of the Gospel Advocate you name) on the subject of the essays under the heading of ‘Faith versus Philosophy’ is a false impression.”
The sentence is mine and in the following words: “The impression sought to be made by some of the Editorial corps on the essays under the heading of ‘Faith versus Philosophy’ is a false impression.” The parenthesis “the Senior Editor of the Gospel Advocate you name,” is grammatically and logically irrelevant. My words are the impression sought to be made by some of the Editorial corps on the essays under the heading of “Faith versus Philosophy,” is a false impression. This, we then thought, and still think to be true.
But as interpreted by Bro. Fanning it seems to be equivalent to an intention, on his part, to make a false impression. But is this the only legitimate meaning of the words? Or cannot words be arranged to make a false impression without a purpose on the part of him who uses them to make such impression? Do not writers of considerable reputation occasionally misrepresent their own intentions in the allocation of words? And did I not disclaim any imputation to the motives or designs of the Editor of The Gospel Advocate?
We doubt not that every discriminating reader will appreciate the difference between designing to make a false impression and the impression made being a false impression, whether intended or not. The impression made is one thing, whether true or false; and the design or motive of the person that made it is quite a different question—whether good or evil it is to be tried in another court, and by another law.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
We did not expect such a misapprehension in a mind so discriminating as that of President Fanning. He certainly appreciates the difference between the mentally and the journally doing of a thing. Every teacher of logic in every school or Academy in the American Union recognizes this distinction and difference. Manslaughter and murder are thus distinguished in every court of law in the Christian world, so called.
“I could not respect any one seeking to make a false impression,” says Bro. Fanning; yet he might respect one who had made a false impression without intending or designing it. This being admitted—and he cannot but admit it as a teacher and a Christian—his remarks following are wholly irrelevant; and we cannot but presume that one so discriminating as he generally is, will perceive that whatever penance he is enduring is wholly self-inflicted upon himself.
We are not so wholly ignorant of the transcendental philosophy as he represents, or conceives, us to be. We may not, indeed, be so well posted in the German Neology, or in American Neologics, as President Fanning assumes to be. But without the Herculean toils voluntarily undertaken and prosecuted by himself in these attainments, I am happy to learn that in Anno Domini 1855, he wrote a few essays on metaphysical discussions, in which he endeavored to show that all our knowledge of God and of spiritual relations and matter is received through the volumes of Inspiration. This is a sound position, as was fully shown and evinced in my debate with Robert Owen, and in my early writings and teachings antecedent to that epoch.
We have, more than a quarter of a century past, demonstrated to the conviction of thousands, that the human family are in possession of ideas, conceptions, aspirations, and volitions, that, without supernatural revelation, never could have been originated by mere human reason or imagination. It is now as palpable to well developed and educated reason that supernatural knowledge has been communicated to mankind from a supernatural source, as that a man born deaf and dumb could not, in any way, invent music.
Even the idea of a supernatural cause means the sole root of nature: it never could have been acquired or possessed by man unless God had communicated it to him by a supernatural revelation or manifestation. Nor can I logically concur with Brother Fanning that either Professor Richardson or Professor Russell now, or ever did, entertain the idea that any man could, by any a priori reasoning power vouchsafed to him, originate the idea of a spiritual first cause, a spiritual universe, or any spiritual being or existence whatever.
The Indian idea of a Great Spirit was as certainly handed down to them from Father to son as that they are not themselves their own creators, nor their own fathers, but the descendants of Adam and Eve.
I make these remarks purely in complaisance to President Fanning, without any intention to enter into a discussion with him or any other brother who may be pleased to notice them. I have long regarded them as fixed facts in the mind of our brotherhood. It is by faith and not by unaided human reason that we learn that God created the universe and man in his own image.
The passion of the political and speculative world, at this time, is…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
OUR COLLEGES — BETHANY COLLEGE
Another extract from “The Gospel Advocate.”
“My highest ambition is to plead for the truth as it is written, and I desire not fellowship with men on other grounds. If I can have your friendship on the New Testament platform, I shall feel honored and happy; but if you are resolved to defend Dr. Richardson’s course, the sooner you vow it, the better for all concerned.”
— p. 701, vol. iv, of the Gospel Advocate, March 18, 1853.
This is, to me, rather a startling annunciation. Had it not been in print, I should not have printed it. This “New Testament Platform” is now, and ever since our first number of the Christian Baptist, has been our platform: Dr. Richardson’s theory is an opposing theory to what he supposed to be an old theory revived, more or less, by Prof. Fanning. Dr. Richardson supposes that Prof. Fanning regards words alone, or divine communications, as the only avenues to the soul. Thus limiting spiritual influence to the written word alone. This was the real issue, as I supposed. Whereas, Bro. Fanning “conscientiously pronounces these views infidel!”
Professor Richardson, in reply, declared me (Tolbert Fanning) incompetent to understand his and Mr. Russell’s system. p. 68. Thus the word alone and the spirit alone are placed in antithesis. All such theories are marked by us as contraband goods illegally imported. The Christian Scriptures recognize no such theories as substitutes for, or adjuncts to, the Oracles of Christ. And, therefore, we place them in the category of “science falsely so called.” We have long since abjured all such theories, and build on the well-attested facts and documents of the Christian Oracles.
We believe and teach that no man can believingly say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit’s attestation. If this satisfies not the philosophy of Prof. Fanning, we make no farther attempt. The modus operandi of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind is not an item of Revelation. We know that he works only through the written or the spoken oracles of God. On this platform we have been building for more than five and thirty years. Hitherto it has worked admirably well. We are sorry that we cannot farther accommodate our Bro. Fanning, however much we may desire it.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
“My highest ambition is to plead for the truth as it is written, and I desire not fellowship with men on other grounds. If I can have your friendship on the New Testament platform, I shall feel honored and happy, but if you are resolved to defend Dr. R.’s course, the sooner you avow it the better for all concerned.
Suffer me, my beloved brother, to very respectfully suggest, that we should not be for the hills of Virginia, the plains of Tennessee, for Bethany or Franklin College, but for the cause of our master. It is not positively certain that colleges are destined to be of service in the cause of Christ. Protestant Germany has allowed and settled upon herself a class of infidel schools infinitely worse than Roman usurpation; and I give it as my settled opinion, that it would be better for all our colleges to be blotted from existence than to permit them to cause serious differences amongst our great and good men. If Paul could say, ‘All are yours, whether Paul, Apollos, Cephas or Christ,’ we may say all the schools are ours, whether in Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee or elsewhere, and we all belong to Christ.
Finally, it is possibly a misfortune that so many of our able brethren have given themselves to the work of building up schools for youth, instead of laboring in the school of Christ, and you, my venerable brother, must give me the liberty to say, that perhaps if you and I should not live to see the day, the time may not be distant when myriads may have cause to regret that we have given so much of our time, talent and energy to institutions, certainly inferior to the church of God, and in some respects of doubtful religious tendencies.
T. F.
This passage is rather phenomenal and startling! Must we submit a new platform adopted to the weak or strong conscience of Brother Fanning, or peril losing his cooperation? We cannot do it. And still worse this is not the only condition. But again: “If you are resolved to defend Dr. R.’s course, the sooner you avow it the better for all concerned!” Having already expressed our views of Dr. Richardson’s “Faith versus Philosophy,” we cannot afford to do it a second time on such a condition as that proposed.
How prudent soever the kind suggestions touching “the hills of Virginia” and “the plains of Tennessee,” or the being “for Bethany or Franklin College, but for the cause of our Master,” we must regard them unseasonable and wholly uncalled for, so far as we are concerned. They may be seasonable and opportune for Nashville, but wholly unseasonable and inopportune at Bethany.
