THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

T. FANNING and W. LIPSCOB, Editors
VOL. III
NASHVILLE, SEPTEMBER, 1857
NO. 9

PROFESSOR R. RICHARDSON’S PHILOSOPHY, AS SET FORTH IN THE MILLENNIAL HARBINGER FOR AUGUST, 1857

With feelings of the deepest interest, we again invite the brethren to an examination of Prof. Richardson’s philosophy. In both matter and manner it is unique and well calculated to create apprehensions of a serious character.

1. “I know not that any one has imputed to Bro. F. either insanity or madness, but such a representation will serve a purpose, viz., to excite a sympathy on the part of those who will take it for granted that he has been so charged. While his writings show a manifest deficiency of logical power and a striking inability to make or recognize those distinctions which are essential to the proper investigation of any subject, we are happy to acknowledge that in various other respects Bro. Fanning possesses very respectable abilities.
2. “If it be designed to insinuate here that I fancy the impulses of humanity to be inspirations of the Almighty, I must beg leave to deny the imputation in any and every sense. My views on this matter are, however, so well known that it is quite unnecessary for me to undertake a serious refutation of such a charge.
3. “I do not pretend to notice all the misconceptions and misstatements contained in this ‘reply,’ of many of which the one in this connection may serve as a specimen. When it is said by way of apology, that a man may not have had ‘time’ to make himself acquainted with any particular subject, it is not necessarily implied that he is too young. The usual and obvious meaning is that he has been too busy with other matters. A man may be so occupied, for instance, with hunting horses for the trip, with the company of sporting and betting gentry, and…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

the carrying out of various schemes of selfish and personal aggrandizement, to attend much to matters of a religious nature, and thus, from not having devoted sufficient time to the examination of such subjects, he found grossly ignorant of them, even when he is advanced in life.

From the interest I have in the cause of education

I am extremely happy to learn that Pres. Fanning not only does balk at the word philosophy in natural science, but that he even includes in his college course, both moral and intellectual philosophy. He says above, with the view of furnishing the students of Franklin College all the aid in moral discipline that speculative philosophy can afford, we give the subject in our classes unusual attention. He goes on to enumerate the books he uses, as Morell, Cousin, Upham, Paley, Wayland, Butler, etc., including in fact the chief works used in Bethany College and other literary institutions of the country.

“But while I am glad to learn all this for the sake of education, what must be thought of Pres. F.’s denunciations of such subjects and such books, and what of the charges against the schools that use such books that they are ‘making infidels?’

Let me here again quote his own express language on the subject. ‘Furthermore, if we are not much mistaken, there are striking contradictions in the professions of school directors. For instance, in all the schools amongst the Disciples of Christ, the Bible is represented as the only foundation in morality, and still the directors have introduced the various philosophies mental and moral of the times, just as Pres. Fanning now says he has done himself in Franklin College. The revelations of God and the philosophies of the world agree in no particular. Moreover, no one can believe in the truth of miraculous revelation and of any system of professed wisdom originating with men. All metaphysical systems and moral philosophies are not only subversive of the truth of religion but we declare our solemn conviction that no one who respects the Bible can believe in any system of philosophy in existence. Hence we think the schools generally are well calculated to make infidels.’

Gospel Advocate, Vol. 2, p. 33

In Vol. 21 p. 35, he says: ‘It is somewhat remarkable that this journal now, that taught in the philosophical works he himself uses, prevails in all the schools and colleges of the land, or if there are exceptions (save F. C.) we know not of them. They all use the books which advocate the anti- divine boundary of feeling, which is above the understanding.’ This language, whether so intended or not, conveys the idea that no such ‘books’ are used at all in Franklin College. Now, Pres. Fanning declares they are used, and that he pays to the subject of speculative philosophy in his classes, ‘unusual attention’!! It is true, he again repeats, that he thinks ‘metaphysical works in schools and colleges well calculated to encourage skepticism and make infidels,’ and adds the qualification, ‘unless teachers should be careful to show their true place in a course of education?’ But how does President F. know that other teachers besides himself do not ‘show their true place in a course of education?’ If it be true of such books, as President F. declares, that they ‘agree in no particular with the revelations of God,’ that they are ‘false’ and ‘sub-

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Versive of the truth of religion, ought they to have any place at all in a course of education? What are we to think of President F., who, after teaching us the danger connected with the use of these terrible books, has after all failed to teach himself? What can we say of that consistency which denounces these books and the schools that use them in the most unqualified language, when treating of philosophical discussions; and which, when the absence of philosophy from a college course of study is charged as a defect, can come and announce that in the “CIT college” which had been held up as an exception to all others in this respect, such “books” and subjects receive unusual attention?

Discussion on Language and Doctrine

“Brother Fanning must excuse me if I do not agree with him in the opinion that his language is as sound as the declaration of Holy Writ.” He says: “The Apostles were in some sense, at least, a part of both the foundation and the superstructure.” This proposition perhaps would be true if it read thus: “The Apostles were in some sense, at least, a part of both the foundation and the superstructure.” The Christian church was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” Does Brother Fanning imagine that some of the apostles only were in the foundation and others in the superstructure? Or does he suppose them all to have been in two different places at the same time? How profitable it would be to undertake a discussion with one who seems unable to distinguish, not merely between truth and error, but between sense and nonsense!

This, however, is a fresh specimen. In the former case, in relation to which Pres. F. objects to my criticism, he remarked that “in the schools among the Disciples of Christ, the Bible is represented as the only foundation in morals,” and from this took occasion to censure school directors for introducing “the various philosophies mental and moral of the times.” Now, if we were to admit that the Bible is the only foundation in morals, does it follow upon such premises that it is also the superstructure in morals? Or if it be admitted that the Bible is both foundation and superstructure in morals—that it forms the whole edifice of moral science, does it follow that it also constitutes the edifice of mental science? I do not here enter upon the question as to what position the Bible really occupies in relation to these matters, but wish to point out merely the looseness of Pres. F.’s reasoning, and that his premises here have as usual nothing to do with his conclusions.

Reflection on Philosophy and Belief

It is to be hoped that this unique and most original position of this important passage will be duly considered by those who have in hand the revision of the Bible. After such a display of scholarship and exegetical skill as this, I could not by any means presume to discuss the merits of the case with Pres. Fanning. I would therefore merely offer the reflection that freedom from human philosophy is essential to a sincere belief of the sacred word of God. No one who is imbued with human philosophy can possibly receive all that is taught in the Bible, and must therefore pervert or explain away all those portions which conflict with his theory. It is well to profess to take the Bible as the only guide in religion; it is good to urge its claims.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Upon others, but oh! it is better still to receive ourselves with meekness, that precious word of God which ‘maketh wise the simple,’ and which, when ‘engraved upon the heart,’ is ‘able to save our souls.’

No sect believes all the scripture, because each has its own philosophical theory, and all those passages in the Bible which disagree with it must be explained away, which is equivalent to blotting them out of the book. It is perfectly natural that President F.’s philosophy should produce the same result, and that he should, as we see, attempt thus to dispense with one of the plainest portions of the New Testament, in regard to the import of which the ablest translators and commentators are perfectly agreed.

President F.’s Concerns

President F. seems to be in a great pickle about something which he calls Natural Theology, and woefully disconsolate to think that Brother Campbell should teach it. I cannot imagine what sort of a bugbear it is that has so alarmed him, but it must be something very extraordinary if it be as he says it is, ‘the Natural Theology of the prince of atheists, Robert Owen.’ I have been accustomed to think that atheists did not believe in any God at all, and it seems to me it must be a curious sort of Natural Theology that is taught by the ‘prince of atheists.’

I hope President F. will calm his perturbed spirit and take a more cheerful view of things, especially when he reflects that he is himself teaching in Franklin College, as he declares, the works of Paley, Butler, etc., and I can assure him that Brother Campbell is doing nothing worse at Bethany, and that if these books require that teachers should be careful to show their true place in a course of education, we have good reason to believe President Campbell, to say the least, quite as competent to do this as President Fanning.

