FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER:

FOURTH SERIES.

VOL. VII.]	BETHANY, VA. MAY, 1857.	[NO. V.

      "BEWARE, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."--Paul to the Colossians.

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

      As an illustration of some of these points, and a confirmation of our main position, we have now before us the case of Brother Fanning, to which it seems especially proper for me to pay some attention, as he has been pleased to introduce my humble name into the Gospel Advocate, and I have no desire to be ungrateful. He places me with others who, in his opinion, manifest "a settled policy to introduce novelties amongst the brethren." I would be pleased if it were allowed me to return the compliment in kind, for I remember him who has said: "Every scribe who is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." The oldest things of Christianity are, indeed, in these days of apostacy, often the greatest "novelties." But I do not blame Bro. Fanning for not discovering any of them, as I do not doubt that if it had pleased God to bestow upon him the gift of discovering new things, he would have employed it. Certainly, I am confident that his failure to present any thing of this nature to the brethren, has not proceeded from the fact, that he has long since exhausted the treasury of divine truth, or that there is no longer any thing new to he learned from the Holy Scriptures.

      I must, however, acknowledge my obligations to him for bringing, of late, the subject of human philosophy so prominently before the brotherhood. And I would, furthermore, take this occasion, also, to express my entire concurrence with him as to the unlawfulness of introducing human philosophy, of any kind, into religion. In this, I am happy to say, we are perfectly agreed. We certainly have no business with human philosophy in Christianity. We do not need it at all, and its introduction can only result, as it ever has done, in the perversion of truth and the hindrance of the gospel. Nevertheless, I have to regret that the ardor of Bro. Fanning's zeal against philosophy has hurried him into extremes, and that, probably for [265] want of time to make himself acquainted with the subject and with the facts, he has allowed himself to do great injustice both to philosophy itself and to certain individuals whom he supposes to be infected by it.

      He appears to think that philosophy of every kind has a direct tendency to infidelity, and under this impression, he very consistently wages war against it. He would proscribe totally, it seems, from schools and colleges, all works upon Philosophy "both mental and moral," I do not know whether or not he likewise anathematizes physical and chemical philosophy, but, however it may fare with physics, certain it is that he has no toleration for metaphysics of any sort, either in religion or psychology; in church or school; college or university. He says: "There are striking contradictions in the professions of school directors. For instance, in all the schools amongst the disciples of Christ, the Bible is represented as the only foundation in morals; and still the directors have introduced the various philosophies mental and moral, of the times.¹ The revelations of God and the philosophies of the world agree in no particular.--Moreover no one can believe in the truth of miraculous revelation and of any system of professed wisdom originating with men. All metaphysical systems and moral philosophies are not only subversive of the truth of religion, but we declare our solemn conviction that no one who respects the Bible can believe in any system of philosophy in existence. Hence we think the schools generally, are well calculated to make infidels. It is well known that the universities and colleges of Germany, and, indeed, of Europe, have generally renounced the miraculous inspiration of the Bible, through the influence of the various systems of philosophy in use. Furthermore, we are inclined to believe, that the different systems of Natural Theology and moral philosophy are well calculated to overthrow the hope of Christians." These are sweeping declarations, it must be confessed, which so unceremoniously denounce the best of men as infidels, because they believe that there are true systems of "professed wisdom originating with men!" I do not think it necessary here to say any thing in confutation of such assertions, but would simply commend them to the attention of educators of youth, and especially to the aforesaid "school directors;" confident that, emanating as they do, from the [266] President of Franklin College, and being, as we have every reason b believe, his sincere convictions, they will receive all the consideration to which they are entitled.

      It is, however, entirely pertinent to the subject before us, that we should hear a few sentences from the analysis which President Fanning proposes to give us of the different systems of speculative philosophy which have existed in the world. These, with sufficient correctness, he resolves into two theories, and says: "We state, with much confidence, that the two theories, viz: Knowledge from the external world, and knowledge from our supposed inward spiritual nature, in our judgment, comprehend all the professed philosophical systems of the world." In describing the two systems, he says in relation to the former: "Philosophers of almost every grade and religious theorists generally agree in maintaining the doctrine of deriving all knowledge of God and things divine from the external world. This is called the a posteriori argument; or the argument from effect to cause, taking for granted that all men, unenlightened as well as the enlightened, would conclude that the world and all its parts are results and not causes. This is the doctrine in all the philosophical books; it is found in every Sunday School under the name of natural religion, and it is preached from Protestant pulpits generally.--There are, we believe, a few individuals in the respective denominations who doubt its truth. Without any hesitation, we pronounce the doctrine of Natural Theology, in all its shapes and bearings false, deceitful and subversive of the Christian religion."