But he adds “It is not positively certain that Colleges are destined to be of service to the cause of Christ.” In this incertitude I cannot sympathize with Bro. Fanning, much as I may respect his judgment in other matters. It is positively certain that schools are essential to the education of men in languages, sciences and arts. They are just as necessary for the Church as for the State. And what shall we say of the public life of the Savior himself? He had a school of twelve disciples whom he educated for some three years and six months! And to these he added one of Dr. Gamaliel’s best educated students.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
133
Who were the Protestant Reformers? Luther, Calvin, Zwinglius, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bucer, &c., &c. Were not these the fruit of schools and colleges? The very facts you state are pregnant with arguments in favor of the erection of Seminaries of learning. Take Bethany College for an exemplification of the value of schools and colleges as pertains to the advancement of education, and an educated ministry.
Amongst her graduates we can report six presidents of colleges, thirty professors of Literature and science in our universities and colleges. In the Evangelical field, more than one-third of all her graduates are working in that field. Take our Male and Female Seminaries and Academics and we find scores of them employed in teaching—and a portion of them on every Lord’s day preaching and teaching Christ.
After enumerating more than seventy Evangelists wholly devoted to that form of labor in the cattle of humanity, we find a majority of the professors in these schools every Lord’s day proclaiming the Gospel in their respective neighborhoods. Taking into account laboring every Lord’s day in the Lord’s vineyard, graduates and undergraduates, we would not hesitate to utter the opinion that two hundred discourses are every Lord’s day delivered by the students and alumni of Bethany College.
Even amongst our undergraduates we have now in our eye one young brother who has immersed into Christ some two hundred disciples, while yet in College! A college that makes the Bible an every day text-book and study, in which the Bible facts and documents are exhibited and developed, in all their bearings on the government of God and on the destiny of man in this great universe of God; cannot but be a perennial fountain of multiform and multitudinous benefactions and blessings to mankind.
Such an institution ought to have paramount claims upon the heart and conscience of every true-hearted citizen of the kingdom of the Author and founder of the Christian institution.
With these facts and developments in my eye and familiar in my experience, you must not think it strange that I should dissent and differ from you when you affirm that “it is not positively certain that colleges are destined to be of service in the cause of Christ.” Our experience is the poles apart from your experience, provided your memory be not at fault.
We have not had any experience that would allow me to say—”that it would be better for all our colleges to be blotted from existence than to permit them to cause any serious differences amongst our great and good men.” Not having one case or instance of this sort in my horizon, I am at a loss to comprehend its bearing upon the subject before us.
There may be some of our brethren who have given themselves to the work of building up schools for youth instead of laboring in the school of Christ. This is not only a conceivable case, but it is possibly a positive fact. Indeed, there is no gift, office or calling that may not be abused. I can, therefore, presume to say that there are, or may be, facts or instances of this sort.
Were I to consult my own feelings and seek my own happiness, I would give up, with great pleasure, every secular pursuit, and consecrate my whole powers and my whole life to practically preaching and teaching Jesus Christ.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
But I am inhibited from such a delightful employment by the conviction that my present position and employment will, in the long run, more redound to the honor of my Lord, and to the advancement of his cause, than any other course that I could adopt.
Bethany College and the Millennial Harbinger, in my horizon promise more than any other appropriation of my remaining days within the area of my imagination and experience. Still I preach and teach as much every year as a majority of those who have only one calling and pursue it. These are matters more or less left to our own discretion and to what is usually called the openings of Providence.
I must add, after reading your article a second time, that for your own sake, I am sorry that you should have written and published the following sentences: “You think that I have greatly exaggerated the issues formed.” In this I am sorry that we differ across the whole heavens. When the doctrine of light from the ‘inner consciousness’ of your associates was first taught by Mr. Ferguson, of Nashville, his determined supporters said, “It is merely his opinion,” &c. This classification is exceedingly in bad taste according to my standard of good manners and Christian candor.
“The inner consciousness of your associates.” I have no “associates” that ever taught the doctrine of “light from the inner consciousness,” first taught by Mr. Ferguson. I have never had any such associates or associate. Nor do I think that anything ever published in any communication from my associates or approved correspondents, on the pages of the Harbinger, can legitimately be interpreted into either light from “inner consciousness,” or the approval, on my part, of any other light not emanating from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as intimated or indicated in the inspired oracles of the Old and New Testament.
You still farther and in the same style—”Permit me also to state, that some of the best men in this nation, to counteract the blighting influence of the ‘growing conviction’ which you are encouraging, have all other men, have advised a severance of my connection with schools.” For what reason? Is your connection with schools fearful, or is the school diminished or diminishing from an apprehension that you are teaching philosophy falsely so called? You certainly are not losing ground by your associates, or because of my alleged erroneous philosophy inculcated in your teachings in philosophy? In Bethany College, the Holy Bible is the only text-book on the whole history and philosophy of man—as the object of Divine philanthropy, and the subject of the Divine government. And, notwithstanding that we have students from diverse Protestant denominations, we have never heard of one demur, at home or abroad, on the account of the literary, scientific, moral or religious education dispensed in that college.
I, therefore, conclude that President Fanning is super-excited by some fancies from his too vivid and excitable imagination. I am not, however, without hope that on more grave reflection Bro. Fanning will recover from this panic and be satisfied that there is not a false philosophy, a false theology, a false Christology, nor a false science of any sort, promulgated, accredited, winked at or permitted in the whole…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
135
The course of education in Bethany College. He was never within its walls, and, I presume, has never met with a student from it, that gave him any evidence or testimony that its whole course of instruction is not, in every department of it, based on the most approved text-books found in the colleges East, West, North and South, in these United States. Nor does any professor within its walls obtrude in his teachings or lectures single dogma in literature, science, philosophy, morality or religion, not canonical in the judgment of our most learned contemporaries in England, Scotland, Ireland and in these United States of North America.
A. C.
REPLY TO PRESIDENT A. CAMPBELL
We deeply regret the necessity of a reply to Bro. Campbell. His two articles, however, in the April number of the Harbinger, in reference to me, leave us no alternative. The idea of differing from him, even in opinion, is painful, and our first impulse is to defend him against all opposition whatever, and to hold him by no means guiltless who would insinuate that he could be mistaken.
We march to Bro. Campbell higher honor before God, angels and men, for his defense of truth than any living author, and we are unwilling that he should, in the evening of his career, commit even the slightest mistake, or do the least thing calculated to detract from his well-earned fame.
The circumstances that the conflict is of a personal character—that there is in fact no adequate ground for debate between Bro. Campbell and ourselves—makes the matter doubly disagreeable. In order to sustain men whose course we consider wholly indefensible, Bro. Campbell no doubt regards it his duty to take exceptions to our course, and while we entertain the least self-respect we esteem it improper to submit to the treatment we think we had no right to expect from his hands.
Whilst we believe that Bro. A. Campbell is defending men whose teaching is unmixed and unblushing infidelity, we charge him not with false doctrine.
We are confident the discussion with Dr. Richardson has been of service to thousands, and while it is disagreeable to differ even in politeness from Bro. Campbell, we are satisfied the conflict will result favorably to the cause of God. We trust no influence can force us to violate the principles of religious propriety in our remarks.
We regard it due to ourselves to suggest a few friendly thoughts in reference to the past, before proceeding in the examination of the articles.
We must say that we had a right to look for a different course from Bro. Campbell. In the whole history of what is called “This Reformation,” this is the first instance in which a controversy has been conducted with…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
so manifest unfairness. We have published all that has been said regarding ourselves or our teaching, much of which has been of the most abusive character, but the Harbinger has been scrupulously cautious to exclude our essays. The brethren had a right to look for pros and cons in our papers. We cannot anticipate justice from any journal that will nurture to give but one side of a controversy.
It would be humiliating to expect any but a dignified, calm and conciliatory course in Bro. Campbell, but we are gratified at both the spirit and matter of his references to us. He has thrust the controversy upon us, and we are really sorry that he has placed himself in a position which subjects him to exposures we would willingly avert. But we repeat, we have no choice—we must speak or abandon all that we regard dear to us on earth. Our purpose is to notice but few points in his essays, but in connection with these we desire to set forth plainly the main grounds of the controversy.