We certainly consider it quite ‘venturesome’ in Brother Fanning to pronounce what Brother Campbell teaches to be false, particularly when he teaches it himself. Perhaps, however, we are to understand him as really believing speculative philosophy and Natural Theology to be false, and as teaching them merely, as he says, for ‘mental discipline,’ accompanying them with expositions of their falsity. By a parity of reasoning, to administer a dose of poison every day, and follow it up with an antidote, would be a most healthful exercise of the stomach!

Brother Campbell’s Views

As to Brother Campbell’s views of Natural Theology, it is perfectly well known that he holds the opinion that man could not originate either from his own inner nature or from the material universe, the proposition that there is a God. He insists that this great truth can be communicated to the human mind only by direct revelation or tradition. On this point, I think it would be ‘venturesome’ for anyone to attempt to prove him in error.

But the obtruding of the proposition and the proof of it are two different matters, and it is here that President F. has, as usual, failed to make distinction. The world has never, since the days of Adam, been without the proposition, nor has nature ever failed to furnish the proof to every intelligent mind. The proposition once stated, the being and attributes of God—’his invisible things, even his eternal power and divinity are clearly seen ever since the creation of the world by the things that are made.’ This is what Natural Theology teaches.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

277

Theology is understood to teach—precisely what the Scripture says is taught by nature, and just what Bro. Campbell, in common with all intelligent persons, understands by Natural Theology—the proof of the being and attributes of God from the works of nature.

1. “The whole of this paragraph and the preceding one, is a tissue of misconceptions. I have not sustained Mr. Russell’s teaching, except so far as to deny that he may be justly charged with infidelity; neither has Brother Campbell. I have commended his intelligence and piety, and what I believe to have been his design in the address condemned by Brother Fanning. As to his teaching, it will be time enough for Brother W. to condemn it when he comprehends it. If Bro. Russell be too much disposed to look at the Scripture through the medium of philosophy, I have not yet at least found him disposed to pervert the Scripture in order to make it agree with his philosophy. Should he do this, I will be quite as ready to censure him as Brother Fanning. It is not true that his address was ‘the embodiment of his instruction’ in Bethany College, or that there is the least authority for so understanding it.
2. “It is well known that Locke’s Essay, is by no means based on induction. On the contrary, it rests entirely upon the assumption that there are no innate ideas.
3. “President W. is unable to escape from the proof which I adduced, that he is a philosopher of the school of Locke, is here forced to assert that ‘Locke was no philosopher’!! Comment is unnecessary.
4. “President Fanning here affirms that these two propositions, 1st that man is incapable of learning the being and attributes of God from the works of Nature, and 2nd that he is incapable of deriving knowledge from his own spiritual nature, are his belief through the word, and he objects to my calling these views a system of philosophy. Surely Bro. F. ought to know that there are no such propositions; either in form or substance, anywhere in the Bible. How then can they constitute his ‘belief through the word?’ Thus it is that philosophy, latent in the mind, not only seeks to put out of the Bible ‘what is there, (as in the case of Rom. i: 10-20) but (as in the present case) to introduce what is not there.
5. “In all the above quotations and notices, Bro. Fanning totally misconceives my meaning. I look for no spiritual light in religion from other sources than the Bible. I advocate no direct spiritual communications. I have a perfect contempt for the various forms of modern spiritualism, as any one conversant with my teaching ought to know. It is by far the worst feature in Pres’t. F.’s course, that he has by various assertions and misrepresentations endeavored to excite suspicions in the minds of his readers that I am in favor of modern spiritualism, and likely, as he prophecies, (for he also is among the prophets) to follow in the wake of Jessie B. Ferguson. President Fanning has asserted, indeed, three very extraordinary propositions, viz:

• 1. That the universe does not exhibit marks of design.
• 2. That John Locke was not a philosopher.
• 3. That Prof. Richardson is in favor of modern spiritualism.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

“Now those who can believe the two first of these may well believe also the last, for they are all equally worthy of acceptation by that sort of mind whose censure is praise, and whose condemnation is an encomium. If I thought that an unworthy motive led Bro. F. thus to misunderstand and misrepresent me, I should have taken no notice of his effusions. But he is evidently too deeply imbued with sensualistic philosophy to receive or comprehend the spiritual things of Christianity, and it is perfectly natural that he should misconceive and oppose them. If I thought that any benefit would result from the discussion of such themes with Bro. F., I should be happy to undertake it. But this spiritual incapacity, and that absence of logic and striking inability to distinguish between things that are different, so conspicuous in his writings, forbid anything of the kind. He suspects me of a ‘studied policy to introduce novelties,’ because I wish to see the brethren grow in grace and knowledge; he intimates that I am in favor, or in danger of modern spiritualism, because he is unable to distinguish between modern spiritualism and ANCIENT SPIRITUALITY. As no benefit, therefore, could at present arise from any discussion with Pres’t F. upon these topics, I here, with all kind feelings for him personally, take my final leave of him and his philosophy, with the sincere prayer that ‘the eyes of his understanding’ may be enlightened—that he may be filled with a knowledge of the will of God ‘in all wisdom and spiritual understanding’ and that he may ‘walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God.'”

R R.

FOURTH REPLY TO PROFESSOR ROBERT RICHARDSON

Brethren in Christ: The discussion with Prof. Richardson involves the truth of the Christian religion, and could we be provoked to retort on him, we have ample cause. It is our purpose, however, to avoid, as far as possible, personalities, and by the help of God, to examine the questions at issue entirely.

We have confidence, the brethren who really love the truth earnestly desire a fair and honorable discussion, and whilst we hope to do justice to all concerned, it shall be our constant study to prevent, if possible, a diversion from the momentous subjects under examination. It may be regarded respectful to Doctor R. to call attention to matters in the order they are found in his notes.

1. Prof. Richardson seems not only anxious to discuss minor personalities, but also particularly desirous to satisfy the readers of the Harbinger, that we cannot appreciate his talents and labors. The following, however, we think we understand. He speaks of our first notice of his new theology thus: “HI! tat ltc (we) (In~ Jllmsed to call c~ rply;” says we are, “Disposed”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 279

to enter into an elaborate discussion of our own merits; that “A discussion with one who deals so largely in assertions, and so little in proofs, and who is so obviously deficient in logic, would not be agreeable;” asserts that his “notice of us was incidental;” declares that our “writings exhibit manifest deficiency in logical power, and inability to make, or recognize those distinctions which are essential to the proper investigation of any subject;” that we are “unable to distinguish between indifference and error, sense and nonsense;” speaks of our “display of scholarship and exegetical skill;” of our “spiritual incompetency;” of our incapacity to “comprehend” the views of Mr. Russell; intimates that we “think not at all;” says that our philosophy “seems to govern all our religious views,” whether the subject be the church, or preaching for a salary, or metaphysical discussions, it is all the same; and yet Prof. Richardson declares that he has not charged us with “imbecility or meanness,” and that our purpose in intimating it is “to excite sympathy.” Regarding all these things, we have but a remark or two to make. We have no appropriate name or reply for them. If Prof. Richardson really entertains such views in regard to our writings, it occurs to us, that he should be entitled to no credit for refuting them; and from our childhood we have been taught that it exhibits extreme cruelty and unpardonable cowardice to waste the strength of a giant in demolishing pigmies. Such a mode of attack we do not recollect to have witnessed from anyone conscious of his ability to sustain himself. We should not be surprised if the brethren were to conclude that his notice of us was not “incidental.” If we are not mistaken he has frequently thought of us, and our writings, and in order to establish his new doctrines on a firm basis, he may have thought it would be best to administer to us a few death blows to ensure our silence.

We are glad to have it in our power, however, to inform him that his weapons are not adequate. He has thrown away the Jerusalem blade and is now staggering upon a broken reed, whose slightest touch is certain moral death.

2. Prof. Richardson thinks we are “deeply imbued with the philosophy of Locke” or the “Bert Philosophy,” and at our suggestion that Locke was not strictly a philosopher, he exclaims, “comment unnecessary.” We are happy to know that this is a matter that can be examined authoritatively, and we hope that our readers will not hesitate to make the effort to ascertain the differences between Dr. Richardson and ourselves.

