The Gospel Advocate – November 1857

by

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. FANNING AND W. LIPSCOMB, Editors.

VOL. III.
NASHVILLE, NOVEMBER, 1857.
NO. 11.

SIXTH REPLY TO PROF. ROBERT RICHARDSON.

The October number of the Millennial Harbinger contains two essays from the pen of Prof. Richardson, under the caption of “Faith versus Philosophy,” to which it is proper to offer a brief reply. All his essays under this head to the present date we have been careful to publish in the Gospel Advocate, but as there is nothing new in the last issue, and as we cannot hope to see our replies in the Harbinger, we feel under no obligation to continue the publication of his articles. We are happy, however, under the conviction that we have done all that could be asked, to give our patrons an opportunity to learn the peculiarities of the new theology. The present results we anticipated and hence our care to let Prof. Richardson speak in our columns, with the view that he would let his readers see the grounds of our difference.

His course has been so singular that it is, indeed, difficult to infer anything with certainty regarding his religious belief, and from the fact that he has been found at every point of the compass, we know not where he is now, nor where he will be next month. It becomes us, however, to notice a few of his strong affirmations in the October Harbinger.

  1. Prof. Richardson informs us that his object “has been to call attention to the authority and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures,” in opposition to such “empty and dangerous philosophical speculations as Pres. Fanning, who is full of the philosophy of Locke, entertains.” When Prof. R. penned these words he certainly knew as well as he knows…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

his own name, that we have advocated no speculations or system of philosophy. He was well aware, that he had openly advocated the philosophy of Cousin and others, which we demonstrated to be identical with the profane infidelity of Andrew Jackson Davis and other animal spiritualists.

The brethren generally saw his dilemma, and he must have seen the pit into which he had fallen, and hence his determination to involve us in some system of human wisdom to protect himself. It is said, “misery loves company,” but Prof. R.’s motive all must see.

It is well known by all familiar with our teaching, that we have for many years openly and zealously opposed the idea of philosophy in religion, or even divine agency beyond the teaching and influence of the Holy Spirit. Human wisdom has never afforded the least spiritual light. This is the main point of controversy between Dr. Richardson and ourself. He took the bold ground that we must rise above the written word, and the forms of scripture, to something which he called “knowledge by the Spirit” or the “inner consciousness.” As we expected, to save a position in the church, he is now disposed to renounce this system of modern spiritualists and German Neologists, and return to the Sacred Oracles.

Had he not been driven to the wall, and forced to assume his present position, we should certainly have much more confidence in his professed love for the Bible.

  1. He says, both in the Harbinger and in the Intelligencer, by Bro. Coleman, that the charge of infidelity was in consequence of “using books on philosophy” in school.

We wish not to speak unkindly, but Prof. Richardson must have known, when he made the statement, that we did not object to the use of metaphysical works in college. We have used more than Bethany. It will be remembered, that in the May number of the Harbinger Prof. R. said, “Notwithstanding the fact, that Brother Campbell himself is a teacher of Natural Theology in Bethany College, (Not that he merely uses the books. T. F.) Pres. Fanning has ventured, without hesitation, to pronounce the doctrine of Natural Theology, in all its shapes and bearings, false, deceitful and subversive of the Christian religion.” Prof. Richardson then admitted that we repudiated Natural Theology or philosophical religion, and boldly asserted that Pres. Campbell taught Natural Theology in Bethany College, and that we “can learn the being and perfections of God both from the works of nature” and our “inner consciousness;” but now he wishes to make the impression that he has all the while been the defender of the Bible alone, and

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

we have been ignorantly defending philosophical speculations. It seems to us, that one who can assert such things with all the facts before him, is by no means scrupulous as to his asseverations.

  1. Prof. R. says we have “MISREPRESENTED” him in supposing that he is on the borders of modern spiritualism. We wish not to misrepresent; but he has advocated the mystic and infidel dogma of spiritual light by the “inner-consciousness,” and Andrew Jackson Davis has done no worse.
  2. He speaks of us as “being totally incapable of comprehending any thing beyond a mere verbal and formal religion.” It will be remembered that in previous numbers he spoke of “a merely external church,” etc.
  3. We admit very candidly that our faith has come by hearing and our hearing has been by the word of God. We profess no religious belief beyond what is written or “verbal.” Words limit our confidence in religious truth. We also freely admit that we acknowledge none but a “formal religion,” and we can with a good conscience pronounce all men infidels and profane scoffers at spiritual truth who profess anything beyond “verbal truth or truth taught in words,” or beyond the “formal religion” of the Bible. We are not ashamed to admit our position. No, indeed, we rejoice in the belief that all spiritual light God has kindly given in language adapted to the humblest of his children, and that he has established a church—spiritual temple—which stands as a city on a hill to enlighten the world, and which is “the pillar and support of the truth.”
  4. We are bold to deny that there is any spiritual influence exerted in the conversion of the world independent of the church, or beyond the forms which the church employs. All men who deny the truth of this teaching, we pronounce enemies in letter and spirit to our Lord Jesus Christ, and the only spiritual religion on earth.
  5. Does Prof. R. intend to charge us with maintaining “the form of godliness” without its “power”? This is the old charge of all the mystic sects for the last half century against the simple-minded disciples of Christ, whose greatest sin has consisted in believing that all spiritual light is through the Bible. The parties have said, “They (we) do not believe there is any spirit in religion.” Regarding the insinuation, however, we beg leave to say, that we know of but one way in which men can hold a form of godliness and deny its power. Those who profess to believe in the church of God and the ordinances of the Lord’s house, and at the same time deny their authority, or speak of them as merely verbal and formal without…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Some foreign aid to give them efficacy, renounce in effect, the form and power of religion. We wish to say, that we regard the church of Christ as “the ministration of the Spirit,” that the word of God is “Spirit and life,” that where the word of the great Jehovah is, there is his moral power; that the Spirit was sent to the church—has not left it; that the body is hence spiritual; that all who enter it partake of the divine nature as a result of their spiritual union, and that it is blasphemous to speak or think of Christ’s church being a lifeless and spiritless body.

We profess not to understand the how the Spirit exerts his influence—through the word and appointments in the church, no more than we can comprehend how the life is in our blood, but we know it is written that “the Spirit is ministered by the hearing of faith.” God is in his word and church, and should we conclude that he is not in his appointments—that he has gone on a journey or is asleep, and that the word and church are merely “verbal and formal” in any acceptance of the terms, we would renounce all religious belief. Hence we preach the word, in perfect confidence that it is God’s power to salvation and instrument for convincing and converting the lost; and we have no patience with teachers who presume to preach that the word and ordinances are inadequate without some foreign aid to give them power.

  1. Prof. Richardson more than intimates that our objections to his teaching arise from opposition to Bethany College. We unqualifiedly repel the insinuation. No man save A. Campbell is more anxious for the success of that institution than ourselves. We are not sure but the present discussion will be the very salvation of Bethany College. No institution can live long amongst the disciples with such influences as have been hanging around Bethany College for the past year. We profess not to be prophet or the son of a prophet, but we most confidently believe that the brethren cannot be reconciled to the speculations of Prof. Richardson and others.
  2. Prof. Richardson informs us, that of late he has “perceived certain indications of a disposition on the part of some young brethren to introduce the mystical philosophy amongst us, and it is this very circumstance,” he asserts, “which induced him to commence this series of articles.” We are heartily sorry that Prof. R. has said these things. It is humiliating indeed for a man who has occupied a high position for thirty years to say things which we do not see how the brethren can believe. Six months ago Prof. Richardson manifested no opposition to the philosophy of Mr. Russell and others. We were denounced as too…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 341

Ignorant and sensualistic to understand it. Prof. Richardson was the teacher of these men, and if they possess the spirit of men, they may speak for themselves. Should these “young brethren,” however, like their teacher, deny all they have said, and profess to be laboring to correct the philosophy of believing in Christ through the words of the apostles, it would not be more strange than what we have already witnessed. We have but one request to make of friends Russell, Cannan and coadjutors, viz., Should they return to the advocacy of faith through the gospel alone, we hope they will admit that they have been on an excursion among German transcendentalists and French infidels.