- In reference to the declaration that “the impression sought to be made by some of the editorial corps on the subject of the essays under the heading of ‘Faith versus Philosophy,’ is a false impression,” Bro. Campbell insists that he did not intend to affirm an “intention” (in us) to make a false impression, but “writers of considerable reputation occasionally (he thinks) misrepresent their intentions in the collocation of their words.” He adds, “President Fanning certainly appreciates the difference between the ‘virtually and the formally doing of a thing.’ Every teacher of Logic in every school or academy in the American Union recognizes this distinction and difference. Manslaughter and murder are thus distinguished in every court of law; in the Christian world.” This is telling us plainly, that although we have made a false impression, in consequence of not intending it, we may possibly be excusable, and that all teachers except ourselves see the difference between the real and the journal.
We beg leave to say that this is the old metaphysical fable of the subjective and objective, (substance and form) differing so essentially. Candidly, we admit no such distinctions. We cannot conceive of substance—the real—without the form, or forms without substance. Bro. Campbell is certainly unfortunate in illustrating the difficulty by the words manslaughter and murder. They cannot be really or formally substituted for each other. No words differ more widely in their import. Manslaughter may be right and necessary, while murder consists not in the act of merely killing, but in the intention exhibited by malice and forethought.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
It is by no means complimentary to tell the brethren who write, that while their intentions may be good, their want of discrimination leads them to a “collocation of words which misrepresent their own intentions.” Without, however, dwelling upon so very small matters, we assure Bro. Campbell, and all who are concerned, that we have neither ignorantly or otherwise encouraged a false impression in reference to the essays under the caption of “Faith t·e,·sus Philosophy.”
We have pronounced the doctrine maintained in said essays, “infidel and immoral,” in all its bearings, and we fear not to say that the author of them, fully imbued with the spirit of his perverse system, has not only intentionally misrepresented us, but with most wicked purpose has written what had no foundation in truth, in asserting that “Bro. Campbell himself is a teacher of Natural Theology in Bethany College.” (Harbinger for 1851, p. 174.) Furthermore, when the author of these essays asserted that A. Campbell and he were together in their teaching, his object in our judgment was to deceive. Such are the impressions we have sought to make regarding the ever memorable essays, and we feel fully authorized to say it was the doctrine of these essays which severed the author’s connection with the Harbinger.
Yet strange as it may seem, through some very mistaken policy such teachers are personally sustained, whilst many others, because of their location, are made the mere scape-goats for all the sins committed in the struggle.
Brother Campbell cannot satisfy the brethren that the impression made is false, and we trust he will not insist upon it. No one who has carefully read both sides hesitates as to the meaning of the productions. Bro. Campbell has taken much pains indirectly, to disprove the teaching, and yet we are at fault. Who can account for this?
2d. He says, “Nor can I logically concur with Bro. Panning that either Prof. Richardson or Prof. Russell now, or ever will, entertain the idea that any man could by any a priori reasoning power vouchsafed to him, originate the idea of a spiritual first cause, a spiritual universe, or any spiritual being or existence whatever.” We devoutly regret to see this statement from one who has done so much for fallen humanity as Bro. Campbell.
This is what we have dreaded. It is with the greatest reluctance that we can say, Bro. Campbell is mistaken; but facts will tell the story. In the first place, Dr. Richardson designed to make the impression, “That man can learn the being and attributes of God from the works of Nature.” This is knowledge a posteriori, or spiritual.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
It is spiritual knowledge from the outward world. This theory proclaims the necessity of knowledge by the inspiration of the spirit, and hence we pronounced it infidelity.
Secondly, Prof. Richardson maintains that the understanding can deal with the perceptions of sense, with qualities of things with names and words, but never can reach or rise to that substantive and spiritual reality, which must ever be, from its very nature, beyond and above the outward forms through which it seeks to reveal itself. It can present to the spirit those types and forms and words which are the mere vehicles of truth, but it is the spirit itself alone that can perceive or contemplate the truth presented. This is knowledge a priori. Again he says, “The veil of outward appearance must be lifted from the face of Divine revelation before its beauty can be disclosed.” More is unnecessary.
Mr. Russell says, “The universal and necessary truths which reason derives from the limited and contingent—are ideas strictly speaking—Platonic ideas, clothed in sensuous imagery and the costume of language, are ideas with the poet, principles with all right-thinking minds and laws when objectized and viewed in nature and humanity.” In other words, no external existence can be the cause of our having knowledge. Spirit, either our own or that of God acting within us, is the only cause of the effect we call intelligence.
Here we have a plain claim of light from without. This is knowledge by what Dr. Russell calls “A higher reason in the soul, spontaneous in its character, giving all men primary inspirations which compose the elements of thought; these principles are universal and necessary, and must be referred to a higher intelligence, to the infinite mind of God.” He adds, “So it is with the ideas of God and the soul. All nations give abundant evidence of possessing them as primitive intuitions.” Is this not divine knowledge a priori from within? The cause is within and depends upon no external revelation in words. This we have called infidel teaching. We have been at some pain to give the facts in the case. Will Bro. Campbell still contend? We hope for his own sake and the sake of the cause he will not.
Bro. Campbell says, “We are not so ignorant of transcendental philosophy as he (T. F.) represents, or conceives us to be. We may not, indeed, be so well posted in German Neology, or in American Neology, as President Fanning assumes to be. But without the Herculean labors voluntarily undertaken and prosecuted by himself in these attainments, I am happy to learn that in Anno Domini 1856, he…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
139
Wrote a few essays on “Metaphysical Discussions,” etc. This whole passage can be regarded in no other light than that of a sneer at our pretensions in the examination of the philosophy of his teachers and pupils.
We have not intimated that Bro. Campbell was inferior to any man of the age as a critical critic, but the Lord has not permitted anyone to know everything. We heard him lecture on transcendentalism some years since in Nashville, and he not only admitted that he had not directed much attention to it, but that his other engagements would forbid him to do so. We make no high pretensions in any department, and our humble efforts to examine the speculations of R. R. and others we esteemed as no “Herculean toil voluntarily undertaken,” but our privilege as a disciple of Christ to do so. We can also inform Bro. Campbell that the intelligent and most reliable brethren north and south, who have had the opportunity to see both sides, not only coincide with us, but also believe we have been able to give the monster infidelity, even in high places, a blow which may have some good effect.
Be this as it may, we are much more disposed to listen to words sincerely and kindly spoken than to such as are delivered, not in the good spirit of our Master. Bro. Campbell is mistaken as to his style in this instance. We are determined to return good for evil.
In reference to our suggestion that “if he had determined to defend Dr. Richardson’s course, the sooner he would avow it the better,” he says, “This, to me, is rather a startling annunciation.” We trust Bro. Campbell is not seriously alarmed. As we told him in a conversation, we have nothing personal to accomplish. We intended merely to say that we wish no religious connection with men who teach as Dr. Richardson and Mr. Russell. Bro. Campbell must sooner or later see that he cannot defend such teachers, whether they are Professors at Bethany College, or have been students of that excellent institution. We are with Bro. Campbell on the “New Testament Platform,” which he submitted many years ago, but some have forsaken it, and are endeavoring to induce him to leap from it into the muddy waters of speculation.
Bro. Campbell seems to wholly misconceive the point of controversy between Dr. R. and ourselves regarding the spirit. He says, “Thus the word alone and the spirit alone are placed in antithesis. All such theories are marked by us as contraband goods, illegally imported.” If Bro. Campbell intended to affirm that we hold a theory regarding the spirit, he spoke without proper authority. We have taught, and
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
The brethren generally believe the teaching, that we have “the mind of Christ, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teaches,” and that our faith is by hearing, and our hearing is by the word of God. This is no theory. We have taught that through the divine appointments the Father really and truly blesses us with his spirit in our hearts, crying Abba, Father, and that “the world cannot receive” the spirit. This is no theory, and those men who have intimated that there is no spirit in the religion which we teach speak rashly.
We are grieved at Bro. C.’s insinuation, after quoting the passage “That no man can believingly say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Spirit’s attestations,” in which he says, “if this satisfies not the philosophy of Prof. Fmming, we make no further attempt.” It cannot be possible that Bro. C. imagines we entertain any philosophical views on the subject of religion. Why should he then speak of our philosophy?