We have felt much mortification at meeting with good brethren, and even preachers who seemed to think that ours is a controversy in relation to no vital question.

Brethren, you are mistaken,

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

and we beg you to divest yourselves of all unpleasant feeling, and hear patiently what we have to say.

The word philosophy is not generally understood. Etymologically it implies a love of wisdom, and a philosopher is merely a lover of wisdom, but technically and ecclesiastically it means quite a different thing.

The various systems of philosophy attempt to explain, in the language of Schwegler, “the construction and disposition of the universe; the arrangement and functions of the human body; and the doctrine of rights.” They assume to discover the Cause of all things—God and the moral duties of men. While the word Metaphysics refers merely to the investigations of the mind, its advocates rely on it to tell who made man, what is in him, and his destiny. Moral philosophy, in the words of Sidney Smith, “comprehends every thing spiritual.”

It is used in this sense by Berkeley, Hartley, Hutcheson, Adam Smith, Hume, Reid, Stewart, and the Germans, French and even the modern spiritualists. Its professed purpose is to grasp spiritual ideas, not through the understanding, not by means of the external revelations of the Bible, but by the direct apperception of truth. Cousin says, for instance, “That the idea of God is a primitive idea”—not received—”it is the necessary product of reason.”

F. W. Newman says, “The soul is the specific sense in which we come into contact with God.” This precludes all revelation. Theodore Parker, the Boston “higher-law” infidel, says that “A knowledge of God may be called, in the language of philosophy, an intuition of reason,” and he makes Religion obedience to a law written in our nature, revealed through instinct, reason, conscience—God with us, and the religious sentiment, and he informs the world that this knowledge comes not “through grammatical, logical, and rhetorical sense” of the scriptures.

Dr. Richardson also speaks of certain “materialists” who are “determined to rely upon words,” claiming communications addressed to the bodily senses. Which of these philosophers borrowed from the other?

David Strauss, the notorious German infidel, gives the modern philosophical view of religion in the plainest manner. He very gravely informs the world, in his 1st vol. of “The Life of Jesus,” that what “was once sacred history for the Christian, is for the enlightened portion of our contemporaries of no value.” The “revelation of Christ,” he says, “must be rejected.” It must not be “interpreted,” he informs us, “by the understanding.” He adds, “When the wind has gone…”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 281

Beyond the sensible history, and enters into the dominion of the absolute, the former (the history) ceases to be essential. This is strictly philosophical, in both manner and matter. Does not Dr. Richardson take the same view? He maintained, in the September number of the Harbinger for 1854, that:

1. We must not depend upon the understanding in the examination of truth.
2. “The veil of outward appearance must be lifted—(what is this but the “sensible history” of Strauss?)—from the face of Divine revelation before its beauty can be disclosed.”
3. His position is, that “It is the spirit alone (or soul, according to Newman) that can perceive the truth.”

So much we have thought proper to give in order to show our readers the true philosophical standpoint of Prof. Richardson and others, and how we are better prepared to notice the charge as to our “Ditt philosophy,” taken, as Dr. Richardson supposes, from Locke. We say, with the foregoing definition of philosophy before us, that John Locke denied that it was in man intuitively to know God or his will concerning the world. This really excludes him from philosophers. His standpoint was, that “faith is the assent to any proposition not made out by the deductions of reason, but upon the credit of the proposition as coming from God, in some extraordinary way of communication.” The way of discovering truths to man, he says, “revelation.” Is this the “Ditt philosophy,” or “gross sensualism” of which we have heard?

After all that has been said, we should not be surprised if Prof. Richardson and coadjutors, to hold a name amongst Christians, were not yet forced to show their confidence in Locke’s statement of the matter. We trust the brethren will henceforth be better able to appreciate Dr. R.’s opposition to belief through the facts of the Gospel. Those who apply gross sensualism to us know not what they affirm. If sensualism consists in believing in God through the revelations in the full exercise of the powers God has given us, then all Christians are sensualists; but, Voltaire and Helvetius, who advocated the unlimited gratification of the flesh, were strictly sensualists. The chief Rousseau, who had recourse to the feeling of his inner-consciousness, was a sensualist; and it may yet appear to the intelligent that our modern philosophers, who clamor so loudly in regard to rising, like J. B. Ferguson, above the Written Oracles to absolute truth, perceived by “our higher nature”—”inner-consciousness,” of Prof. Richardson.

282

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

are themselves but the slaves of the flesh. The man who trusts God by means of his word, possesses the only spiritual faith; but such as look to nature outward or inward for Divine light, in the language of Jude, “speak evil of those things which they know not, but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, and thus they corrupt themselves.” Inasmuch as we have failed to see an appeal to the Bible to sustain the New Theology, we sincerely regret Prof. R.’s declaration that we are “unable to endure the sound doctrine of the scriptures, in relation to the things of the Spirit.”

Years past, Prof. R. quoted the scriptures in a manner which gave evidence that he regarded them as the highest authority in religion; but since his adoption of his new theology, he makes no such impression on us. True, he quotes the word of God, but all conversant with his recent teaching are fully aware that the advocates of the doctrine are repudiators of the scriptures. In this connection he speaks of our “misconceptions and misrepresentations” of himself; Prof. Milligan and Pres. Campbell. We are not alone in opposing Prof. R’s teaching. Many of the brethren in this section pronounced it infidel long before we called attention to it. We never misunderstood Bro. Campbell. When Prof. R affirmed that he taught “Natural Theology,” from our entire confidence in his adhesion to the word of God, we expressed our doubts. Bro. Campbell has fully vindicated himself, by his essay on Natural Religion. We are sorry that he attempts to involve us with Bro. Campbell. It is untrue; but we doubt if his struggle for protection under Bro. Campbell’s broad mantle can shield him.

4. Prof. R. speaks of his “views being so well known, that it is unnecessary for him to undertake a serious refutation” of the suggestion that he “fancied the impulses of humanity to be the inspirations of the Almighty.” We simply state that Prof. R. is mistaken. The brethren believe the truth, and when their teachers introduce novelties, they are entitled to a reason for so doing. We hope that Prof. Richardson will not attempt to convince us, the teaching of himself and associates is what we have been accustomed to hearing. Our chief Tennessee apostate attempted, even after he had publicly adopted modern spiritualism, to convince his friends it was what he had always been teaching. His admirers said he was too well known to be misunderstood, and too good a man to do wrong. The consequences were fatal to the cause.
5. Prof. Richardson explains his statement, that “For want of time we had failed to make ourselves acquainted with the subject of philosophy.”

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 283

“phy,” by saying, “A man may be so occupied with training horses for the turf, with the company of sporting and betting gentry, and in carrying out various schemes of selfish and personal aggrandizement, to attend much to matters of a religious nature, and thus may be found grossly ignorant at an advanced age.”

In this language Dr. Richardson intended to charge us with the following sins:

1. “Training horses for the turf.”
2. “Keeping the company of sporting and betting gentry.”
3. “Of carrying out schemes of personal aggrandizement.”

If Prof. Richardson believes us guilty, we think it strange he desires so earnestly still to fraternize with us; and if he did not believe in the truth of his insinuations, we cannot see what good motive prompted him in making the charges.

Is this an exhibition of the “logic” in reference to which Prof. R. complains of our sad deficiency? Suppose the insinuations well founded, we cannot see their bearing upon the subjects under examination. If all the preachers of the cult were to turn gamblers, we do not know that their sin would establish the truth of the doctrine of spiritual light above the word of God—by the “inner consciousness.” We have been forcibly struck with the vehemence of the opposition of all who adopt the doctrine of intuitive light above the understanding, to believers through the divine word. We seek not the sympathy of even the brethren to sustain us in error or in wrong doing. We cannot charge Prof. Richardson with originating these things, but it is our right to ask for the author’s name.

We are happy, however, to say to all whom it may concern, that whilst we feel in our heart no disposition to make our character appear what it is not—for we are frank to admit that we have done much in life that we sincerely regret—we never owned or had the least interest in a turf horse, runner, pacer or trotter, or in the training of one for the turf in our life.