This is a singular course of retreat in Doctor R. It is too low for him to cry “stop thief” to others. He is the guilty man himself, and these pupils of his should not be made scapegoats to bear away his sins.

Prof. Richardson says, “The opposition and misrepresentation to which my (his) recent exposure of the sensualistic system has given rise, lead me (him) to think that it has gained a much more extended influence among us than is commonly supposed.”

This is a terrible admission. Prof. R. knows that the brethren will not bear his speculations. But even in his admission, he is disposed to insult them by speaking of their “misrepresentations,” and attributing their opposition to the influence of “this world of sensation and outward show.” Poor compliment to friends who have supported him so long. But this is the best evidence in the world that the brethren entertain a positive belief—that they do not follow men. There are thousands in this good land, whose faith would not be shaken in the least, though all the Professors of colleges and all the preachers of the land were to turn aside to fables with Robert Richardson. As we have been so often denounced by Prof. R. as “sensualistic”—a “sensualist,” etc., we think it due to the brethren generally, as well as ourselves, to offer a thought or two in reference to the charge.

Months ago we defined a sensualist, to be one who is influenced by his fleshly desires, an animal man or one controlled by his impulses. We claim no connection with this class of men, but we regard all men led by their animal impulses or “inner-consciousness” as sensualists. We assert that the system of philosophy which Prof. R. attempted to impose upon the brethren brutalizes man.

If Prof. R means by a sensualist one whose information of the world is conditioned and limited by the exercise of the five senses; and whose spiritual light is limited by the oracles of God, as perceived and be…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

If he is advocating “transcendentalism,” or knowledge which transcends the natural powers of man, and the word of the living God, why deny it in the Harbinger? If he claims not spiritual light beyond the senses and the written word, why does he attempt to stigmatize us as sensualists?

He speaks in the bitterest terms of a merely verbal and formal religion. Why not admit at once that he is contending for something beyond a merely verbal and formal religion? Transcendentalism says we must rise above the outward, above words and forms, to absolute spirit, or a religion above all forms. Prof. R. is either contending for this, or he is contending for nothing; yet he denies that he teaches transcendentalism. Then he ought to permit us to preach the gospel as God’s power to salvation, without charging us with gross sensualism.

At an early period in this discussion we thought it might become necessary to retaliate upon Prof. R., but we have changed our mind. We have no desire to disparage him. All he has said of our “gross ignorance,” and “want of learning and power to think” is no doubt rhetorical, and we suppose Prof. R. does not believe a word of it himself. We would respectfully remind him, however, that the old proverb, “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones,” might be strung to advantage by both of us. The only suggestion we offer is a doubt as to Prof. R.’s regular scholarship in any department of a literary institution. Though we are free to believe he is a man of considerable reading, and much valuable information.

Before dismissing Prof. R. we think it due to say, that his attempt to answer our arguments by stepping out of the way to attack our moral character, and especially making the Millennial Harbinger the vehicle for publishing as wicked a report as man ever uttered, we regard as wholly unwarrantable. He has had the time and means to correct his insinuations, and has failed to do so; therefore, he can lay no claim to the high moral position he formerly occupied. Months ago Prof. R. informed his readers that he was done with us, but in each number since the burden of his song has been opposition to our teaching. We have now settled with him all past accounts and we hope he will not bind us under obligations to advert to his speculations in the future. True, as he sneeringly says, in the Intelligencer, we publish “A small paper in the South-West,” but should he, after closing his engagement with the Harbinger, attempt a paper upon his own responsibility, we earnestly wish him better success than has attended his efforts in the…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

343

HarlJinger, and a long and pleasant old age, to correct some of the speculations he has so unnecessarily put forth.

We have seen accomplished more than we designed. The brethren are generally alive to the danger of religious speculation, Prof. H. is wounded to the death by his own hand, and is attempting to leave the field as best he can with his friends around him.

We are heartily sorry that his personal assaults forbid us parting with him in as cordial terms as we could desire; but we have written in the fear of Heaven; indulged in no words of personal unkindness, and we bid Prof. Robert Richardson a present farewell, in the pleasant feelings of soul that we wish to live and to die, and to meet him in the judgment.

We are but men—we may err; but God’s word is the Spirit’s only truth. Beyond it all is darkness—all is death.

TOLBERT FANNING.

DR. RICHARDSON’S “FAITH versus PHILOSOPHY.”

Dear Bro. Fanning:

The August number of the Gospel Advocate has recently reached me; and I have read with interest and close attention the sixth number of Dr. Robert Richardson’s “Faith versus Philosophy” and your reply to it.

I think that he has given his essay the wrong title—that he should have reversed it, and entitled them, “Philosophy versus Faith;” for that is what they really are. I exceedingly regret the appearance of these essays, for I conceive that they are calculated to much injure the great cause for which we are pleading, the best and noblest on earth, to retard its progress, and put it back perhaps years from where it would be! But I commend you, and so do the brethren as far as I have heard an expression of their sentiments, for the bold, fearless and decided stand you have taken against his insidious teaching and subtle philosophy.

We are commanded to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints;” and were you to remain silent and let these things pass occupying the position you do, you would be recreant to your duty as a “watchman upon the walls of Zion,” and unfaithful to the cause of Christ.

I am glad that we have at least one editor, who is not afraid to lift up his voice against them. I regard your rejoinder to Dr. Richardson as a triumphant reply to him, and a complete vindication of the Gospel against his speculations.

And you have the whole brotherhood with you.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

you, without a dissenting voice, as far as I know, in your course thus far in this matter.

As I read his essay I anticipated your reply; and one intelligent brother to whom I read some portions, remarked that he “was contending against shadows.” Does Dr. Richardson think that we are a parcel of simpletons? Does he suppose that we are so ignorant of the Bible—of the Christian system—as to stop short of the person of Christ as the great object of the Christian faith and hope?—to stop at the fact of which he speaks, or the testimony of these facts? He has made a “man of straw”—has conjured up a mere ghost of error—which he has engaged in battering down with his pen, and in endeavoring to exorcise from the minds of the disciples—a mere “figment of the imagination,” not existing in the minds of the brethren, but in his own imagination, and haunting him with fear and dread! He ought to invoke the shades of Faust and Mephistopheles to aid him in expelling the fearful hobgoblin!

But he stopped short too soon himself—he ought to have gone further, and insisted for “God in Christ” as the object of the Christian’s faith! Let him ask the humblest and most ignorant disciple in this Reformation—one that knows nothing about his charge against us—what is the object of his faith, and I’ll warrant he will be replied to, that it is the Lord Jesus Christ. The very confession taken of those to be “baptized (cis) into Christ,” implies it: “Do you believe with all your heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and are you willing to obey Him in all his commandments?” Does not this present Christ to him as the great object of his faith? Most assuredly it does. Do not our preachers exhibit Him as such, in their discourses; and urge obedience to him as such? Every discourse from them will attest to it as the case.

However, I do not anticipate much injury to the brethren from his subtleties. A few may be carried away with them, as in the case of Jesse B. Ferguson, and “make shipwreck of their faith,” but the great body of the brethren are men of too much good, common sense to be moved away from the plain teachings of the word of God, and turned to fables. But my principal hope for the disciples, in reference to Dr. Richardson’s speculations, is in what you quote from 1 Tim, in the third head of your last reply. He says, that “the particular point under consideration [object of faith] is one of great delicacy; and that there are comparatively few [very few indeed!] whose minds are accustomed to make those distinctions which are essential in such cases;” and again, that “these distinctions are extremely nice, and it is hence…”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 345

It is difficult to render them evident to the common mind. Yes, as they are so extremely difficult and nice, and so few minds capable of grasping them; and as our brethren are generally men of “common minds,” I am confident they can do but little harm to them; that the influence they will exert upon them will be extremely limited; and that, as I have remarked, but few will be led astray by them.