5. In answering our intimation that colleges might not be of much real service to the cause of Christ, Bro. Campbell argues that “schools are essential to the education of men in languages, science and arts.”
This surprises us. We were not debating the question whether or not children should go to school, or whether men should be taught languages, science and arts. It was our purpose to say that science could be taught, even in common schools, academies and colleges not established for the purpose of propagating the different religions of the day.
Some twelve or fourteen years ago we expressed our fears in reference to endowed denominational colleges, and since that time we have observed that Protestant Germany has more endowed colleges than most other lands, yet her colleges are filling the world with infidel teachers of the most dangerous type. Religious people should know everything, but judging from the influence of both Roman and Protestant schools, we doubted the propriety of encouraging any worldly institution acting even as an auxiliary to religion.
Christianity is intended for sinful men in all countries, is independent of all worldly appliances, and will succeed without them and in spite of them. The greatest enemies of vital religion are institutions professedly its supporters and defenders. The apostasy consisted in Constantine’s placing Christianity under the protection of human government. The religion of the Bible rests upon its own vital energy for its success, and every effort to give it respectability by even languages, science and art has degraded it.
6. When Bro. Campbell enumerated his six Presidents of colleges, thirty professors of literature and science in our colleges and universities,
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
and seventy Evangelists, from Bethany, he certainly forgot to say that most graduates of colleges everywhere turn their attention to what are called the “learned professions,” and when he spoke of an “undergraduate” that had immersed some two hundred, he evidently forgot to tell us that many of his undergraduates were men of age, experience, and ability before they entered college.
We can name a man that immersed five hundred in a single year before he entered college, and yet he afterwards graduated. But since Bro. Campbell is determined to discuss the merits of schools, we wish to tell him with all proper respect that in urging the superior claims of Bethany—which no one desires to dispute—and especially in her employment of the Bible as a textbook, the whole manner has become, to our thinking, well calculated to throw a shade over other schools.
This has been the effect whether intended or not; and from the impression that Bethany is a kind of headquarters of “This Reformation,” several of our students before closing their studies preferred graduating in her walls. We have two in our mind’s eye at this moment, from Tennessee. One while there was under Bro. Campbell’s personal influence, and returned as devout a believer as he entered, but thoroughly disgusted with the philosophical Professors and students. The other left us as we supposed a firm believer in God through his “word,” but he returned with what are ignorantly styled “Liberal spiritual views” (infidelity), and is now communing, like friend Russell and others, with denominations.
We mean to say in all this that the brethren everywhere entertain the greatest confidence in Bro. C.’s faithful adherence to the old landmarks which he so nobly pointed out many years past, but it is utterly useless for him, with all his learning and goodness, to attempt to satisfy the brethren or the world that all the teachers at Bethany exert a good religious influence at home or abroad. Although he has triumphed in many a spiritual arena, he was then in the right, and God stood by him in the Lion’s den, but now he is wrong, and like poor old Samson when shorn of his precious locks, a child in the Gospel can overpower him.
No man should take the least credit to himself for showing how fruitless are the efforts of even a giant in removing mountains. But we venture to suggest the delicate point. Bro. Campbell considers it his duty to defend certain men about him and “out west,” when we think he is under quite as weighty obligations to defend us and our teaching. He thinks an agreement with us would injure Bethany College. He is mistaken. The controversy has done it. Who is at fault?
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
We? Nay. Let Bro. Campbell send the chief speculator back to Carthage, Ohio, from whence he took him; let him defend men who really love the truth and are entitled to his respect, and keep no one about him who staggers at the word, and the brethren everywhere will stand up firmly for Bethany College. This may be considered gratuitous, but we will write what we believe, and what will be proved true before many years.
Bro. Campbell’s Grief
Bro. Campbell expresses sincere grief at the sentence, “When the doctrine of light from the inner consciousness of your (Bro. C.’s) associates, was first taught by Mr. Ferguson in Nashville, his determined supporter said, ‘it is merely his opinion, etc.'” He remarks, “This classification is exceedingly in bad taste according to my standard of good manners and Christian candor. I have no associates that ever taught the doctrine of inner consciousness first taught by Mr. Ferguson; I have never had any such associates or associate.”
We regret that Bro. Campbell feels that it is necessary to assail our standard of “good manners and Christian candor.” If we have spoken falsely, why not say so at once? Have we gone too far? If so, we will retract when our error is shown. From our very soul, we are sorry to hear Bro. Campbell, whose praise is in all the churches, speak so. We are grieved to know that he has placed himself at our mercy. We will not treat him rudely. We are sure he is candid, and believes his associates have never taught the doctrine of light from the “inner consciousness.” Records must end the strife.
Testimony of Prof. Robert Richardson
Let Prof. Robert Richardson, an acknowledged associate of Bro. Campbell, be permitted to testify. He says, “All attempts to reduce spiritual truths to the forms of understanding must be futile, and derogatory to that divine word which addresses itself to our higher spiritual nature—to our self-consciousness as the only legitimate object and auditor of its communications.” In the same connection, he speaks of this Platonic divinity within that is the infallible teacher of the whole party, under the heads of “The spiritual in men,” “The higher nature,” and “inner consciousness.” See Hartinger for 1856, p. 505-6.
We need not refer to the writings of Mr. Russell, Mr. Carman, and their coadjutors in the northwest, all approved graduates of Bethany, and some of them presidents of colleges. Comment is useless. If we have not proved the truth of our assertion there is no meaning in language.
Spiritualists’ Claims
But the spiritualists—associates of J. B. Ferguson, in Tennessee, claim Prof. R. and friends as “brethren,” and if we are not mistaken Prof. R. heard from some such “brother” in this section while seeking…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
143
an evil report against us. They all understand the movement at Bethany, and rejoice in it.
We have before us a letter from a very intelligent infidel of Missouri, who says, “I must confess that I am prepossessed in favor of Mr. Richardson’s theory, being myself an advocate of the views set forth in his (Prof. R.’s) essays. His position is laying other foundations than the Bible; and is calculated to strengthen and build up the harmonial philosophy of Mr. A. J. Davis.” If Bro. Campbell is not advised of the existence of “this growing conviction,” he ought to be.
Bro. Campbell asks, “Is your connection with schools feared, or is the school diminishing from an apprehension that you are teaching philosophy falsely so called?” We inquire again, does Bro. Campbell intend to maim the impression that we teach a philosophy which operates disastrously to Franklin College? No one can believe such a thing. Does it really afford Bro. Campbell satisfaction that our school is somewhat diminished? His language would seem to indicate it.
We deem it not improper to say that for thirteen years we had a respectable school, several years we outnumbered Bethany College in students, and perhaps our average has been equal to hers. We have a pleasant though small class this session. The “diminished” is owing to various influences. We have failed to travel and lecture on the superior claims of Franklin College, in as glowing strains as others; in a word, we have not been as zealous as perhaps we should have been. The manner in which some of the writers in the Harbinger have acted toward us has had an influence calculated to injure us. Still, time we think will put every school and every man in proper position, and we therefore complain not.
For many years have we been urged to give ourselves to the ministry of the word, and several brethren have insisted on our withdrawing from schools, on the ground that all our teaching in opposition to certain men, will be construed (as it has been) into opposition to Bethany College, while we remain a school teacher. We hope we are understood by Bro. Campbell.
Will he not listen to a few friendly suggestions regarding this unnatural, and, so think, unnecessary discussion? We believe it is true that our encounter with Prof. Richardson and coadjutors has resulted and will result to the advantage of truth, but there was proper ground for debate. With Bro. Campbell, there is no vital question involved. We ask not for peace while there are such writers as Dr. Richardson, Mr. Russell, Mr. Carman, Mr. Melish, etc., in the field, but believing it is in Bro. Campbell’s power to calm the troubled waters,
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
We beg him to sheathe his sword. He can no more defend Prof. R. and his associates than he can make a new world, and so fruitless an effort can not fail to diminish his almost superhuman strength, and should he resolve to carry on the war, innocent men must suffer.