We never owned one which became a sporting animal. God gave us a little farm and we have raised pigs, cattle, sheep and using horses, and we have had some of them prepared for exhibition at our Fairs. This is the head and front of our offending. We never had even an interest in an animal of the blood or turf class. We regard it also unkind to ourselves and to the brethren with whom we have long had the honor of associating to say, that it is well known that we have a fondness for domestic animals, and, without boasting, we suppose it will be admitted that we have done more to introduce the improved

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

varieties of using domestic animals into the State than any other individual. All of our interest in preparing stock and attending fairs has been open. Our brethren, preachers and all, have witnessed every thing, and to this hour no one has intimated to us the least wrong, or even the appearance of evil in our course. We are, however, always ready to abandon any practice which is offensive to good men. We are proud to know, and that the best men of the country know, that for the last twenty years we have done more to prevent the breeding in our State of the almost worthless blood and sporting horses than any one of our acquaintances.

Regarding the intimation of associating with “sporting and betting gentry,” we can only say, that it has been our good fortune to have the confidence and friendship of the best men of the country, and we have associated with no others. For the information, however, of the candid we wish to say, that we have the honor of being the representative of the Davidson County Agricultural Society in the State Agricultural Bureau, and by the appointment of the Governor there are some most worthy gentlemen who own blooded horses and have them trained for the turf associated with us, but it is reported on good authority that none of them ever bet. These we are glad to know are regarded honorable and high-minded gentlemen throughout the country.

As to our supposed “schemes of selfish and personal aggrandizement,” as Prof. Richardson has not specified, we know not his meaning. We labor with our own hands for bread, never engaged in speculation in property or religion, have endeavored to observe the common decencies of life, and we flatter ourselves that we desire to detract from the fair character of no one. We hope, in the meantime, to prevent Prof. Richardson from diverting the attention of the brethren from the subjects under consideration. Our position before God and men is not the matter in hand. As previously intimated, we may yet be forced to look at men in their helpless deformities. We desire not such labor, and we beg Prof. R. to be considerate. He calls us “Brother Pan.”

Regarding our course in using works in colleges on the subject of philosophy, we have a few thoughts to offer. Some of these works contain much historical and critical matter of the greatest interest to students; and there are authors who do not adopt the system of the intuitive knowledge of the inner-consciousness to the exclusion of light through the Bible. If for no other reason but to detect and expose false teachers, we consider it the duty of Christian ministers particularly…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

285

Early to study most carefully the systems of speculation, such as prevail in Germany, France, England, and the colleges of this country. As a people the disciples have suffered more from false teaching, and especially false philosophy than any other cause, and we have now more to fear from the vain, deceitful, empty and impious philosophy, which turns the hearts of the brethren from the Gospel of Christ, to an imaginary direct knowledge, through the “inner-consciousness,” than from every other cause. It is lucidly set forth by Prof. Richardson.

Hear him, brethren, a few words.

“All attempts,” he says, “to reduce spiritual truths to the forms of the understanding, must be idle, 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.” This open repudiation in high places of the written word, and “the understanding,” which John says has been given us, “that we may know him that is true,” must be noted. If we suffer such things to pass without notice, we should speak no more of religion or the service of God.

After all Prof. Richardson’s merriment at what he is pleased to term our “unique and original exposition” of Rom. i/20, we see no authority for concluding that Paul taught the ability of man, as Prof. Richardson affirms in the May Harbinger, to “Learn the being (and attributes of God from the words of nature.” His refusing further discussion with one of “Pres. Fanning’s scholarship and exegetical skill,” comes with bad grace. He has committed himself in a clause that will be discussed.

In answer to Doctor Richardson’s exposure of Gil for referring to Robert Owen and others as Atheists, although they profess belief in some kind of divinity, we respectfully say, that we denominate all Atheists who reject the God of the Bible, whether their gods are, in the language of Theodore Parker, their conscience, their “higher nature,” or their stomachs, in the style of the antiquated Paul.

Prof. Richardson “insists that Pres. Campbell is at least quite as competent as President Fanning, to show the true place of philosophy in schools;” but we say, once for all, we have aspired to no discussion with Brother Campbell. We have no positive assurance that he is with Dr. Richardson, and we are unwilling to be involved with him.

Prof. Richardson’s statement that Dr. Campbell “holds the opinion that man could not originate from his own inner nature or from the material universe the proposition, that there is a God, that this truth is communicated by revelation or tradition,” but that nature furnishes merely “the proof of it” is fatal. He adds, “This is what Natural…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Theology is understood to teach, precisely what the scriptures say. Here is another attempt to take protection behind Brother Campbell. This is not what Prof. Richardson taught in the May number. Are we to conclude that Prof. R would shrink from his own teaching? Then he said, that “Natural Theology teaches that man can learn the being and attributes of God from the works of nature,” but now nature only affords proof to the spiritually enlightened. This view is what we have always taught, but who does not see the palpable contradiction?

First he maintained that we “learn things from nature,” but now he tamely says, they can be “communicated only by direct revelation.” Can Prof. R say we do not understand him? Alas for human nature!! This is a sad commentary on the frailties of our race. We mock not Prof. Richardson for his awkward position, but from our soul we pity any one who lays himself so liable to exposure.

We tell Prof. R that his assumption, that Natural Theology attempts no more than to confirm the truth already revealed, is without authority. Natural Theology professes to discover God from nature. We hope it is not necessary to discuss this point. Dr. Richardson’s reading of Rom. i, 20, “his invisible things are clearly seen (since the creation by the things that are made)” the external world is truly fanciful. The connection shows conclusively that the Apostle had not the external world in his mind. He was speaking of the Gospel—said, “therein is the righteousness of God revealed”—”that which may be known of God is manifest in them”—the disciples; and not in nature; and adds, “For God had showed (revealed) it unto them.”

In the 16th chapter Paul treats the matter thus: “Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began. But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” Will the reader observe, that Paul was speaking of something “revealed,” “shown,” “now made known” (not since the creation), but Dr. R.’s view now is that he was speaking merely of something which he calls “proof” of a proposition previously given by revelation. The way of Prof. R is truly a hard one.

Dr. R. says he “has not sustained Mr. Russell’s teaching.” Then we admit our “incompetency” to understand Prof. R. He says, “It is not true, that his address was the embodiment of his instruction in Bethany College.” Every one must see that Prof. Richardson and Mr. Russell teach the same higher law doctrine; and Mr. Russell has

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 287

writes to a Brother in St. Louis, referring to Dr. Richardson’s essay, to prove their teaching identical. Prof. R.’s declaration that we do “not understand” Mr. Russell, may not answer the purpose intended. Mr. Russell is more independent and lucid, and much less contradictory than his teacher, and, therefore, it is not so difficult to see his aim. But we trust a few months will enable us to survey the whole ground.

Prof. Richardson disclaims all idea of following “in the wake of J. B. Ferguson,” and declares “perfect contempt for the various forms of modern spiritualism, as any one conversant,” he says, “with his teaching ought to know.”

We respectfully remind Dr. Richardson that many of his essays are of so remarkable a character that his age and former position will afford him no protection. He cannot explain away what he has written—as he is evidently attempting—without involving himself in contradictions endless and unpardonable. His only alternative, we think, is to retract the whole system. It saddens our heart to be forced to associate his teaching with the apostate Ferguson’s, and with other modern spiritual infidels, but we must be pardoned for intimating that their doctrines are beyond all question the same.

A single quotation from each writer will answer our purpose. Mr. Ferguson says, “The disciples had held many manifestations of Christ’s glory and confessed him; but their conceptions were gross, (sensual we suppose. P. F.) but they are such as human nature ever clings to until it can rise above the outward and perceiving to the spiritual and eternal.” He spoke of the ordinances being a “round of outward ceremonies” and the “kingdom being within it.”