Brother Campbell very justly remarks, in his Preface to the New Version published by him, that one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Christian revelation was, that “to the poor the gospel was to be preached—to those not having the advantages of a liberal education;” and that “a revelation not adapted to them”—to their minds and comprehensions—”forfeits all claims of a revelation from God.” If not the words, this contains the substance of what he says, for I quote from memory.

We perfectly agree with him; and his remarks, as well as other passages of his writings, utterly exclude this fine-spun, abstruse theory of Dr. Richardson, which he acknowledges that none but the Jew can comprehend! God grant that it may ever be “the few,” and but few. But the mischief which it will occasion will be the injury to the cause in the estimation of others; the disagreeable and unchristian discussions; and his surrendering to the skeptical and infidel world what we have so long been contending for as the primitive gospel!

When Sampson suffered his locks to be shorn by the Philistines, he lost his strength; and when we suffer our views of the original gospel to be shorn away by these speculations we are done—our great strength is gone from us, and we are at the mercy of our Philistine enemies!

How Dr. Richardson can reconcile his view of faith and his “inner consciousness,” with the plain, simple declarations of the word of God, which he is constantly endeavoring to do, is more than I can see. The result must be contradictions of the Bible and self-contradictions; and accordingly we find that he is constantly guilty of this—constantly involving himself in them. We find them on almost every page, and that with the writings and teachings of Bro. Campbell, and the advantages they have enjoyed, and that too with the plain word of God before them, stripped of all human additions, mysticisms, errors and appendages, they should not have found it out before this!—and that it has been reserved for the astute mind of Dr. Richardson to discover it! Let them continue to cling to the pure, unadulterated word, and they have nothing to fear.

SENEX.

Farmington, Mo., September 1857.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

NOTES ON A TOUR TO MISSOURI – No. 2

If our last stop was with that part of our tour at Spring Creek Meeting House, in Graves county, Ky. After the immersion of the four young men, we returned with Brother Shelton to the Meeting House. There was a very large audience in attendance, several more than could get into the house, or seated in it, although a large and commodious building.

Brother Shelton called upon us to preach; but as he had previously announced a discourse on the subject of Baptism, and as it was expected that he would preach it, we refused; and concluded to address the people in the evening, at 8 o’clock, which was accordingly announced after his discourse.

Brother Shelton discussed the subject under the three divisions usual in treating upon it; but he presented them in an order different from any arrangement we had ever before noticed. He took up the subjects first, then the action or mode, and lastly the design; while we would have taken first the action, then the design, and in the last place the subjects. This would appear to us the most natural division; as the first question in reference to baptism is, what is it? then, what is it for? and lastly, who are the proper subjects?

As Brother Shelton’s discussion of it may not be uninteresting to our readers, and edifying to some of them, we will give them a sketch of it.

1. The Subjects

Here he showed from various references that faith was always required as an indispensable prerequisite; and therefore as none but adults are capable of believing, they were the only proper subjects; and infants were excluded.

The commission in Mark was advanced as evidence: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved;” where faith is held by our Savior to precede baptism. The case of the Ethiopian Eunuch was also brought forward in proof. Philip preached Christ to him; and in so doing must have preached baptism or he would not have known anything about it; which also shows that Christ cannot be preached without preaching baptism; and that the preacher who does not preach it, in its true action and design, does not preach Christ. Let this be well noted. On coming to water the Eunuch inquired of Philip what prevented him from being baptized; and was told that “if he believed with all his heart he might.” He replied: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Here we learn that faith is an indispensable prerequisite of baptism; and also have an example of the confession required before baptism.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

This was all that was required, before Philip baptized him. This example excludes infants.

The baptism of the Samaritans was the next case. Here was the same preacher again, Philip, and he is said again to have “preached Christ unto them.” The Samaritans, when they believed Philip, presenting the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, were baptized both men and women. Here faith is made to precede baptism again; and while the baptism of adults, men and women, is mentioned, there is no reference to that of infants, which we would find if they were scriptural subjects.

The case of the Corinthians was also in point. “Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”

The household baptisms, so much relied on by re-baptists, were then taken up and disposed of in a manner equally as conclusive and satisfactory. It was shown that there were circumstances connected with every one which clearly proved that no infants were baptized. In the case of the jailor at Philippi, it is said of him: “he was baptized, he and all his;” “and (then) rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”

The case of Lydia, in the same chapter, was adduced. “She was baptized and her household.” This was a clear case of infants to the Pedobaptist; but it is dissipated when it is noted that Paul and Silas “entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren they comforted them and departed.” They would hardly have comforted infants!

Also the household of Stephanas. Paul says: “I baptized also the household of Stephanas.” Here was thought to be another clear case; but he says afterwards: “they have addicted themselves to the ministry;” which could not be predicated of infants.

The invariable requirement of faith as a pre-requisite of baptism was also shown from other places and circumstances, as also the essential necessity of repentance, etc., while not a single clear case of infant baptism could anywhere be made out! All was presumption and groundless inference!

The Action or Mode

Here brother Shelton was equally powerful and conclusive. In the case of the Eunuch, “they went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him, and they came up out of the water;” which would not have been the case, had pouring or sprinkling sufficed or been the “mode.” And then the manner in which Paul speaks of Christian baptism, in the 6th chapter…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

of Romans and the 2nd of Colossians, where he represents it as a burial and resurrection, emblematical of those of Christ, shows most conclusively that the action is immersion, and not a fusion of any kind; as it is impossible for this to represent a burial and resurrection. The substitution of the three words there, in the place of baptize and baptisma, shows that while immerse and immersion only will make sense, that of either of the other two will make unmeaning and ridiculous nonsense!

The figure of a birth, in John iii. 5; a planting, in Rom. vi. 5; a bath, in Titus iii. 5; and a washing, in Heb. x. 22; all go to prove immersion, as that is required in all these figures, which will not do without them.

John’s baptizing in Jordan, and our Savior’s “coming up out of the water” (properly rendered, “as he was raised from the water;”) and at Enon, near Salim, “because there was much water there;” all go to demonstrate the same. He replied to the position of Pedobaptists, in Rom. and Col. taken to evade the force of immersion, by making the burial in baptism a spiritual baptism; that, admitting it to be such, it did not change the matter, as the metaphor continued the same, and still made the action immersion. So they gained nothing by this attempted evasion.

As brother Shelton was not acquainted with Greek he made no attempt at criticism on the meaning of the original word, baptizoo, and its cognates; nor on the expression, “baptize with water.” These he left for me to attend to in the evening, which I did, by showing that the original word always meant to “immerse, submerge, dip, plunge,” etc., always including the idea of immersion in some way; and never that of sprinkling or pouring. As to the expression: “He shall baptize you with water,” the Greek particle, en, there used, should be rendered “in water,” which would make sense with immerse, as “he shall immerse you in water,” but not with sprinkle or pour.

The Design of Baptism

Bro. Shelton was equally as strong and conclusive here. He showed from various passages that baptism was in order to remission of sins; that there was no such thing as remission before baptism taught in the New Testament; and that there was no assurance of pardon, acceptance with God, etc., until the individual had been baptized. In proof he quoted the baptism of John. He was to “give the knowledge of salvation to the Jews by the remission of their sins.” And we are told that he “preached the baptism of repentance for [in order to] the remission of sins.”