Above all things we desire peace with the brethren, while we ask for no quarters from such as repudiate “the understanding” and precious oracles, for something they are pleased to call “the spiritual in man” to guide him, and we hope it may ever be our highest pleasure to pray for the union of Christians and prosperity of Zion.
T. F.
THE MISSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
That there is a good spirit of our Father we believe, although we cannot demonstrate its existence. We remind our readers that we mean spirit—the spirit of a person, of God—and we feel safe alone in employing the words of the New Testament when speaking of the spirit. Our purpose is, if possible, to present the matter in a manner that cannot be misunderstood.
- After the ascension of our Lord, the spirit was sent as the advocate of the Christian institution. The wisest and best men of earth were utterly incapable of organizing the body of Christ, or carrying out any of the principles of the new religion, without special and perpetual aid from above. The first thing the spirit did in advocating the cause of God was to lead erring men into all truth. Hence, at Jerusalem, on Pentecost, the spirit was sent to the disciples, and especially to the Apostles. It brought to the minds of the Apostles all that the Lord had said unto them, and enabled them to speak with tongues, “as the spirit gave them utterance.” The Lord had said, “When you are brought before Governors and Kings for my name, study or think not what you shall say, for it is not you that speak, but the spirit of my Father who speaks through you.” Hence the Apostles never considered it their privilege to body forth revelations from God, but they made known what had not entered into the heart of man, in words not taught by man, but “which the Holy Spirit taught.” (Cor. 2, 14.)
When the divine power had given us all things which pertain to life and godliness, miraculous revelations ceased, and from the close of the first century to this day, no item has been added to the stock of our spiritual intelligence. The testimony was sealed up, and instead of…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
looking for new light, we should examine the sacred oracles. Should the written word be deficient in any particular, it will be time to seek wisdom to guide us into the way everlasting.
2. The Spirit was to “convince the world.”
As the fact will be controverted by no one who regards the authority of the scriptures, the main question is to determine the manner in which the spirit has convinced the sinful of their errors. There are certain speculative views which should be noticed. It is supposed by some that the spirit must be poured directly into the heart to convince one of sin. But the Lord said, “The world cannot receive” the spirit. (Jno. 14, 13.) If this proposition be true, it is highly unbecoming for men of the world to pray, or permit religious people to pray to God that his spirit may be sent into their hearts. It is not promised to men of the world. The spirit convinced the three thousand on Pentecost, not by falling upon them, but through the word of Peter. The disciples received the spirit and spoke in seventeen tongues to the great multitude. Those who heard understandingly were cut to the heart, or convicted by the spirit and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” At the martyrdom of Stephen, the Jews were pierced to the soul by the words of the dying Christian, and to allay their conviction they placed their fingers in their ears, and slew that innocent man.
Wherever the Gospel had been preached, and especially wherever it has been believed, the people have been convinced of sin. In exact proportion as men now hear, understand and believe through the words of the spirit, are they convinced of the danger of sinning against the Lord. Where the quick and powerful word is not known, the people feel no more consciousness of sin against Jehovah than the cattle of the field.
3. The Spirit is promised to Christians.
As proof on this point we submit the following:
- The church is compared to the human body, and as all the members of which it is composed are living, we conclude that the members of Christ’s body are all blessed with the living active, comforting spirit of the head of the church.
- Paul said to Christians, “Because you are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying Abba Father.”
- We are all baptized by one spirit into one body, and enabled to drink into one spirit.
- The spirit bears witness to our spirit that we are heirs of…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
God, and joint heirs with Christ. If asked as to the manner in which the spirit bears witness, we should answer like all other witnesses—by giving testimony touching the matter under examination. The spirit bore witness to Paul by saying, “bonds and afflictions awaited him.” In the letter to the Hebrews, the Apostle inculcates the idea of the spirits bearing witness to us by the words written in our hearts. They are written by hearing and learning the truth. But the great question has not yet been touched.
Fifth
Christians are entitled, by virtue of their relation to the Father, to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul says, “If any man has not the spirit of Christ he is none of his.” It is the “earnest of our inheritance.” We are inclined to pronounce this a substantial indwelling of the spirit in the soul. Recently various writers amongst us have endeavored to make capital out of sundry things which they have given to the public as original, regarding the spirit. Amongst others, their high pretensions to spiritual enjoyment in the church might be mentioned. From their writings, one unacquainted with the views of the disciples would irresistibly be drawn to the conclusion that Alexander Campbell and the brethren generally have spent their time in preaching mere words, forms, and rituals, destitute of all spirit; but these new philosophers profess to teach that the spirit is really in the hearts of the saints. We wish, with all the premises before us, to say that we regard this movement sheer impertinence. What Christian man ever thought of doubting the indwelling of the spirit? It never entered into our heart to suppose that any believer in Christ had the slightest misgivings on this subject. The controversy has never been in regard to the fact of the spirit’s power in the heart, but with direct reference to the manner in which the spirit is received. The brethren everywhere have maintained that the spirit of God, indeed all revelations and all spiritual influences, have been confined to the institutions of the Lord. In the plainest words possible, we have been distinguished from all sects and parties, for more than a quarter of a century, for maintaining that the church is God’s present medium of spiritual communication with mankind. Those in the church are the only spiritual persons of whom we have knowledge, whilst those out of the kingdom breathe not a spiritual atmosphere.
Sixth
The Fruit of the Spirit
Our Lord said, “You know the tree by the fruit.” Men do not even to this day gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, and neither can we look for Christian fruit from bad men. Those who exhibit the fruits of love, joy, peace, long…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
147
suffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, faith, temperance and charity, are possessed of the spirit. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. We have not felt it to be our duty to discuss any one of these cardinal points, to which we have invited attention, and in submitting them to our brethren we have not been disposed to examine the speculations of the denominations.
We wish to understand ourselves, and then we will be the better prepared to make those without understand our purposes. We trust, however, our brief outline may indicate the course which will lead to the whole truth regarding the Mission of the Spirit.
T. F.
THE RELIGIOUS REVIVAL MOVEMENT
Possibly, there has at no former period in the history of our country existed so general a religious excitement, north and south, as at present. Neither the friends or enemies of religion can remain unconcerned. That many object to what are denominated religious revivals we are well aware, but we hold that the more well directed religious excitement can be produced, the better it will be for the cause of truth and righteousness.
Enthusiasm, superstition, and fanaticism of every grade, are but perversions of genuine religion. It may not be improper to offer a few suggestions touching the cause or causes of the present excitement, its tendency and final effect.
Various causes have been assigned, and we doubt whether all are true—perhaps no one yet given is correct. We prefer looking at the matter first negatively. God, we presume, no one will imagine is more kind to the human family in 1858 than He was in 1857. Therefore all that is said in the religious journals upon the subject of “powerful outpourings of the spirit,” is without any proper foundation. Our Heavenly Father is uniform in the operations of nature, and in the kingdom of grace the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus is supreme.
All men who are truly converted to God, are saved by the ordained and revealed appointments of the New Testament. There is nothing new on the subject of religion. In well instructed society these great religious outbreaks are unknown. They are not needed. Hence “powerful conversions,” and “terrible awakenings” reveal a very low grade of moral culture.
In plain language, persons brought up in the instruction and admonition of the Lord, never fail to solemnly and most considerately acknowledge the authority of the Lord upon fully learning the truth. They are not influenced by sudden revivals.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
and reflecting individuals are not fascinated by these ebullitions of religious feeling. Thoughts and volatile youths, and hard-hearted old persons are suddenly startled at their condition, and hence their conversion is sudden and brilliant. It is also true that few, perhaps not one in ten of these impulsive converts becomes a warm-hearted, intelligent Christian, and many more than half become even worse than they were before their religious awakening.
Yet we are aware that frail human beings in sin must be turned from darkness to light, and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order to enjoy eternal life, but our Father above has appointed the means. The Gospel is his power to salvation to all who believe. But to the question. What has produced the present religious interest? Two reasons may be assigned.