Dr. Richardson speaks of men who believe on God through his word as “materialists,” and “gross sensualists”—says the mind “can never read, or rise to that substantive and spiritual reality which must be from its very nature beyond and above the outward forms.” “All attempts then to reduce spiritual truths to the forms of the understanding must be futile, and derogatory to that Divine word which addresses itself to our higher spiritual nature—to our self-consciousness.”

This is to all intents and purposes the style of Theodore Parker. Also Andrew Jackson Davis, the prince of modern spiritualists, on the 130 page of his famous Penetralia, mentions the “higher law of nature” as being “higher than the authority of any book;” speaks of the “guidance of our moral sentiments”—same as Prof. Richardson’s “self-consciousness”—and makes inspiration the direct apprehension of truth, which is identical with Dr. Richardson’s direct light by the spirit within us.

288

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Spiritualists of Tennessee claim Prof. Richardson as a brother, but say he is contradictory, and unreliable. These are some of our reasons for concluding that Prof. Richardson and coadjutors in Illinois and Missouri, especially, are with transcendentalists or modern spiritualists.

We are certain they are not with the disciples of Christ in letter or spirit; and no one can regret our convictions more than ourselves.

We admit that Dr. Richardson pleads for the authority of the word, but on the same page he contends that we must rise above the word and the ordinary understanding. This was the course of J. B. Ferguson for years; and it is in fact the double dealing which Strouss, the master of the school, advises. He directs influential preachers to “adhere to the forms of the popular conception, (the scriptures,) but on every opportunity to exhibit their spiritual significance, (significance above the letter,) and thus prepare the resolution of those forms into their original ideas in the consciousness of the church.” – Life of Jesus, vol. 3, p. 4.

Prof. Richardson’s statement, that we maintain “The universe does not exhibit marks of design,” is without proper authority. To the unenlightened, the universe exhibits nothing but visible objects. It suggests not the being and perfections of its Author; as Prof. R. said in the Hay Harbinger, but with the truth of the Bible in our hearts, “The heavens declare the glory of God,” and every object of earth shows forth the handiwork and the goodness of the Divine being.

We deem it unnecessary, at present, to proceed further in the discussion; but we say to the brethren, that we find in the writings of Prof. Richardson and pupils various strange things to which we have not referred, and to which we think it important to call attention. We feel no ambition to expose Prof. Richardson, and we trust that in future he will see the importance of adopting a different manner of procedure. We wish to stand or fall by the truth.

T. F.

---

NOTES ON A TOUR TO MISSOURI.-No. 1.

Having accepted an invitation from the brethren at Farmington, St. Francis county, Missouri, to go there, in the ensuing autumn, and take charge of a school for them, with the object of building up a High School; I concluded, as I had never been there, or in the country, to make a preaching and visiting tour, in the interior, as I had leisure to do so, form their acquaintance, and make such preliminaries…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

289

Nary arrangements as might be necessary. And as an account of my tour might not be devoid of interest, and perhaps of edification, to the readers of the Gospel Advocate, I have concluded to give it, in a series of numbers, of which this will be the first.

Acting on the maxim of the sage and philosophic Franklin, that “little boats should keep near shore,” while larger ones may venture more, or out into the vasty deep, I do not expect to visit any of our large cities, the commercial and political emporiums of the country, or to see any of our Generals, Colonels, Majors, or wealthy planters, but to wend my course through the country, the lanes and by-ways of the world; but where, nevertheless, as much or more of real worth, genuine holiness, and sterling piety, are to be found. Indeed, it is not in our large cities, in wealthy and aristocratic neighborhoods, or among those whom the world regards as important and great, that these are generally to be found. The influence of fashion, and the prevalence of the artificial manners and customs of society, are too chilling in their effects and too formal, restrictive and cramping in their influence, for the existence and growth of that fervent piety and deep devotion which should ever distinguish the genuine disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ and mark his disciples as “a peculiar people, zealous of good works” and of obeying his holy commandments.

But I find myself digressing, and must return to my subject. On Wednesday, the 15th of July, myself, in company with my Son William, set out from Henry county, Tennessee, on my tour. As we had neither horses nor carriage of any kind, and were not convenient to railroads or rivers, where we could take the cars or a steamboat, we had to adopt the primitive mode of traveling, used by our Savior and his apostles, while peregrinating the land of Judea. It was rendered somewhat unpleasant, on account of the excessive heat which prevailed during the greater part of our trip; but we took it by easy stages, without experiencing much fatigue; and it has the advantage too of being a cheap and independent way of traveling, besides being sometimes the most pleasant too, during very cold weather in winter, as we had experienced on more than one occasion before. We had the tedium of our trip relieved, and were much gratified on our way, by contemplating the well-cultivated farms, as we passed along. The thick standing shocks of wheat showed that an excellent crop of that valuable grain had generally been made; while the tall and well-headed oats gave evidence of an unusual crop of that grain, so important to the farmer in feeding his stock. The Indian corn, the most important

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

of all the grain crops to the farmer, had been remarkably well cultivated, and was in a flourishing condition, but later than usual for the time of year, in consequence of the backwardness of the season. Of the “filthy weed” I shall say nothing, only there appears to be an unusually large crop of it planted this year—the high prices and its being the principal money staple, were probably the causes. On the whole, with sufficient rain, and a late fall, the present year promises to be as good a one to the farmer for his crops as 1855.

We came through the neighborhood of brother W. W. Dugger, but had not the opportunity of calling on him, which we much regretted, as we had long been wishing to do so. His name and fame are in all the churches in the country, in consequence of his zeal and successful labors for the Lord, in the cause of primitive Christianity; and for the same reason he is as much hated, feared and dreaded by the different sects, into which he has made great inroads, and, in some places taken off so many of their members as to have almost entirely broken up their churches! But in all their opposition to him, they cannot bring up a single charge against his moral or religious character—not a single stain lies upon it.

After sojourning a day or two with some connections, in Marshall county, Kentucky, we arrived on Saturday evening, at our beloved brother’s, Elder Jesse J. Shelton’s, in Graves county, in order to attend with him the next day, the 3rd Lord’s day in July, at Spring Creek Meeting House, not far from him, as we had heard that brother Dugger was to be there then and preach. But we were informed by brother Shelton that it was a mistake, but that it was their regular meeting and preaching day for the month; and as he had before, when I had called on him in passing, solicited me to attend with him on some 3rd Lord’s day, he expressed much gratification at my being then able to do so.

To add to the interest of the occasion, there were four young men to immerse, who, in the morning and prime of life had come forward to obey the Gospel, calmly, deliberately and of their own accord, without having to be excited or urged to it, or moved to obedience by the appliances too often resorted to. Such converts are of the right character to “stick,” or remain firm. As they were to be immersed before preaching began, we set off early for the Meeting House, about four miles distant. On arriving we found a very large audience in attendance, which continued to augment. We soon repaired to the water, which was near, where brother Shelton took the confession of the four subjects, and, after singing by the brethren and…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 291

A short prayer by myself suitable to the occasion, he buried them with Christ in baptism, to arise and walk in newness of life. Any one who has noticed, has no doubt observed the great difference between the number of persons who attend the immersion of adults, and the number that attend the place where infants or others have the water poured or sprinkled on them! Let an immersion be announced, and the people will flock in a crowd to see it; but let it be a pouring or a sprinkling, and how small will be the company present! The reason of the difference is obvious. There is a solemnity and impressiveness in the immersion of adult persons—of an intelligent subject who has confessed Christ—the idea of a burial and resurrection, emblematical of Christ, connected with a renunciation of the world—a consonance with scripture teaching; while there is none of this in the sprinkling of a few drops of water on the face of an unconscious babe, which is fretting and crying, and shrinking from it, but a ridiculous absurdity—supremely ridiculous and farcical—without a shadow of scriptural authority, and nothing to support it but vague tradition! Hence, while the one is gaining in popular favor, the other is constantly losing!

The immersion of the young men was performed by brother Sheldon with an ease, propriety and beauty which showed that while he himself believed in the right action and validity of the ordinance, he understood the proper administration of it. This contrasts strongly with some Methodist preachers I have heard of, who would preach long discourses against immersion, and then walk down from the pulpit; and go to the stream or pool, and immerse individuals!—generally members whom they were afraid of losing unless they did it, or persons whom they could not get without it!—a most glaring inconsistency, and which should forfeit them the confidence of the religious community.