The fulfilment of the commission by Peter was then cited. The commission as in Luke read, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

349

[Christ’s] name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. On the day of Pentecost, at Jerusalem, when Peter told the penitent Jews to “repent,” he preached repentance, and when he said, “and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for [in order to] the remission of sins,” he preached remission of sins in the name of Christ. And when Ananias told the believing and penitent soul to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away his sins,” he taught the same thing. The same thing was taught in the 6th chapter of Romans, which could be found by comparing the first part of it with the 17th and 18th verses; and also in the 2nd chapter of Colossians, where those baptized are said to “have forgiven them all trespasses.”

In the evening, as announced, we addressed a respectably sized congregation on John xx. 30, 31: “Many other signs truly did Jesus,” etc. We first spoke of the confirmation of the word of God; and the importance of miracles in this; and showed that we could conceive of no other evidence which a messenger from God could give in proof of his mission, than the suspension or interruption of the laws of nature in some way; as God, the author of nature and her laws, could alone suspend or interrupt these; and when it was done, it was a proof of His presence, approbation and authority. The case of Moses when he was sent to the Jews in Egyptian bondage, and to Pharaoh, was adduced, and the working of miracles by the prophets, as Elijah, and the various miraculous demonstrations in their favor.

The words following the commission in Mark, and the 2nd chapter of Hebrews, were also adduced, and the fulfilment of the language there recorded; and then the “signs” or miracles recorded by John, in his testimony. We then took up the record of these, and showed the purpose of this “that ye might believe.” We showed from this the importance of testimony to faith; that where there was no testimony there could be no faith; and that testimony was as essential to faith as sound was to hearing or light was to seeing; and as light is the medium by which we discern objects, so faith is the medium by which we discern God. The proposition to be believed came up next: “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” This was showed to be of the most grand and comprehensive character, containing the greatest and most sublime truth ever offered to the faith of man; and embracing everything in reference to the birth, life, character, death, resurrection and offices of the Messiah. Hence the confession of this great truth was all the public confession, or profession, ever required by the apostles as qualification, and we have no right to demand any other.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

of faith in this proposition: “that believing ye might have life through his name.”

We spoke of three kinds of life: natural life, in the kingdom of nature; spiritual life, in the kingdom of grace or favor; and eternal life, in “the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

We spoke of the birth into each; that life must exist before birth; and that birth takes place, not to procure, but for the enjoyment of the life already procured. In the kingdom of nature we are born of our mother and father; there is a striking analogy in the kingdom of favor. Here, when we believe we are begotten by the spirit through the word of God, called the “good seed” and the “incorruptible seed;” and when we are baptized, we are then “born of water and of the Spirit.”

Hence the expressions: “Born [begotten] again; not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God:” “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth,” etc.

“Life through the name” of Christ. The Lord told Moses that in all places where He recorded his name, there would he meet with, and bless his people. He recorded it in the Temple at Jerusalem; and there the Jews had to come to worship him, to bring their sacrifices, etc. So now, under the Christian dispensation the Lord has recorded his name—not on the “mourner’s bench,” nor in a place covered with straw, called “the altar”—but in the institution of Christian baptism; and it is here that He will meet with the believing penitent, and bless him, in the pardon of his sins, and acceptance into a state of favor, where he becomes one of the children of God, a joint heir of God and joint heir of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Such is a sketch of our discourse, which we here give, as it may be of interest to the reader.

The congregation at Spring Creek numbered some 60 or 70, and under the labors of brother Shelton have gotten along in peace and harmony, increased, and grown in the favor and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

They have, with commendable zeal and praiseworthy liberality for their means—for they are what is termed “poor” in worldly possessions—built themselves a new and commodious frame house for worship. But though poor they are “rich in faith,” the best of all possessions, and heirs of the kingdom which the Lord has prepared for them that love him.

J. R. H. Cooke’s Settlement, St. Francis Co., Mo., Aug. 15, 1857.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

351

HAPPINESS AND USEFULNESS

That these are intimately connected, few persons have yet to learn. Exactly how dependent the former is upon the latter, perhaps none of us certainly understand. From the very organization of man, to be happy, to any considerable extent, we must be useful. Usefulnness is to happiness somewhat as food is to life. True, some people imagine themselves happy in the most selfish and wicked cause, and many, no doubt, think they could be happy if they could attain certain ends, though being useful enters not into their contemplation; but a little experience in the inimitable bliss of doing good will convince the most sceptical, that there is nothing really deserving the name of happiness disconnected with usefulness.

We should not forget, however, that we can do good unto ourselves. No one is required to love others better, or to do more for them than for themselves. The “new commandment” was not simply loving one another, but loving as Christ has loved us. This often gives an actual preference to others—”in honor preferring another.” But even here self is neither forgotten nor neglected. The same Teacher would have us understand that humility is the way to honor; to serve others the way to be served.

But which should be first in our thoughts and efforts, happiness or usefulness? This is the question for the times and for us. Many of us proceed as if our individual happiness was the first and grand object of our lives. And if in this we were right, should we not earnestly consider the plan to be adopted and followed—whether our own, or that laid down in the Bible? Selfishness might cause us to forget others in our efforts to be happy, but we must add great weakness and folly to take our own course instead of the Lord’s. To attempt a good thing on a bad plan—a human system—may be the best we can do when we have no heavenly instructors. But we are not left to devise ways and means for our happiness. It is too great an object, and our Heavenly Father is too much concerned in it. Knowing our weakness he has provided for it. Hence we shall have no apology if we mistake the road to happiness.

Temperance and benevolence are great themes, and, strange to behold, to attain and promote them even professed friends of the Bible sometimes adopt human plans instead of God’s plan! Some complain that a few of us prefer working by the Master’s rule! So it is touching Christian union, missionary operations, etc. It is no wonder those who do not believe the Bible, and those who do not understand it, …

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

its teachings should form and adopt human systems for their own and the happiness of others; but it is strange that any of us should do so. Reader, do pause and think who is guilty here!

Some seek a certain degree of earthly treasures before they can do good. With them it is a fixed purpose, that if ever they reach a certain point in their aspirations, they will then begin to live for others. They are much like the miser, who stints and starves himself, labors and makes himself miserable, to get money—under the impression that getting money is the road to happiness, and forgetting that his course of life will utterly unfit him for extracting happiness from dollars, if, indeed, it was there!

Now, will not this selfish course of Christian professors unfit them for doing good or enjoying good, if they should reach their proposed position? Let us think of this. What will be the condition of our minds and hearts—perhaps of our bodies also, by the time we succeed in amassing a considerable amount of earthly treasures? And let us consider whether this is God’s plan or our own.

Have we really and heartily adopted God’s plan in all things? How far are we influenced by human philosophy?

Some undertake to “live as they go along,” and, under the silly notion that happiness consists in the gratification of our vulgar, our lower and more beastly propensities, they actually consume the products of their labor in advance, and so become entangled in interminable debts and troubles! A few have, on the opposite extreme, seemingly forgot that any attention should be given to time-things.

Now, allowing that our individual happiness is a laudable object of pursuit, whether primary or secondary, what is the best plan? Where is the medium between all extremes?

What is God’s plan? In answer to this, may I suggest that, to do good is to be happy, and that what the world and the multitude mean by wealth does not largely, if at all, contribute to usefulness or happiness. The most wealthy have not generally been the most useful or happy. More good has been done by the poor, and vastly more happiness has been enjoyed by them. God has worked by the rich, but he has much more frequently worked by the poor.

Hence, “having food and raiment, let us be content therewith,” and if more be put in our way, with this contentment, we shall be better prepared to use it for good. “Do good to all men, as we have an opportunity, especially to those who are of the household of faith.” This is the philosophy—the wisdom of heaven. There is, perhaps, as much both of danger and misery in wealth and worldly honor, as in the reverse. Neither happiness nor usefulness is closely…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

353

Bound up with, or absolutely dependent upon either. With Christ we may be both happy and useful while “despised and rejected of men,” while “hated of all men” for Christ’s sake.