In the first place, men in great prosperity rarely think of God. Neither are they religious usually in extreme poverty. The world never perhaps was more prosperous pecuniarily than on the first day of October, 1851, and never were men generally less inclined to worship God in spirit and in truth. But the panic came, and many of the rich instantly became poor, business was confused, and the future to the masses wedded to business became suddenly dark beyond description. It was a darkness felt most sensibly by millions. Many of the covetous were forced to loosen their grasp upon the almighty dollar; the working classes, particularly in the great cities of the north, felt the chilling blasts of want pierce their stubborn hearts. The world for the moment faded from the view of most persons, and in withdrawing the eyes from looking after things perishable, they were mercifully turned to God and things which pertain to another world. No sooner was attention directed to religion than myriads fled to it for refuge.
In the second place, most church people in the cities, particularly through riches, pride and vanity, had grown into a despicable aristocracy. Personal religion was but seldom seen; almost everything in worship was performed by machinery. The preacher, the organ, and the hired choir did most of the service, while the people generally were mere lookers on, ready to pay their money in order to relieve themselves from honoring God in their bodies and spirits, which rightly belong to him. But fortunately some one hit upon the idea that the people could worship in spirit, and most acceptably for themselves. Hence the prayer meeting was soon found spreading far and wide.
We admit there is much which is objectionable in all great excitements, particularly religious, but like the tornado they tend to purify.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
149
Much that is unauthorized, there will be found good “wheat” in the chaff. Hence Christians should be busy. This is the Lord’s time for work, and it is emphatically the day of our salvation.
T. F.
JAMAICA MISSION
For many years we have felt but little confidence in any missionary operation founded in human wisdom. We need not fear a northern or southern spirit while the Bible maintains supreme authority, but men left to themselves are as apt to become Mohammedans, Pagans, Jews, Mormons, Southern fire-eaters, Northern abolitionists, or “Higher-law religionists” as Christians. Hence we have preferred missionary operations by church authority alone.
Our attention has been called to this subject by a letter in friend Bogg’s paper, from the pen of J. O. Beardslee, missionary to Jamaica from the Society at Cincinnati. The writer exhorts his friends to be “prompt in their remittances”—this is not apostolic—and is careful to say to the “Board” that “they can only remit such moneys as are contributed expressly for the Jamaica Mission, and from sources obtained by contact with slavery.”
“My mind,” says he, “is unalterably made up to suffer want and persecution, rather than receive aid from those who hold their fellow-creatures in bondage.” We offer no comments.
While we adhere to the constitution of our King, there will be no north, no south, no east, no west, and the world will remain the field in which all the servants of God can unite their efforts in building up the cause of their Saviour. No human policy will bind society together.
“There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling—one God, one Lord, one faith.” (Paul.)
T. F.
CHURCH ORGANIZATION
In view of all that has been said pro and con, regarding church organization, I have come to the following conclusions:
- That the church of Christ is composed of all the obedient believers in all time.
- But that a church of Christ is an assembly of spirits, who meet regularly and worship God according to his laws.
- That each congregation is independent of all others, as respects government or discipline, but each church should respect the needs of…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
others. It is presumed that all are governed by the same unerring authority.
4th
That no church is independent as it respects the peace, prosperity, and welfare of the whole; therefore the churches should confederate and cooperate in all the works of faith and labors of love, knowing they have a common interest and a common destiny.
5th
That it is the duty of all the churches, to the extent of their ability, to send out missionaries to preach the Gospel to the world. (Acts 2:22; I Thess. 1:8; II Cor. 8:23.)
6th
That it is the duty of the churches to sustain their evangelists pecuniarily, and in their ministerial character. (Gal. 6:6; Rom. 15:27; I Cor. 9:11; Phil. 2:29; I Thess. 5:12-13.)
7th
That it is the duty of the evangelists to preach the Gospel, to baptize the believers, to congregate the baptized into a worshiping assembly, and to remain with them, teaching and admonishing, until the congregation is able to edify itself in love. (Acts 2:23-26; I Tim. 1:3; Tit. 1:5.)
8th
That it is the duty of each to select from among themselves persons for their own officers, so soon as these possess the qualifications. (Acts 6:3; Acts 13:1-3.)
9th
That it is the duty of the evangelists to ordain such persons to office, by prayer and laying on of hands. (Acts 6:6; 13:3; Tit. 1:5; I Tim. 5:22.)
10th
The evangelists are not church officers, but church messengers, sent out to preach the gospel to the world, and organize other churches, and have no disciplinary power over the churches after they are officiated. (They are to see that the laws are executed. T. F.)
11th
That there are but two classes of church officers, Bishops and Deacons.
12th
And that there should be a plurality of Bishops and Deacons in every church. (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17; Tit. 1:5.)
13th
That it is the duty of the bishops to oversee, to govern, and to teach and edify the churches in love; hence there are no places for ruling bishops, as drones, or know-nothings and do-nothings. (Tit. 1:9; I Tim. 3:2.)
14th
That it is the duty of the deacons to attend to the temporalities of the church under the direction of the bishops.
We have no desire or wish to discuss the above items, nor do we deem it necessary.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
151
Christ has established but one kingdom or church on earth, called his body, (Col. 1, 18; I Cor. 12, 20,) and that the congregations of saints are but parts of the whole; but the parts or members are as connected and dependent on each other in order to the welfare and peace of the whole, as the parts of the human body are, in order to its healthfulness and preservation, and as in the human body each member has its own function to perform for its own good and that of the body; so in relation to the church and its members, hence we infer that the congregations and individual members are bound by the highest obligations in the universe, and by a common interest, to cooperate for the good of the whole, and that no congregation or individual is at liberty to withhold their talents, property or persons when the cause demands them.
S. D. GILES.
REMISSION IN OBEDIENCE – NO. 3
BROTHERS FANNING AND LIPSCOMB: Having in separate essays, no. 1 and 2, given our thoughts as to the necessary preparation of the heart of a sinner before he is entitled to baptism, and shown that the Lord hath ordained baptism for the remission of sins, we now proceed to our third proposition, to-wit: That when Christ was on the earth no sinner ever prayed to him for the forgiveness of his sins, and that the Apostles promise no forgiveness without admission to the new constitution. Our Lord had said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Jno. 3:5.) And yet it appears the thief did enter in without being born of water. This mercy was extended to him because he had not the power to be baptized. (Guess work. T. F.) Again our Lord said to his disciples, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16.) Yet God has the same power now to save a penitent sinner without baptism that he had then. From this testimony may we not indulge some hope that a sinner who becomes a believer in the last extremity, when he has no power to be baptized, may in like manner be saved without baptism. (All speculation. The thief was told that he should die—not anything more. Case not applicable. T. F.)
As no sinner ever prayed to the Lord Jesus to forgive his sins, we infer that the expressions used by the Savior in all cases (except to this thief) indicating that he did forgive sins, alluded to the body and not to the soul. (Too much imagination. T. F.) Knowing that our Lord sometimes spoke ironically, as in John 2:19, he said, “Destroy this temple and I will…”
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
“raise it up in three days,” may we not allow some latitude of construction also in this case? The word sin signifies a transgression of law. There is a law of Christ and there is a law of nature, and in all cases where he alluded to forgiving sins, we understand that he meant sins against the law of nature, and not sins against the law of Christ. (No such sins charged. T. F.) Sins relating to their bodies and not to their souls.
For instance, a man may expose his body to the inclemency of the weather more than nature can bear, and thereby bring on himself some disease; then in such case he sins against the laws of his nature, and for such sins Christ did forgive the penalty; he cured all such. (We pay the penalty for opposing nature. T. F.) His main object in doing these miracles was to make the people believe that he was the Christ, the Son of God. And no person could believe on him without testimony.
But we will examine some of their cases. He said to the man sick of palsy, “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.” (Matt. 9, 2.)
This man had not asked the Lord to forgive his sins, knowing that baptism had been ordained as a means of forgiving the sins of the soul. We suppose that this man exposed himself more than his nature would bear, and that by these means he had brought on his body this disease. And the Saviour, to manifest the power of God, cured him, thus forgiving him the penalty of that sin. (Miraculous, and not applicable, if correct. T. F.)