And then the awkward manner in which they perform the ordinance deprives it of its solemnity and sacred character, presents both them and it in a ludicrous position, and renders it a burlesque! I recollect to have read, a few years since, of some cases of immersion of ladies by a Methodist preacher, in a stream of running water, with their faces up stream! The writer said the result could be imagined! The predepositions speak of the indecency of the immersion of ladies, while it is thus they make it indecent. Another preacher invited a Baptist who had been jeering him about their awkwardness in immersing, to attend and see how well he could perform it. Having to stand on a slippery limestone rock, when he performed the ordinance his footing gave way, and both went under together! Perhaps he had…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

never been immersed, and needed it. In another case, which occurred a good many years since, in Virginia, a Methodist preacher had a couple of sisters to immerse, who had demanded it. He immersed the first one in so awkward, rough and angry a manner, that the other one refused to be baptized by him, and declared that she would be immersed by “old father Richards,” a Baptist preacher, widely known and of most excellent character. And such was the effect of the preacher’s manner on the other, that she went partially deranged! These are all real cases—actual occurrences—and well authenticated. And there are scores of cases, no doubt, of similar character. Why is it that persons suffer themselves to be immersed by such persons, having no faith in it, and performing it in such a manner?—and who, too, most generally, have never been baptized themselves, and are not scripturally authorized to administer the rite? But we must close this number of our tour, as it is long enough for one.

J. R. H.
Oak Grove, near Paducah, Ky., July 22, 1857.

FAITH AND OBEDIENCE

The New Testament plainly and forcibly teaches the utter impossibility of attaining to a state of salvation, except through the belief of the gospel. It also teaches, equally plain, that every claim to the pardon of sins before obedience has been rendered to the command, which has annexed to it the promise of remission, is but the vain imagining of a deluded mind.

The mere opinion, that the scriptures are of divine origin, does not constitute the belief of the gospel. It is possible to believe them to be a revelation from God, and consequently true, and yet not believe the teaching of the word in reference to the way of salvation. Just so far as men fall short of understanding the gospel plan of deliverance from guilt, just so far do they fall short of believing and obeying the word of life.

The word must be heard before it can be believed; it must be believed before it can be obeyed, and it must be obeyed before salvation can be received.

“Receive,” says James, “with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass; for he beholds himself and goes his way, and straightway forgets what manner of man he was. But whoso looks into the perfect law of liberty and…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

293

Whosoever diligently searches the word may understand and do the word, and the promise is he shall be blessed in his obedience. Paul to the Hebrews writes, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Without faith it is impossible to render an acceptable obedience to the command of God. He is pleased only to acknowledge and bless in that obedience that flows from a believing and understanding heart.

We are told by the word of inspiration, that he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. None can come to him unless they believe in the God of the Bible. They must believe on him as possessing the character and the attributes which the scriptures ascribe to him. They must believe also that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and this is believing that God has commanded, and promised, that in obedience to that command he will bestow the blessing. He that comes to God must believe that he through the gospel makes to the children of men, the offer of life and salvation upon the special condition that they believe and obey the gospel—the written word. Hence we learn that man must have faith before he can come to God. The word produces faith, and faith produces the necessary preparation of mind for obedience unto life.

Paul to the Ephesians says, “By grace are ye saved through faith,” showing evidently that they had faith before they received salvation; for it was through their faith that they received it. Paul speaks also of the source from which their faith was derived, or the evidence upon which it was based: “You are built,” says he, “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

When the Messiah commissioned the apostles to go and preach the gospel, he plainly told them that those who would believe and obey their word should be saved, but those who would not believe their declaration should not inherit life. John, writing some years after the organization of the Christian institution, informs us that Messiah in establishing his kingdom gave to as many as believed on him the power, or authority, to become the sons of God. All who believed the word which the apostles declared…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

---

were authorized to change their relation to God, and become in obedience that which by faith before obedience they were not, viz: the sons of God. For an example in illustration of this, let us go back to the beginning of the gospel dispensation, to the day of Pentecost, when Peter arose before the multitude assembled at Jerusalem, to make the first gospel proclamation ever made on earth. His first effort was to convince the audience that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God. Many hearing his testimony believed, through the word which he spoke. And when they were convinced, from the arguments and evidences which he arrayed before their understanding, that Jesus was the Messiah foretold by the prophets, they were smitten with fear and pierced in heart; for this truth brought with it the knowledge of just condemnation before God.

Now, we may here learn the office and province of faith, and also the effect which the belief of the word of the Apostles has and ever will produce upon the human mind, when fully and correctly comprehended. They began earnestly to inquire what they should do. Their solicitous inquiry gave full assurance that they believed on the Son of God. They then had faith, but they were not yet justified by it. Faith had produced in them an earnest desire to embrace some means of emancipation from sin and condemnation. They were ready to do something in order to obtain salvation, but what that something was, in which they could receive the pardon of sin, they knew not. On this point they were not as yet informed, because that repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ, had not then been preached. The law given by Moses made no provision for pardon to be granted for crimes such as they had perpetrated. They had treacherously betrayed, falsely accused and crucified the Son of God. Nothing but a dispensation of favor, under a new law or new institution, could reach their sad condition and confer upon them the forgiveness of sins. Power or authority to become the sons of God was not given until Peter, in answer to the interrogation, “What shall we do?” preached unto them repentance and remission of sins, saying, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” A gift which they had not nor did not receive until they obeyed the command of the Most High given by the mouth of Peter. And thus believing that which Peter taught them concerning the Messiah, they were led to repentance and became obedient to the command of the Holy Spirit, and in that obedience, viz, baptism, they were born of water and of the Spirit, and became the

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Page 295

Children of God. They obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered them, and being then in that obedience made free from sin, they became the servants of righteousness. This is Paul’s language to the disciples at Rome, but it may be used with equal propriety in reference to those that became disciples of Christ on the day of Pentecost.

Paul, in the same chapter, to his brethren at Rome, said unto them, “Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism 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. For if we have been planted together (by baptism) in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

Know you not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness? The belief of the gospel, and obedience unto life, hold a relation to each other, similar to that relation which existed between the unbelief and disobedience of our first parents, that brought death with all its attendant woes upon the inhabitants of earth.

Unbelief and distrust of God’s word and promise led them to disobey the command of their Creator. Unbelief was first, then the obedience, and after it then followed the penalty connected with the command. But the law had not access to them as violators until the forbidden deed was done—until the act of rebellion was perpetrated. Even so under the gospel plan of granting admittance into a state of favor and justification before God; faith in his word and promise is first, then obedience to the command, which has connected with it the promise of remission of sins, then follows the possession of pardon, peace and reconciliation with God, and the glorious privilege of enjoying the bright hope of a blissful immortality beyond the tomb.

He, therefore, that believes the word is justified of God in obeying the command, on which is predicated the promise; and being justified in obedience, by faith, he has peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Moses, speaking of the coming of the Messiah and the giving of the gospel—the law of the spirit of life, said to the fathers: “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me, him shall you hear (or be required to obey) in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear (or obey) that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.”

Now it is clearly evident from the word of the Lord, by the mouth of his prophet, that

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Under the reign of Messiah, a full and complete obedience, an entire compliance with the precepts of the gospel, connected with the condition of pardon and justification, is required, and must be rendered before the promise of God and the blessings of salvation can be inherited. The prophet said it should come to pass, that under the gospel dispensation every soul that would not obey the Messiah in all things enjoined by his apostles (in order to deliverance from condemnation for sin) should be destroyed from among the people.

Beyond a doubt the prophet spoke in this prediction with direct reference to the word of the Lord, which, according to other prophecies, was to go forth from Jerusalem. The proclamation (there made, when the day of Pentecost was fully come) that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and the command to reform and be baptized, in order to obtain the remission of sins, together with all that Jesus taught by his apostles relative to the way of life and salvation constitutes the word—the commandments—the things spoken by Messiah, which the prophet Moses said should be obeyed (not in part only) but in all things whatsoever are spoken. He farther adds, that every soul that would not obey the Savior in all things which he commanded should be destroyed from among the people.