What sad mistakes we make! How we compromise the truth, and injure ourselves and others, by mixing up our ways with God’s ways! Adopting our plans, and rejecting the wisdom of heaven! How long will we be carried away by the tinselled drapery of earth? We profess to take the Bible; let us then follow it.
C. K.

REVELATIONS AND MIRACLES NEW AND OLD

The great conflict of this age is between new and old revelations and miracles.

  1. Natural religionists contend for new revelations from internal and external nature as evidences of the progressive tendency of human nature in this fast age. Newman, Parker, and others belong to this school. These new revelations, they imagine, frequently come in conflict with Bible revelations, and, hence, the old are set aside to make room for the new!
  2. Spiritualists have added a new chapter to the Bible of natural religion. The appropriate teaching of this chapter is ghostology. They not only contend for the internal and external revelations of nature, but also for new revelations from the ghosts of the dead. These new ghost revelations often, as they suppose, contradict the Bible, and, therefore, they are driven to the necessity of attributing its supposed errors to the mistakes of the old-time spirits, in or out of the flesh!
  3. Mohammedans, Mormons, Shakers, etc., profess to have real bona fide new revelations from the Spirit of God. They, of course, have but little, if any, regard for the Bible, supposing the new to be better than the old!
  4. Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope and Romish Church. As there can be no infallibility without inspiration, they, consequently, are new revelationists, and hence the many ridiculous signs and wonders of Romanism!
  5. Many Protestants, though they still say “the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants,” yet, in effect, believe in new revelations and, in some degree at least, repudiate the Bible!
  6. All Calvinists who contend for the special influence of the Spirit in order to save the elect by partial grace, are virtually new revelationists.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

They also teach regeneration before faith. Now, if the Spirit does something for the Calvinistic elect which he refuses to do for others, by which they are regenerated and convinced of their election, that something is effected through the Bible as the means, or without the Bible. If through the Bible, then some new idea to make it special must be added, or it would be divine influence without an idea! If without the Bible, then there must be a new revelation, or it would still be divine influence without an idea! If through the Bible idea, then the reprobates may be saved as well as the elect, as that idea is common to all.

But the notion of regeneration before faith amounts to regeneration without an idea, new or old!

2. Arminianism

In reference to divine influence, is only a modification of Calvinism. Arminians as well as Calvinists contend for an influence of the Spirit preceding the word. The former extend it to all, the latter confine it to their elect. Hence Methodists and others, by perverting a few scriptures, can prove that all men, whether in Christian or pagan lands, Bible or no Bible, are the subjects of the “irresistible converting influence of the Spirit.”

Now if this influence is without the Bible idea, it involves a new revelation, otherwise it is a conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment without an idea!

3. Baptists and Disciples

But we have some Baptists, and perhaps some Disciples, who are great advocates for the word, as they suppose, who, nevertheless, seem to supercede it by their strange views of spiritual influence. They speak of a “miracle or influence over and above and independent of the word,” and not connected with it! Now if it is independent of the word, it must be without the Bible idea, and if so, it implies a new revelation, or else it must be spiritual influence without an idea! This view is only a modification of Calvinism!

Conclusion

What then is the conclusion of the matter? Is it not the following:

  1. Spiritual influence in and through the Bible idea of Christ.
  2. Spiritual influence in and through the Christ idea of a new revelation!
  3. Or spiritual influence without the Christ or any other idea!

Is it not philosophically and absolutely impossible for the Father, Son, or Spirit, angels, saints or sinners, to think, will, feel, say or do anything, in reference to Christianity, by divine influence, without the Christian idea?

Now if neither divine, angelic nor human nature can have any Christian feeling by spiritual influence without the Christian idea, of what use is such an influence in heaven or earth? It never has, never…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

will aml ne•er cnn do any good to preach it, write it or pray for it. Suppose we send a thousand missionaries into the Pagan world to preach and pray for spiritual influences, with instructions to carefully conceal the Christian idea from the heathen mind. How many disciples to Christ would they make?

In all nature “God makes to grow” through certain means, on certain conditions. So, in all grace, the Spirit converts through the word on condition of faith and obedience.

If God is not as good in grace as in nature, Christianity is unworthy of God and not adapted to man. But Christianity is the climax of infinite love and wisdom, and, consequently, so intelligible, so credible and practicable that thousands, in the apostolic age, became Christians the first time they heard the gospel. And doubtless it would be so now, were it not for the skeptical influence of sectarianism and the everlasting controversy about the wordliness, idealness and senseless influence of Spirit.

The cold-hearted speculation of Calvinism involves thousands in doubt whether God ever had any love for them. The Hopkinsian modification involves thousands more in doubt whether the Spirit will ever make them willing by regeneration without faith. The almost innumerable hair-splittings of the self-styled orthodox and evangelicals about word and spirit, faith in facts, the power of Christ, historic faith, etc., so bewilder the great mass of the people, that they are afraid to use the means and comply with the conditions of salvation, lest they should make some awful mistake.

Last, and worst of all, is the raging, conflicting and antipodal sectarianism of the so-called Christian world, which, perhaps, is driving more along the broad, dark road of infidelity to destruction than it guides into the straight and narrow way of life. No wonder conversions are now like angels’ visits, “a few and far between.”

We need a new declaration of independence in religion as well as politics. A declaration that will ignore all the speculations and traditions of Protestants as well as Romanists, and bring us back to the simplicity of Christ and the apostles. This declaration, thank the Lord, has been made. If we adhere to it we are safe, but if we depart from it we are at sea again, tossed and driven with every wind of doctrine, and who can divine where our bark will land?

The Lord grant we may preach “the word” and faithfully contend for “the faith” formerly delivered to the saints!

J. J. TROTT
Salem, September 4, 1857.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Brother J. G. Carrigan, of Marshall county, Tenn., wishes to inquire if it is possible for persons under the influence of different faiths to serve God equally acceptable? As an example, if one man preach baptism for remission of sins, and another preach baptism in consequence of the remission, do both preach the truth? And do persons acting under the influence of these contradictory systems serve God with equal acceptance?

Reply: If persons do not perform obedience in the true faith, it is no obedience. The twelve baptized in Ephesus by Apollos, although sincere, in consequence of being so mistaken as to have been immersed under the conviction that John’s baptism was the true obedience, did not obey the Lord, and consequently, after hearing the Apostle preach, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Nothing short of an intelligent and sincere obedience can constitute the service of God.

Bro. James Tucker, of Mooresville, Alabama, wishes to be satisfied as to the true method of “making elders.”

The word elder indicates a person of greater age, or greater experience in the cause of Christ than another. A lad, novice, or man without experience is not suitable for an overseer, but not every aged man in the congregation is competent for a pastor. There is no elder’s office, and it would be as ridiculous to speak of the office of age as the office of elder.

While the brethren entertain the idea that elders—overlookers, we should say—or bishops, are made by the votes of the members, we can hope for no scriptural officers. The office springs from the work, and not the work from the office.

When the first churches were planted, all the members labored in the congregations according to the ability which God gave, and so soon as any number of the members gave practical demonstration of fitness to superintend the flock, they were set apart by the evangelists to the work of bishops or pastors.

There is a simple and safe rule which the brethren of any congregation may adopt on this subject.