Again, our Saviour cured the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda without saying that he forgave him his sins, or even that he sinned; yet when the Lord afterwards saw him, he said to him, “Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” (John, 5, 3 and 14) thus insinuating that this man had sinned, and that this weakness had been sent upon him by the Lord as a judgment for his sins.
If this was the Lord’s plan, then the wicked would be as full of diseases as Job was of sores, whilst the righteous would have none. This we cannot believe, because all experience teaches us that the Lord is as gracious in a temporal way to the wicked as to the righteous. Then our Lord must have meant sin against his nature and not against his God.
That he had exposed his body more than he was able to bear, and that in consequence through that he had brought on this weakness, and that if he should do so again he might bring on a worse disease, perhaps consumption.
In those days we hear of no prayers put up to a throne of grace by mourners for the forgiveness of their sins, nor do we hear of any priest making prayers for mourners.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
153
We would like to know when and where this custom began. We think that an unbelieving sinner has no right to pray, and that the Lord heareth not such sinners, because “without faith it is impossible to please God.” But when a sinner becomes a believer in the Lord Jesus, that he is the Son of God and the Saviour of sinners, then he is a worshipper of God, and like Saul of Tarsus, he is willing to do his will to the best of his knowledge. Such sinners as these we believe have a right to pray, and the Lord heareth them, although they are not yet Christians complete.
I remain, as ever, your brother in the good cause.
JAMES YOUNG.
Remarks
Sinners are encouraged to seek for or pray for the right way, just as Saul was, in confidence that the Lord and his people will be well pleased. But this is a very different matter from an alien asking the Lord to forgive his sins, when he knows not how to enter the kingdom, and indeed, is seeking for the blessings of the Christian religion in the kingdom of Satan. Brother Young possibly strains the point in regard to the supposed forgiveness of what he calls physical sins.
T. F.
THE GOSPEL OUR ONLY HOPE
Though corrupted, abused and dishonored by the most unworthy service, the world knows nothing better than the Christian religion. Regard it as lightly as they may, and pronounce it a failure as often as they dare, men have never yet been able to offer a system that can for a moment compare with it. When we lose confidence in the word of God, the Gospel of our Salvation, truly are we hopeless, utterly hopeless.
Though many things cause us deep grief, and discourage our timid, trembling, faithless hearts, yet when we turn to the truth itself, as God himself has spoken, how firm is our reliance, and sure and steadfast the foundation of our hope. Amidst the scoffs and blasphemies of enemies, and the treachery of false friends, it has remained pure, strong, beautiful and heavenly—our only trust.
We may be daunted by worldly success, and may boast of intellectual achievements, but without the sure hope of the Gospel we are most sore tasked and miserable beings. These vanities of earth must soon be left by us, to tempt others equally wanting in true wisdom. We must meet realities, over which worldly honors and wealth have no power, and the most…
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
gigantic mind cannot surround. Then nought of earth can aid us—no might of human force or intellect can gain the victory for us, we must triumph if we triumph at all, through the sure hope of the Gospel sealed and made forever sure through the death and rising of Christ our Saviour.
I know, viewing the many failures and short comings of Christian people, we are disposed to despair of the ultimate success and triumph of the truth. To see the Christian profession too often sunk into mere ceremony, and its purity, holiness and sacredness turned into every species of partisan bigotry and selfishness presents little to encourage us, when we rely upon man rather than God.
That men should endeavor to cloak deeds of fraud, deception, violence, revelry and infamy under a pretended profession of the Christian religion, is no fault of the Gospel. It is only evidence that there is no sincerity in them, and that notwithstanding all their professions, they are a wicked rebellious, Godless people, fully determined to spend their days in the service of the flesh. The Christian religion is not chargeable with these things.
The primitive Christians were a people, God-fearing, zealous, fervent, patient, and pure in heart and in life, and they were made so by the same gospel which we enjoy. They were a people dead to the world, with its empty attractions and speculations, and devoted earnestly to the simple truth, without comment or interpretation. They were content to hear what was commanded, and perform it with the best energies of mind and body.
They were torn and divided by no speculation of “total depravity,” “effectual calling,” “election,” “free grace,” “spiritual influence,” or any such questions of theological strife. The truth of God in its simplicity and purity, was what they sought to know; and knowing this they desired to know nothing beyond.
The church was to them indeed and in truth the body of Christ, the only ark of safety from the sin, corruption and pollution of the world. They were content as the Body of Christ to labor for each other’s welfare, and for the growth and health of that body.
Of the various hobbies of modern days to enable men to do good easily, honorably and expediently, according to human notions, they knew nothing. The church, the body of our Lord, was to them a “missionary society,” “Sunday school,” “Bible class,” “widow’s relief association,” “orphan school,” and for every other praiseworthy enterprise. Whatever was done was done by the body of Christ, and the glory and honor was to no institution of man, but to Christ and his church alone. Thus
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
Page 155
Consecrated in every act and thought to the glory and honor of their master’s kingdom, they felt that they were in truth His people, and were ever ready, with willing hearts and hands, to do His service, at whatever the sacrifice. Under such training the church grew and strengthened internally, and spread abroad its influence in the proclamation of the truth.
Can we not under the same gospel enjoy and realize the same happy condition? We need just as much as any people did on this earth, the redeeming and sanctifying influence of the Christian religion. We need it in our daily intercourse with our fellow-men. We need it to keep us free from sin; to subdue our passions; to banish from our hearts and lips every malicious thought, every slanderous word. We need it to make us upright in our dealings with our neighbors. We need all the power of Faith, the strength of hope, and the self-denying, conquering and God-like power of Christian love; to strengthen, elevate and purify us in this world. These we, as the servants of heaven, have the right to enjoy as fully as any mortals ever did. But not while we are listless, careless and indifferent will these blessings and influences of heaven flow to us. When we labor for heaven—when our hearts are filled with love for the cause of our Master, and our hands gladly perform His service, will He bless us, and crown our lives with the full enjoyment of all the peace, consolation and comfort of the Gospel.
W. L.
Alexandria, April 24th, 1858.
Brother Fanning—This Reformation commenced its career by laying down as a cardinal maxim for its guide, of having a “Thus saith the Lord,” in all matters of faith and practice, and it may occasionally be well enough for us to revert to this fundamental article of our faith as we progress, to see whether we have deviated in any particular whatever.
The following queries which I send you, I should like to see in the Advocate, with your answer thereto:
- Is there any precept or example in the New Testament which authorizes unordained persons to administer the ordinances, either baptism or the Lord’s supper?
- Have we in the New Testament any unequivocal authority for partaking of the Lord’s supper every first day of the week?
- Have we in the New Testament any precept or example for the regular meeting together for the purposes of worship, of a congregation?
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
gation of Christians, without being at the same time under the care, and having the presence of a regular minister, either apostle, prophet, evangelist or overseer?
Please let me have your answer to the above, with your quotation of chapter and verse in each case.
O. D. WILLIAMS.
ANSWERS TO THE ENQUIRIES OF BROTHER O. D. WILLIAMS.
- There is no precept or example in the New Testament intimating that ordination is requisite for administering the Lord’s supper or baptism. Bro. Williams is under obligation to show authority for ordination as a conditional qualification for performing these requirements. Perhaps it may not be amiss to suggest that merely entering the kingdom may be regarded as a consecration or ordination to perform any service for which we are competent. The following scriptures exert an influence in our mind.
“And they (the disciples—new converts) continued steadfastly in the Apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” (Acts 2:42)
The disciples, it must be kept in mind, continued in the “teaching,” “breaking of bread,” and “prayers.” It would be quite as easy to prove from the Scriptures that men ought to be ordained pastors, bishops or preachers to pray, as for the service specified by our correspondent.
Again, “And on the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread.” The disciples came together to perform the service, and not for some one to attend to it for them. Under the Old Testament, the male members of one of the twelve tribes of Israel were consecrated to the priest’s office for the purpose of sacrificing for the whole nation, and it was death for any one not a priest to officiate, but thank God we are not Jews—we are in a different dispensation.