Moses, it seems from the language used, did not know nor even suspect that Messiah would give commands and make requirements, (and suspend, as it were, upon obedience to them the richest and most precious promises,) which commands would eventually prove to be of such a trivial and nonsensical character that they might be dispensed with without marring or deranging the symmetrical order of God’s plan. This discovery was made by those who professed to be wise above what is written—by those who respected more the wisdom of men than the authority of the King of Zion.

J. M. SELPH
Mt. Pinson, Madison county, Tenn., August 5, 1857.

THE CONQUEST OF THE TRUTH

The noblest victory ever achieved on earth is the victory of the Gospel of Christ. No worldly triumph can for a moment compare with the triumph of God’s love over the heart of man. It finds him full of stubbornness, rebellion, and corruption, the creature of passion bowed down by the grovelling and selfish appetites of flesh. It finds him defiled with sin, and knowing no motive to action but the untamed, wild, and reckless impulses of a nature tolerant of no control. It finds him a being only of the present, unacquainted with, and re…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

297

Regardless of any destiny that may await him in the future, and the possessor of no hope that passes the narrow limits of this swift hour of existence, and shining with heavenly radiance above the gloom of this world of affliction and sorrow and disappointment, finally spans the awful gulf of death and points to peace and bliss immortal beyond its shades. To him in this hopeless, degraded and wretched condition comes the gospel of God’s redeeming love. To him come the glad tidings of a Savior born into the world, and the still more glorious tidings a Savior crucified and slain but risen again. To him comes the affectionate entreaty of Jesus himself, “Come unto me all you that labor and are heavily laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest unto your souls; for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

The proudest spirit is humbled before the power of such transcendent love. The stoutest heart melts at the tale of a Savior’s sufferings and death, and he who never knew fear, trembles as the aspen before the unmasked realities of his own hopeless and wretched condition. Pierced by the living word he cries out in sincere penitence, “Lord what will you have me to do?” In humble teachableness the man or woman whose stubborn neck never brooked the least control, now bows and receives the words of the despised Galilean and yields allegiance to him according to his appointment.

Every purpose of wrath is gone, every impulse to vengeance is swept away, and the heart that before was full of all deceit and guile and crime and sin, becomes a dwelling-place of God our Father and the seat of every impulse and ambition that is pure, gentle, holy and divine. From the grovelling, sensual concerns that bore the unregenerate soul to the earth, every purpose of the heart, every aspiration is turned above, and indeed we become new creatures in Christ Jesus. This is conquest, which no earthly conquest can equal. Brute force may do much. Intellectual power may sometimes appear almost to perform wonders. But the Truth of God—the Gospel—the message of love and redemption, no matter how humble the instrument, whenever faithfully and earnestly presented alone can effect victories which are to this day living miracles in attestation of its divine origin. Any conquest over sinful, rebellious men short of this unreserved subjection of the whole man, with his entire soul, body and affections to Christ, is not the conquest of the Truth. Its work is complete, whole and perfect, and its victory over humanity is without reservation or compromise. Nothing short of this is a conquest of the truth.

W. L.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

THE WORD OF GOD

In the June number of the Harbinger, Dr. Richardson publishes and comments upon an extract from an article of mine, in which he attempts to show that I teach that the Spirit of God and the Word of God are identical. I feel that with those who understand and believe the Truth, a reply from me is unnecessary. How any man, whose whole purpose was not to make out his case, could come to any such conclusion, I cannot see. There is not a word contained in the extract for which I fear the least reprehension from any man or woman to whom the oracles of God are the authoritative end of controversy. When men go beyond that and begin to appeal to other authorities, I have nothing more to say. They have full license to speculate and weave theories of metaphysical “bosh” and nonsense to their hearts’ content.

I know nothing on the subject of the religion of Christ but the plain simple teachings of the Word of God, through divinely appointed messengers, and I have no use for anything in Christianity which is beyond the comprehension of men and women of sound sense and good hearts. If this is not the character of the Gospel of God’s love, I can see in it no grace, no mercy, and instead of being an offer of free and abundant favor to all, it is a system of the most exclusive partiality. Such a character I do not learn from His life and teachings, whose dwelling was with the humble, the lowly, and the untutored and whose language is, “I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

Is this to be the fruit of the labors, the trials, and the hardships of the last half century? Is this the end for which men have given up family ties and respect of friends and neighbors, and become almost a “hissing and a by-word?” Was it for this poor, pitiable mixture of mysticism, transcendentalism, and such like stuff that the many venerated men, some of whom are gone, while a few yet linger, devoted their time and their energies of soul and body? Shame and ignominy be upon us if we thus crush and consign to death a cause that has not only made those who enjoyed the full blessings of its influence a people strong in the armor of Heaven, and valiant in the defense of the Truth, but has sent its light into the darkest depths of superstition in our land and made men who scoff at it feel its power, and forsake many time-honored practices. If we ourselves after all that has been done, all that has been borne and sacrificed for the sake of removing the films of superstition from the eyes of the people, are ourselves…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

299

To be led back into this murky darkness and miry gloom, it does seem to me that we present the most purposeless, useless and utterly vain project ever attempted by sane beings.

If the intention be to destroy this labor, why not strike it at its fountain head? Why not pronounce the labors of Brother Campbell, and the venerated men who have stood with him in this struggle, utterly senseless and pernicious? Why not charge sensationalism, materialism and Bibliolatry upon those to whom we of this generation are so much indebted for our confidence in the Word of God? These men have taught from the beginning, that the gospel is now the only word of God—or will of God—the only proclamation and command addressed to the human race, and that every great moral change in man is through this word. Beyond this we have not gone. We are for the old gospel, for the Ancient Landmarks. It is the only light of the moral world. We know nothing outside of it.

We have no knowledge on any subject pertaining to the salvation, sanctification and final glorification of man that does not come through the written word of the living God. Therein we have his complete revelation concerning us. Therein is found the full mind of Christ in terms, language and conditions so clear that all men and women of common intellects and honest hearts can understand, receive and obey. There is no mercy—no favor in any other sort of a communication. God has not invited a favored few to share in the bounteous inheritance of his favor, but he “has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty.”

In honoring the words of my Master I honor Him. In obeying His commands I do that which is pleasing in His sight. And in faithfully and earnestly devoting myself to his requirements I enjoy as fully as any being on this earth “all Spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” I want no stronger assurance than Christ himself has given: “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself unto him.” If any man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him.” I ask no other word of assurance. What God by his wisdom has spoken I am willing to trust.

W. L.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

OPPOSITION TO TRUTH IN KY., UNPRECEDENTED.

DEAR BRETHREN – Opposition to the primitive Gospel and order of things, both infidel and sectarian, in some parts of this country, is assuming an aspect of virulence, rage and revenge, not often manifested. An old gentleman, of no sort of religion, whose wife obeyed the Gospel and united with the brethren, has ever since manifested great hostility to the cause, and sometimes given expression to it in a very singular and blasphemous manner. On one occasion he baptized a dog, in a pond, in the names of Dugger, Starks, and Trille, three of our preachers! On another occasion, his horse stumbled, and he exclaimed that he wished he had him at the creek, he would baptize him, to see if it would not make him believe!

But this is all harmless compared with what some others have been doing, under the cover of the darkness of night; for, to use an illustration which fits, such people “love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” And as “every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved,” so do they; not so much because of the reproof that might follow, as the fear of punishment and the penitentiary! But to the circumstances.

Bro. Dugger has been proclaiming the original Gospel with such force and power that he has nearly or quite broken up some party churches, the members of which have obeyed the Gospel and left these “communions.” Every means, “lawful and unlawful,” that could be devised by our opponents and enemies, to put a stop to it, has been resorted to, but all in vain. The people, by a spirit of independence and investigation that always does honor to human nature, were determined to go and hear for themselves; and listening with unprejudiced minds, they were convinced, and actuated by the same spirit, obeyed the Gospel.