Are there men in the church who are feeding the lambs? Who meet with the children on every Lord’s day; sing, pray, and rejoice with them? Who teach publicly and privately the members how to live godly—we do not mean ministers of the gospel, but the faithful seniors in the church—who watch for the souls of the disciples? All such the Holy Spirit particularly en…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

357

joins to take the oversight of the church, as the only shepherds or pastors. We have two dangerous classes of elders in the churches. The first class is composed of old men, who do nothing, but they have been elected to what they call “the elder’s office.” The other class is composed of bigotted old worn-out preachers, who regard long, high-sounding and empty sermons, the chief requisite of worship and labor of a bishop. These overseers, instead of having the members to do their own work, undertake to perform it themselves. Such overseers on a plantation would soon starve both operatives and masters. Physical indolence is physical death, intellectual indolence is suicidal, and moral inaction is spiritual destruction. The only faithful shepherds are the men who employ all the energies of the congregations. Men who hire themselves to congregations to conduct the worship, in the first place, bind the disciples hand and foot, and, secondly, they paralyze their own influence. Through the church alone can we labor successfully.

T. F.

SPECULATIONS versus FAITH

Dear Bro. Fanning, — Not being in the habit of writing, I must ask the indulgence of the brethren. In the July number of the Advocate you request the brethren to say plainly whether they are for the authority of Christ and the apostles, or the vain and deceitful philosophy of the age. In reply we are bold to say, that none but the authority of the Bible is worth anything with us in matters of Christianity.

“Let us contend for the faith once delivered to the saints,” not the speculations of men—not heathen or modern philosophy—not modern spiritualism, but that “faith” that comes by hearing of the words of apostles and prophets; this we conceive is clearly taught in the Bible, and faithfully set forth in the Gospel Advocate, and therefore we heartily endorse the sentiments.

We contend for Christian union on the principles of the Bible; but if we cannot have it, we say contend for the truth and let the chaff go. The sooner we get rid of error the sooner we will get rid of our troubles. Under these considerations we humbly hope the Gospel Advocate may still continue to circulate, and that its worthy editors may as ever remain firm and able to trample over “modern philosophy and spiritualism,” and every species of error, and that they may long continue to see the happy results of the triumphs of truth.

J. B. WILMETH

Pleasant Grove, Collin Co., Texas, Aug. 15, 1857.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE READER THINK?

  1. By what is the evidence of unseen things admitted as true?
    By faith. Though we do not see Christ, as Thomas did, yet we believe, through their word, on Christ who is our trust, confidence, and hope.
    References: Heb. 11:1, John xvii. 20, xx. 29, 1 Peter i. 8, etc.
  2. By what does faith come?
    By hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.
    References: Rom. x. 17, Gal. iii. 5, etc.
  3. By what are we dead to sin?
    By repentance from the dead works to life.
    References: Acts ii. 38, iii. 19, xi. 18, Rom. vi. 2, Heb. vi. 1, 2 Cor. vii. 10, etc.
  4. By what is the design of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection for our justification acknowledged?
    By heart faith confessed with the mouth, followed by baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, etc.
    References: Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. xv. 3-4, Rom. iv. 2-24, Acts ii. 38, etc.
    “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
    References: Acts viii. 36-37.
  5. By what are we buried with him into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life?
    By baptism into Christ, i.e., into his death.
    References: Rom. vi. 3-4.
  6. By what do we receive, realize, and enjoy the blessings of the remission of past sins, of the Holy Spirit, and of the hope of eternal life?
    By the obedience to faith, pleasing to God and his servants according to the testimony recorded and proved in the Scripture given by inspiration of God.
    References: 1 Peter i. 22, Acts v. 32, 1 Peter i. 2-3, etc.
    Which show us that we are the children of God. Paul says beautifully, “The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”
    References: Rom. viii. 16, Gal. iv. 6, including 1 John iii. 1, John iii. 5, etc.
  7. By what shall the just live and walk?
    By faith.
    References: Rom. i. 17, 2 Cor. v. 7, Heb. 10:38.
    The just means the children of God, Christ’s Disciples, called Christians, Saints. A Christian is a practical or working person of holiness, godliness, benevolence, spiritual songs of praise to God, and rejoicing in the hope to see God as he is.
    References: 1 John iii. 2-3.
    Such an excellent character for an important example pleases Christians and encourages…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

859

Sinners to become Christians. Paul, though being dead, lives, still to speak:

“To them who by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality; eternal life.”

Instead of feeling good that we may do good, we do good that we may feel good. The just enjoys the fruit of the spirit which is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, etc. (Gal. v. 22, 23; Eph. v. 9, etc.)

Kind words and deeds in truth and in love influence those who know, feel, and practice them as well as return the same good more or less according to their ability and willingness. To love is good. To love and give, pay, or do good in any way is better; for Heaven will repay and even pay more than what Earth pays. Such good works of love are the works of Christian candidates for Heaven. To give without Christian love is nothing (1 Corinthians xiii).

That we believe what God says, we obey what he commands, and we shall enjoy what He promises, is happily peculiar to the Gospel of Christ. By whom are the things reported to the willing hearers and readers? By them who preach the Gospel unto them, with the Holy Ghost sent down from Heaven; which things the Angels desire to look into (1 Peter i. 12; Rev. i. 3).

In conversion and sanctification, the Spirit of God operates on persons through the Word of Truth only believed and obeyed. These things have nothing to do with the spirits of certain men and women of nonsense, such as spirit-rappers, wizards, witches, false prophets, “higher-law” persons, hypocrites, etc., who operate on ignorant or weak-minded persons through their words of falsehood. From such (nonscents), turn away.

If Christians do not wish to be mistaken, let them preach the Gospel of Christ without addition to and subtraction from it. The true question is not what do we say? but what does the Bible say?

“And he that hath my word, let him speak my word, faithfully, saith the Lord. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

I claim no exemption. If I am mistaken in anything, I feel willing to be corrected scripturally (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17).

P. H. N.
(Deaf Mute)

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

MISSION TO THE CHEROKEE NATION

On Tuesday, September 15, 1857, Brother J. J. Trott, our faithful and highly esteemed evangelist, was, by fasting, prayer, and the imposition of the hands of the seniors and teachers in the church at Franklin College, solemnly consecrated to the work of evangelizing amongst the Cherokees, beyond the Mississippi. This is a mission which Brother Trott has long had at heart, and no man, we presume, is more competent for the labor. He gave the prime of his life to teaching the Cherokees, before they were removed from Georgia and Alabama, and suffered much from various sources, but from no cause so severely as from injudicious legislation. Then he fought under the banner of our Methodist friends; but now he goes West under the simple banner of Christ and the apostles. No doubt he has the prayers of the beloved brethren everywhere, and we think proper to ask, how many of the congregations of Christ will co-operate in this noble enterprise? Brother Trott has gone forth as the missionary of the church at this place, and in our view of the Christian economy, we can recognize no other missionary society. Paul and Barnabas were “recommended” by the church at Antioch, set apart by the elders, prophets, and teachers, and when occasion suggested they returned to report success. Others co-operated in their support, in their own way, as God gave them ability. What the brethren may do in this mission time alone can reveal.

  • T. F. *

TEXAS REPORT

Pleasant Grove, Texas, September, 1857.

Bro. Fanning and Lincomb: We have just returned from a meeting some ten miles North of this, in the neighborhood of Weston, where the strongest sectarian prejudice and opposition to the truth prevails that I ever have met with anywhere. We labored, in connection with Brother Baker, for ten days, and in despite of all opposition thirteen noble souls made the good confession and were buried with the Lord by baptism. For all of which we raise the Lord. We cannot close without expressing our satisfaction and gratitude for the good impression that the Gospel Advocate is making on all that read it, on all the important subjects therein discussed. May its editors long live to battle in the cause of truth; by exposing every species of error and speculation connected with our Master’s cause, until the wheat may be sifted from the chaff.

Yours fraternally,

J. B. Wilmeth

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

361

LETTER OF ENCOURAGEMENT

Brother Dr. B. W. Lauderdale, of Dyersburg, Tennessee, writes under date of September 12, 1857.