In the kingdom of Christ, all are “Priests to God,” (Rev. 1:6; Pet. 2:5), and by virtue of our priestly dignity are authorized to perform the service for ourselves, and when we let this labor to hirelings we dishonor ourselves, insult our Master, and prostrate His cause in the dust.
Ordination never imparted qualifications or authority for the observance of any obligation whatever. Paul and Barnabas had been acceptable preachers for a considerable time before they were ordained by the church at Antioch. Men primitively gave evidence of their ability by their labor, and when it was clear they were fitted for preaching, overseeing, waiting upon the poor, etc., they were set apart for the service.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
157
Labor, and this consecration was nothing more nor less than setting them apart as to their time, labor, field, etc. Men were not ordained for the purpose of enabling them to oversee the flocks; but because they had given practical evidence of ability to oversee they were consecrated by the Evangelists to this labor.
1. Lord’s Day Service
If the supper is a Lord’s day service—which no one should deny—we are under obligations to attend to it as often as we regard the day to the Lord. If there is “unequivocal authority” for partaking of the Lord’s supper at all, there is authority for partaking on every first day. No one claims a command for the practice, but we are assured the primitive Christians acted under the influence of the spirit’s guidance, that they assembled on the first day of each week, and they met to break bread. (John 20th chap.; Acts, 20, 7; I Cor., 16, 2.)
2. Worship Conduct
We are not sure it was at any time the peculiar duty of Prophet, Apostle, Evangelist, or Overseer to conduct the worship in the congregations. The advocates of this view should give some authority for the practice before they ask us to disprove it. The Evangelists planted the disciples in the bay, but the members of the church constituting “living stones,” “a holy priesthood,” and “a peculiar people,” performed their own family and congregational service.
3. Scriptural Evidence
We deem it becoming to call attention to a few plain scriptures bearing on this vexed question. We begin with the first converts after the ascension. The disciples continued steadfast in the Apostle’s doctrine, prayers, breaking of bread, etc. (Acts, 2, 42.) Paul said, (Ro. 15, 14) “And I myself am persuaded of you my brethren, that ye are also full of all goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.” If the members were filled with so much “goodness” that they were able to admonish one another, we are disposed to conclude that it was not the privilege of the evangelists more than the “lay members” to admonish. The Apostle again echoes the disciples not to forsake the assembling themselves together, but to exhort one another daily.
These brief quotations give the practices of the first Christians, and not feeling disposed at present to engage in a lengthy argument on the subject, we suggest that the habit of Prophets, Evangelists, or Bishops performing the first day service is certainly in opposition to all the authority in the scriptures. This is the main cause of the sad failures of the congregations. The disciples, having but little to do in the congregation, grow weary, lack spiritual experience, and often become ashamed of the Lord. The practice of
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
others besides the members performing the sacred service, which the Lord has ordained for the health and growth of the body, cannot fail to prostrate the church, and make idle, speculative, fault-finding and spiritless professors of religion.
T. F.
QUERIES AND ANSWERS
Brother B. writes from Salem, Tennessee, that he heard a Methodist preacher ask the following questions:
- If the teaching of A. Campbell is true, is not that of others false?
- If this doctrine be true, then does it not follow that they ONLY who believe and practice it are members of the church of Christ?
- On this hypothesis where was the true church before the days of Mr. Campbell?
Answers:
Alexander Campbell and brethren possess no new doctrine, but the old doctrine which was given at the beginning. The unchangeable doctrine on earth is that which condemns all who do not obey the truth.
Many, rather than receive it, have renounced all religious belief. A. Campbell established no new church, but directed attention to a church founded at Jerusalem on Pentecost against which the gates of hell were not to prevail, and which has withstood every storm to this day.
There have been good men and women in every age, and such only are members of the church. We moreover believe that the church has been as a city on a hill in every age from the Apostles to the nineteenth century.
T. F.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE FOR DISTRIBUTION
With the view of extending the field of usefulness of the Gospel Advocate, we propose to furnish it at such a rate as will barely cover cost to such congregations or individuals as may desire it for gratuitous distribution.
The good that might be effected by the circulation of a dozen or two copies in any neighborhood is not easily estimated. Much might be done to break down prejudice, and prepare the minds of many for receiving the Truth, by a small expenditure on the part of individuals and congregations. We propose to furnish it at the following rates for the current volume:
| Quantity | Price |
|---|---|
| 5 copies to one address | $5.00 |
| 10 copies to one address | $10.00 |
| 50 copies to one address | $25.00 |
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
CENTREVILLE, TENN., April 21, 1858
Brothers Fanning and Litscomb:
I am at this time holding a meeting in the Town of Centreville, and am happy to say that the faith is having a good effect on the minds of the people. The Methodist friends here are very courteous, and kindly opened the doors of their meeting house to me, and turn out well to hear. I am persuaded that much good can be done here by the proper presentation of the old Gospel.
R. B. Trimble.
CAMARGO, March 9, 1858
Brother T. Fanning:
You will please give us an article through your paper on the subject of Jewish salvation. I mean not only the Jews, but all other persons that were saved previous to the birth of Christ.
The doctrine is taught in our country that all were saved by the blood of Christ, prospectively. From the days of Adam even up to John the Baptist, and still farther on even up to the death of Christ, all were saved by or through his blood prospectively, and that there is no difference only one part of mankind had to believe on the Saviour to come, be crucified, resurrected and crowned in heaven, and the other class had to believe that all this had been done.
When and to whom was the Saviour first promised? And, again, when and to whom was the particulars of a crucified and risen Lord first made known?
We have the promise of a resurrection from the dead, or a changing of our mortal bodies at his second coming. But is it possible for us to know the particulars of that resurrection or change?
L. V.
REPLY
Although the subject of eternal life had not been brought to light when the Messiah made his appearance, the rule of action was, and is, “The Lord of all the earth did, and will do what is right,” and we hesitate not to say that all who acted in conformity to the light revealed, will ultimately be happy.
T. F.
There are a few excellent disciples at Columbia, Tennessee, who earnestly desire aid from the teaching brethren who may pass that way. Brethren, who labor in word and doctrine, we should aid the feeble. Who will visit Columbia?
T. F.
The disciples have commenced meeting in Murfreesboro’ to keep the ordinances. Constant family and congregational worship is the great moral lever which turns all the sincere and intelligent to the Father.
T. F.
THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE
FRANKLIN COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT
The closing exercises of the present session of Franklin College will take place in the college chapel, on Wednesday the 16th of June. The exercises of Mrs. C. Fanning’s school will take place on the afternoon of the same day.
W. LIPSCOMB, Sec’y.
THE ALUMNI SOCIETY
The Alumni Society of Franklin College will meet on Tuesday the 15th of June. A prompt attendance is desired. The address of the Society will be delivered by James B. Clark, Esq., of Jackson, Miss.
F. M. CARMACK, Sec’y.
OBITUARIES
Brothers Fanning and Litscomb: Sister Elizabeth Thompson is no more on earth. She was stricken with paralysis, a disease to which she had been subject for years, about the first of January, and after severe and protracted suffering, died on Saturday, April 10th, 1858, aged 43 years and ten days.
The greater portion of her life had been spent in the service of the “King of kings and Lord of lords.” She was baptized by Bro. B. F. Hall in 1833, at the time he and old father Thomas Claiborne first visited this country. In full possession of her faculties to the last, and with faith unshaken in him who is the “resurrection and the life,” she calmly and resignedly fell asleep.
O, how strong, how supporting amid the shadows of death, is the Christian’s Faith and Hope and Love! Sister Thompson has left a deeply afflicted companion, a large family of children, and many friends to mourn her loss. May the rich blessings of our Heavenly Father rest upon the afflicted ones! God grant that their present deep affliction may redound to their eternal good.
F. M. C.
CASTALIAN SPRINGS, TENN., April 15th, 1858.
No one was more beloved in her neighborhood than sister T., and no one was more deserving of the high regard of acquaintances. Bro. T. and children have our sincere sympathies.
T. F.