Enraged by brother Dugger’s success, and moved by a diabolical spirit of revenge, with a view no doubt to intimidate him, and perhaps drive him away if possible; as he is a farmer and owns a good deal of valuable stock, an attack upon this was the next means resorted to. So a valuable mule, running out in the pasture, was shot by somebody, and found dead! Next a valuable horse was very badly cut in the stable, with a knife, but afterwards recovered. Not satisfied with killing and injuring his stock, an attempt must be made on his life, as an effectual and final mode of putting a stop to his influence! So one night his horses and mules were turned out of his horse lot into his yard, in order to get him out, where an opportunity could be had in…

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Content

The darkness, to knock him down and perhaps put an end to his life!
As it happened, his negro boy went out to attend to them, who was knocked down with a club, under the supposition that it was brother Dugger—and stunned for a while by the blow, but fortunately not killed.

The assailants made their escape in the darkness without being detected; and no clue has yet been had, by which to ascertain who they were. But as “murder will out,” such things as these cannot always be kept concealed. Such are the means resorted to by our enemies, instead of arguments, with which to arrest the progress of the true Gospel! It shows that the same spirit which put our blessed Savior to death, stoned Stephen the protomartyr, and has led so many to the stake, still exists; and all that it wants is power and opportunity to do the same now.

Brother Dugger has more mules, and says that he can spare one occasionally, for the sake of that liberty of speech for which our forefathers fought, bled and died.
And well may his opponents and enemies dread his influence, and quail before him, for like Apollos he is “eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures”—not that fine-spun declamation and morbid style, which too often goes under the name of eloquence, but that exhibition of the facts and truths of the Gospel, accompanied by illustration and elucidation, which convinces the mind, engages the affections, and leads the individual into obedience. He is one of the ablest preachers I have ever heard; and can strip sectarianism of its unauthorized claims, and expose its false pretensions to being the true Gospel, in a manner that is calculated to destroy it, and cause its votaries to forsake it for the truth. Hence the character of its opposition to him. May he be enabled to long continue his valuable labors.

J. R. H.
Near Davis’s Cross Roads, Marshall Co., Ky., July 17, 1857.

---

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT CO-OPERATION

The Co-operation Meeting of the churches in the Mountain District of Tennessee will be held at Ivy Bluff, commencing Friday before the second Lord’s day in October, 1857. It will be a matter of general satisfaction to the brethren for each church to send a letter to the meeting, stating its condition and the number added to it during the year.

A. P. SEITZ, Sec’y.

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

REPORTS OF EVANGELISTS

ALEXANDRIA, TENN., July 18, 1857.

Bro. Fanning:
We had a meeting to commence here on the 11th inst., and to close on the 14th inst., and not without good results; five persons confessed and were immersed, (one of whom was from the Baptists.) We also selected three brethren for the office of deacon, to be ordained at a subsequent meeting. Up to that time we were without officers in the church. We come to the conclusion that we are not yet ready to make Elders. Our only preacher was brother J. L. Sewell, our District Evangelist. The Christian Church and the Methodist are the only ones in this village. We have appointed the 12th of September next, the time to commence another protracted meeting.

Fraternally yours,
O. D. WILLIAMS.

Enquiry:
We would be really thankful to Bro. Williams, if he would inform us in regard to the manner in which churches make Elders?
T. F.

EVANGELIZING SOUTH

Dear Brethren:
After I wrote you last, I returned home in February to see my family, with the expectation of returning to my field of labor the first of March. But much sickness in my family and other matters, requiring my presence and attention, prolonged my return till May. While at home, being invited, I held a meeting with the church on Flat Creek, in Bedford county, at which three persons turned to the Lord and the brethren were much refreshed and encouraged. There are many good brethren in Bedford, but some of the churches have neither monthly, nor scriptural pastors.

Last Lord’s day I worshipped with the church at Augusta, Ga. Bro. Campbell and brother Shannon had recently held an interesting and successful meeting there of some days. Being advertised in one of the city papers as the speaker of the day, I preached morning and evening. Two made the good confession and four were baptized in the church after preaching at night. The congregation was large and the scene very interesting. Brother Lamar said there had been thirteen confessions in all. The church is much revived and hope for many more. Brother Lamar, though comparatively young, has fortu-

THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

---

Page 303

Naturally the sense, gravity, and dignity of age, and seems destined to do much good in this lovely city of his own State.

Brother Bush, in the true Christian spirit, met me at Augusta and brought me on to his own house, where I now write and enjoy his Christian hospitality. Brethren Haverner and Alfred are to be here next Lord’s day, and I shall be happy to unite with them in holding a meeting with the church at Union. The Lord bless our humble efforts!

Vegetation is much further advanced here than in Tennessee, and the weather much warmer. The sudden change from lingering winter to advancing summer somewhat relaxes this mortal body, but by frequent applications to Dr. Hydropathy I keep it braced up and hope I will continue to enjoy my usual good health.

Yours in the Lord,
J. J. TROTT
Union, S.C., May 14, 1857.

---

A WORD TO MOTHERS

Each mother is an historian. She writes not the history of empires or of nations on paper, but she writes her own history on the imperishable mind of her child. That tablet and that history will remain indelible when time shall be no more. That history each mother will meet again, and read with eternal joy or unutterable grief in the far coming ages of eternity.

This thought should weigh on the mind of every mother, and render her deeply circumspect, and prayerful, and faithful in her solemn work of training up her children for heaven and immortality. The minds of children are very susceptible, and easily impressed. A word, a look, a frown, may engrave an impression on the mind of a child which no lapse of time can efface or wash out.

You walk along the seashore when the tide is out, and you form characters, or write words or names in the smooth white sand, which it has spread out so clear and beautiful at your feet, according as your fancy may dictate, but the returning tide shall in a few hours wash out and efface forever all that you have written. Not so the lines and characters of truth or error which your conduct imprints on the mind of your child.

There you write impressions for the everlasting good or ill of your child, which neither the floods nor the storms of earth can wash out, nor death’s cold fingers erase, nor the slow-moving ages of eternity obliterate. How careful then, should each mother be of her treatment of her child. How prayerful, and how serious, and how…

304: THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE

Earnest to write the eternal truths of God on his mind—those truths which shall be his guide and teacher when her voice shall be silent in death, and her lips no longer move in prayer in his behalf, in commending her dear child to her covenant God.

TRUTH—A GEM

Our principles, however imperfectly carried out, are now, I sincerely think, shown to be insuperable, invulnerable. They have long and often been assailed; but, like the pure gold, they have always come out of the furnace with brighter lustre.

Truth, my friends, holy truth, stands upon the Rock of Ages. It lifts its head above the stars. It communes with God. It holds sweet converse with the hierarchs around the throne of the Eternal King—with those elders, sons of light, and with the spirits of the mighty dead. It is the bright effluence of the essence of the unclouded minds. God spoke and truth was born. Embodied in the words of God, it came down from heaven and became incarnate. It is, therefore, immortal, and cannot be killed. It will survive all its foes, and stand erect when every idol falls. No one knows its gigantic strength. It has been often cast down, but never destroyed. For ages past it has been gathering strength and preparing for a mightier conflict yet, than time records. It needs no fleshly wisdom, nor worldly policy, to give it power, or gain it victory. It is itself redeeming; soul-redeeming, and disenthralling. It has passed through fire, and flood, and tempest, and is as fresh, as fair, as beautiful, and as puissant as ever.

He that defends it feels the strength of mountains, as though girded with the everlasting hills. It gives him more than mortal strength, and enlarges his benevolence as wide as humanity itself.

I am sorry that I have been so much disappointed in the promise of an honorable, high-minded, dignified investigation of its great principles. But, though assailed with unbecoming rudeness, it cannot be destroyed. It is self-preserving and recuperative. Conceived in the bosom of everlasting love, its aspirations are to its native heaven. Light and fire, earth’s purest elements, are but the shadows of its glory. The tongues of lambent flame that sat upon the heads of the Apostles were but indicative of its irradiating and consuming potency.