Bros. Fanning and Lipscomb:
I have been a careful reader of the Gospel Advocate from its commencement, and while I am most free to say, that while I have found in it nothing of the “word alone” system, and nothing which detracts from the office of the Holy Spirit, as charged by Prof. Richardson of Bethany College, I find much to commend. Indeed I feel thankful to know there are brethren who plead in a clear and forcible manner for the simple truth of the Gospel. I thank you for the promptitude and firmness with which you expose and utterly condemn every vain and deceitful philosophy. The brethren in this county most heartily approve of your course. Those who revile you but beat the air. You will ever have the approval of good men.

Yours in Christ,
B. W. Lauderdale.

Salado, Bell Co., Texas, Sept. 12, 1857.

Bro. Fanning:
Near four weeks ago I wrote you of our meeting—32 additions. The next Lord’s day and Monday following there were, near 20 miles from this, seven additions.

I am just from Austin, where, for 19 days, the people listened, day and night, to the plain gospel with an interest truly encouraging, and fifty-six, I believe, were added—two not being yet immersed. Many others are almost persuaded. Tomorrow week we commence there again.

Meantime, Bros. Strickland and Giles held a meeting at Young’s Prairie, which resulted in nine additions; and Bro. Strickland held one in Bastrop, which resulted in seven additions. And a letter from Bro. B. F. Hall just informs me that he is conducting a meeting in McKinney, Collin County, Texas, during which thirty-five were added. So the work goes bravely on.

How happy the thought, that the dearth has not reached so much to spiritual matters! Oh! if we would all live aright, the truth would soon triumph. But when preachers adorn themselves in “gold, pearls and costly array,” love money, and show pride and worldly-mindedness, whether they feel it or not, the dead weight is severely felt. The Lord be merciful to our weakness, and deliver us from the chaff, the dross, and the drones!

Most affectionately,
C. Kendrick.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Salado, Bell Co., Texas, Sept. 29, 1857.

Bro. Fanning:
Today I reached home from Austin. Fourteen more were added, mostly from the world. These added to the others make 70 recently at that place. And the prospect is yet improving. The enclosed letter from Brother B. F. Hall will explain itself. We have some other meetings of promise on hand. The Lord prosper the right.

Affectionately,
C. Kendrick.

McKinney, Sept. 14, 1857.

C. Kendrick,
Dear Brother:
Saturday evening before the fourth Lord’s day in last month, (August,) I commenced a meeting in this place, which continued till the Wednesday week following. Our congregations were large from the beginning, and continued to increase until they became overflowing; and towards the close very few except the ladies could get in the house. As good behavior, if not the best I ever witnessed for so long a time and in the circumstances, was observed by the whole audience, both at the preaching and baptism. During the meeting forty-three were added to the church—twenty-four by baptism. The interest continued to the close of the meeting. I would have continued longer but was compelled to go to Dallas county to a meeting which I had appointed there.

The meeting in Dallas county commenced Friday before the first Lord’s day in this month and closed the Lord’s day week following: with twelve additions—ten by baptism. I am now resting a few days—till next Friday—when I am to commence a protracted meeting at Matins. Early in October I am to attack the town of Dallas, and with God’s help hope to take it. A great harvest might be gathered in this country if we only had reapers. But I am the principal laborer here. I am giving all my time to the work, and have the promise of support.

Great and general interest is taken in our preaching here everywhere. Large audiences, and marked attention and respect unsurpassed, if not unequalled in any country where I ever labored. O if I only had you here as a co-laborer, we could take this country. I want you to come up and live here. It is the best part of Texas, and is settling up with the best population.

I leave you to write to the Gospel Advocate. My regards to sister Kendrick and the children. Write soon. I can’t go to Palestine this fall.

Yours fraternally,
B. F. Hall.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

363

Forest Grove, Texas, September 19, 1857

The North-Eastern Texas Co-operation assembled pursuant to adjournment.

On motion Bro. E. D. Moore was called to the Chair, and H. L. Williams was chosen Secretary.

The following named persons presented themselves as delegates from the various congregations, to-wit:

  • W. W. Baird and James M. Baird, from Antioch;
  • L. V. Moore and H. L. Williams, from Mulberry;
  • Thos. Barrott and David Halbrook, from Mt. Vernon;
  • N. A. V. Henderson, Forest Grove;
  • J. L. Couch, Woodlawn;
  • Robert Neathery, Mill Creek;
  • R. L. Daniels, Black Cypress;
  • W. C. Gaines and C. B. Thompson, Clarksville;
  • James M. Baird, by proxy from Union.

On motion the following brethren were appointed a committee to arrange and regulate the business of the Co-operation so far as selecting evangelists and designating their respective fields of labor, to-wit:

  • Bros. Thomas Barrott,
  • L. V. Moore,
  • W. W. Baird,
  • J. L. Couch,
  • N. A. V. Henderson,
  • W. C. Gaines,
  • R. L. Daniels,
  • J. M. Baird.

Who, after a short retirement, submitted the following report which was unanimously adopted and ordered to be spread upon the minutes, to-wit:

Report:
We, the committee appointed to select Evangelists, etc., beg leave to submit the following Report:

We have succeeded in procuring the labors of Brothers Asher Gough one half of his time, and James M. Baird all his time as evangelists for the ensuing year, and assign to them the following field for their evangelical labors, to-wit: The counties of Titus, Cass, Red River, Lamar, and that portion of Hopkins included within the congregation known as the Woodlawn congregation.

THOMAS BARROTT, Ch’n.

On motion it was ordered that the Secretary forward a copy of the proceedings to the Gospel Advocate, with a request that the same may be published in that periodical.

On motion the Co-operation adjourned to meet at Sulphur Spring in Lamar County, on Saturday before the fourth Lord’s day in August, 1858.

E. D. MOORE, Chairman.

H. L. WILLIAMS, Secretary.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

CO-OPERATION

The Co-operation of the Mountain District assembled pursuant to adjournment with the church of Christ at Ivy Bluff, and organized by appointing Bro. W. B. Huddleston President, and J. P. Rascoe, Secretary.

Eight churches were represented by letter and delegates, setting forth the number, increase, order of worship, etc., of their respective congregations.

The evangelists reported, for the current year, 186 additions to the good cause by confession and baptism.

The Co-operation resolved to send the evangelists to the world to preach the gospel, and that the congregations contributing for the support of the evangelists will not expect them to preach to the churches, but that the bishops will teach and instruct their own congregations.

After discussing many important propositions the co-operation adjourned to meet with the church of Christ at Fountain Springs, Friday before the first Lord’s day in October, 1858, at 10 o’clock, A. M.

J. P. Rascoe, Secretary.
W. B. HUDDLESTON, President.

Trenton, Tenn., August 27, 1857.

Bro. Fanning:

With pleasure I address you a few lines this morning. Feeling great interest in the discussion between you and Mr. Richardson, I thought that I would say for one that I am greatly pleased with your course and conclusions; for if you are not right the Bible is wrong, in my judgment. But the Bible is right and everything else is wrong.

Men may seek to become wise above what is written, and attempt to make nice distinctions; but they always entangle themselves in their own meshes.

Dr. R. has certainly departed from the faith. I have conversed with all the brethren in this section, and have not found one that said R. was right. They have said that they would like to send a list of names to say to you, to press on, contend for the faith—all are right here.

I held a meeting the 4th Sunday in September last, with nine additions—all by immersion. The first Sunday at Mason’s Grove, with twenty-five; sixteen immersions, the others were brethren united; one at Eno, near Trenton, last Sunday. I have protracted meetings until the first of October. I think we can do great good in this field.

Wherever I go I labor for the Advocate; for it and one or two others are all that we can look to for the faith.

Go on Brother F., you have…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

365

nothing to fear, the crown is before us, and when we labor according to the word we have all the promises.
Yours in Christ,
JAS. HOLMES.
Thankful are we to have the encouragement of our faithful evangelists.
T. F.

CALL TO THE MINISTRY

A friend (S. G. O.) wishes to see an expose of the call to the ministry in the Advocate. He says he heard a preacher not long since attempt to prove that he was specially called to preach as were the apostles. No sensible man acquainted with the New Testament can arrive at any such a groundless conclusion.

The witnesses and ambassadors of Christ were particularly called by name, and qualified by the Spirit, to make known the will of the Savior to the world—they “brought glad tidings of good things to light,” and revealed the mind of God “not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches.” These revelations were written in a book, and since the sealing up of the testimony of the apostles and prophets, new developments have not been made; they have not been needed, and consequently all who have professed themselves the especially called and sent, have been, and are, impious imposters.

Faithful men should be called by the church, qualified and commissioned to preach the Gospel, and this is Heaven’s arrangement to convert the world. “If an angel from heaven preach a new gospel, let him be accursed.” — Paul.

REPORTS OF EVANGELISTS

Elder James Holmes, our most experienced and efficient evangelist in West Tennessee, reports thirteen additions during a recent meeting at Liberty Grove, in Gibson County, and eight the next week at Lunalama.

JOHN LOCKE

The celebrated John Locke, for fourteen or fifteen years, applied himself closely to the study of the Holy Scriptures, and employed the last period of his life scarcely in anything else. He was never weary of admiring the grand views of that sacred book, and the just relations of all its parts. He every day made some discoveries in it, which gave him fresh cause of admiration. And so earnest was he for the comfort of his friends, and the diffusion of sacred knowledge among…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

them, that even the day before he died he particularly exhorted all about him to read the Holy Scriptures. His well-known recommendation to a person who asked him which was the shortest and surest way for a young gentleman to attain to the knowledge of the Christian religion, in the full and just extent of it was, “Let him study the Holy Scriptures, especially the New Testament. Therein are contained the words of eternal life. It hath God for its author; salvation for its end; and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.”

OBITUARIES

Sister Rebecca Curlee, wife of the late Calvin Curlee, of Cannon County, Tenn., died October 3, 1856, in the 65th year of her age. Few women are more devoted than was Sister Curlee, and seldom do we find one more clear in her Christian confidence and experience. Her daughter, Sister J. Yourie, died in the spring of 1857.

Bro. W. H. D. Carrington, of Austin, Texas, writes, August 22d:
“My youngest son, Dannie, died on the 17th instant; aged about two years. It is a sad bereavement, but God has permitted it, and it is for the best. May we be enabled to submit.”
Bro. C. has our sincerest sympathy.
T. F.

James C. Anderson is no more. He died at his home in Davidson County, Tenn., after lingering for some four years, on Saturday, September 12, 1857; aged about 58 years. He was baptized into Christ by M. W. Matthews in the year 1825, if we mistake not; began to preach the Gospel in 1826, and was a bold, fearless, and humble teacher of the Christian religion a little over thirty years. From the year 1827 till his death, we had not a more intimate acquaintance, and from our long and uninterrupted attachment, our deceased brother, before he breathed his last, requested that we should attend his funeral. Never did we attend a service with a deeper sense of our nothingness before God, and we do not recollect to have witnessed more heartfelt sorrow by the many brethren and friends who were in attendance. We can say of Brother Anderson what we can say of few. When truth and right were the question, policy had not the least weight with him. In all the trials we have experienced in Tennessee, James C. Anderson has been an uncompromising advocate of the truth as it is written. He died a believer in the power and willingness of Christ to save him everlastingly. Sister Anderson and her orphan children have our sympathy; but we mourn not as those who have no hope.
Elders E. D. Moore,

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

367

J. E. Matthews, M. W. Matthews, teachers of our deceased brother in youth, are about all who remain, and it is a sad thought, that very few of us who have been his companions in the journey of life are spared. Blessed be the Lord for the consolations of the Gospel of Christ.

Charles W. Metcalfe

The subject of this brief memorial, was born at Mt. Vaal, McMinn County, Tenn., on the 21st day of February, 1825; united with the “Christian Church” July 1, 1843, and died at the place of his birth on the 9th of August, 1857.

As an humble, faithful follower of his Lord, our brother both lived and died. We knew him well, and loved him fondly. In every relationship of life he practiced those virtues which adorned his character, and contributed to the welfare of such as were embraced within the sphere of his influence. In his social pleasures or business engagements he remembered his religious duties, and proved by their strict observance that the attractions of earth could not seduce him from the path of virtue.

But he is with us no longer. Death has removed him. As the approach of the destroyer became nearer, his faith brightened until his spirit was filled with unutterable joy. The latest hours of his life were spent in assuring the living of the realities of religion, and warning them of the dangers that lie hidden in the paths of vice. No terrors affrighted him in the moment of dissolution. He smiled at death; it was but his Father’s messenger bidding him to a “feast of eternal love.” Quietly and gently his life passed away, and he was borne by angels home.

A. MeL.

We had the pleasure of knowing our deceased brother well, and from his youth he was a most sincere and devoted believer in Jesus Christ. We are pleased at the privilege of mingling our sorrows with the afflicted relatives.

T. F.

PLEASANT GROVE, TEXAS, July 21, 1857

Bro. Fanning, – It is with more than ordinary interest I now write. “From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”

Let my Brother Fanning know, that she whose voice he has often heard, whose feet were swift, whose tender hands were ever ready to minister to his wants, and the wants of my laboring brethren, lies low and cold in death!

Molly Moore, my wife, has passed to better mansions. Why am I so loth to express the solemn fact, but because my heart is full—my hand trembles.

For forty-two years we have lived and loved to…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

From advanced age (74) I cannot be far in the rear. Her disease was of the most malignant character, baffling all medical aid; seizing immediately on the stomach and bowels, rejecting every administration. Taken on the last day of June, she continued to bear, with Christian hope and Christian philanthropy, unparalleled sufferings until the 17th inst., when she resigned her spirit to God who gave it—her body to death. Mortification had ensued to such an extent as to appear on many places of the surface; these she viewed with calm composure, saying, all was calm—all peace. She retained her mind apparently in full vigor to the last. As above, on the 17th of this instant she left her family and a crowd of weeping friends to mourn her loss; but are not left to weep as those who have no hope. My children did all their duty to a dying mother; my neighbors vied with each other in acts of kindness and attention. On the 18th we laid her mortal remains decently away, amidst the tears of children and a large concourse of friends. I must thank my God, I too was able to stand round her dying pillow, ministering to the last.

My epistle may be tedious to you, but it, to some extent, unburthens my heart. My dear Tolbert will forgive me; while I write my tears obscure my lines. I know I have friends, I know she has friends in the wide range of the Advocate. I know that Brother Fanning can write much better than I can. If my dear brother thinks us worthy of any notice, will he be so good as to give the name of Mary Moore a place in the Advocate. I now live alone. My children twine round my heart. Nothing but God’s word can console me. Thank God it is nigh, in the heart and in the mouth. I have some strength left. I try to teach sinners the way of salvation, and Christians how to live and love. Much opposition, yet truth is on the advance. Some young men are rising and devoting themselves to the ministry. I rejoice that when I die the cause of God will not die with me. I preach every Lord’s day. I think I will devote the balance of my life to the word. In my decline I experience the fact that the way of the righteous grows brighter. Speak kindly of us to your dear wife. Ask her to accept the best regard of an old unknown brother. Please to accept the very high consideration of, yours in hope,

E. D. MOORE.

Brother and Sister Moore were amongst our earliest and kindest Christian friends. May the Lord bless our venerable and most faithful brother and family.

T. F.

Leave a Comment