      It will be sufficient to place before the intelligent reader these extraordinary assertions and this pronunciamento against Natural Theology. He will be able to draw his own conclusions, and to recognize at once President Fanning's true position. We might, perhaps, merely "suggest" that Natural Theology does not assert that all knowledge of God and things divine is derived from the external world; for this were to deny the truth of revelation and all other sources of knowledge. On the contrary, it admits the superiority of Revelation, "which," says one of the ablest writers on the subject, "converts every inference of reason into certainty, and, above all, communicates the Divine Being's intentions respecting our lot, with a degree of precision which the inferences of Natural Theology very imperfectly possess."² Natural Theology proposes to prove the [267] being and attributes of God from the works of nature, in harmony with Paul's declaration, Rom. i: 19-20, "That which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." But President Fanning boldly asserts that Natural Theology "in all its aspects and bearings" is "false." Now as Natural Theology teaches that man can learn the being and attributes of God from the works of nature, and President Fanning pronounces this "false," he, of course, according to the established principles of logic, maintains the contradictory to be true, viz, that man is incapable of learning the being and attributes of God from the works of nature. The reader will note this, as we shall have a use to make of it presently.

      We shall now hear him upon his other school of philosophy.-- [268] "The doctrine a priori, from cause to effect, or which says we possess in our constitution either the elements of all spiritual truth, or the natural power to originate knowledge, heavenly and divine, has been maintained in most of the speculative systems, from the Hindoo Vedas to modern spiritualism. *   * It is somewhat remarkable that this doctrine prevails in all the schools and colleges of the land, or if there are exceptions, (save F. C.) we know not of them.³ They all use the books which advocate the intuitive divine knowledge of feeling, which is above the understanding. *   *   * We regret most sincerely to notice a very strong tendency even amongst the disciples of Christ who profess to take the Bible alone as their standard, to adopt the doctrine of inward spiritual ability to grasp the truth, without help from God or man. We were much surprized in reading the August No. of the Millennial Harbinger, to notice an address by one W. J. Russell, of Mo., who, on graduating, delivered one of the most infidel productions we have seen. We had hoped to see a rebuke from Bro. Campbell, but none has reached us."⁴ I cannot pause [269] here to notice the awkwardness and inaccuracy of this account of the other scheme of philosophy, which, as he elsewhere more correctly states, professes to derive "knowledge from our inward spiritual nature." All we wish to say, is this, that as President Fanning denies the truth of the basis on which this philosophy rests, viz that "knowledge can be derived from our inward spiritual nature," he, of course, as in the other case, maintains the contradictory, to wit, that man is incapable of deriving knowledge from his inward spiritual nature.

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

      1st. That man is incapable of learning the being and attributes of God from the works of nature.

      2nd. That he is incapable of deriving knowledge from his own inward spiritual nature.

      And now, gentle reader, what is all this but President Fanning's own philosophy; his adopted theory of human nature; his approved speculative view of man's powers and capacities? What are these propositions but the basis of a system of philosophy which is as well defined, and as clearly recognized as any of those against which [270] President F. inveighs? According to this philosophy of man, he can receive no impressions except those from material things around him, so far as either his mental or bodily constitution is concerned, and he is consequently by nature a materialist, utterly incapable of deriving either from the external world or from his own soul, any conceptions of spirit or spiritual things. For these he is wholly dependent upon revelation, that is, upon words, divine communications addressed to the bodily senses, which are, in this system, regarded as the only avenues to the soul.

      But we are not left to gather President Fanning's belief in this philosophy, merely from his opposition to other systems. It runs through most of his writings, and seems to govern all his religious views. Whether the subject he the "Church of Christ," or "Preaching for a Salary," or "Metaphysical discussions," it is all the same; like a heraldic lion, either couchant or rampant, we find this favorite scheme of human inability--this overruling idea ever present in his ecclesiastic armorial, tincturing all his views and sharpening his opposition to "Philosophy," under which head he embraces all speculations that are contrary to his own. Occasionally, we have such declarations as the following: "The new-born babe knows just as much of God, heaven and eternity, philosophically, as Locke, Kant or Bacon ever knew from their natural resources."--Gos. Ad. v. ii: p. 356.--"Moral philosophy not only assumes the ground of natural ability in man to teach the character of his Author, but also professes to demonstrate the existence of God from external nature. Dr. Paley's stereotyped syllogism is familiar to every school child. It runs thus:

      1. Whatever exhibits marks of design has an intelligent Author.

      2. The world exhibits marks of design.

      3. Therefore, it has an intelligent Author.

      We are not disposed at present to offer an argument for or against this reasoning. We simply state that the fallacy is in the minor premise, and we believe the conclusion is false."⁵--Gos. Ad., vol. i. p. 357. [271]

      "At no time have the wisest manifested capability to originate a single moral idea or principle of government.--Id. vol. iii: p. 37. "The political, philosophical and many religious systems of the world serve to convince the human race of the utter incapacity of man to originate any correct system of government or morals or even to imitate the models which God has given."--Id. vol. ii: p. 354.

      It will be perfectly clear, then, to every reader who understands the meaning of the word philosophy, that President Fanning not only believes but advocates a system of philosophy which takes very decided ground as to man's capacities and powers. It is, in plain terms, the system of Locke, which teaches precisely the same things, and of which President F. himself gives the following account, which is sufficiently accurate for our purpose. "There are," says he, "but two ideas in Locke's system of philosophy. He maintained that all of our knowledge comes through sensation and reflection. His notion was that the mind is a blank sheet upon which may be written impressions, according to external influences, and, moreover, that all of our information is from without. Secondly, he believed the mind capable, by what he called reflection, to manufacture the material thus received through the senses, into correct thought and ideas; that form and consistency are given to whatever comes into the mind through the senses, and that beyond these sources, we can gain no knowledge." The reader will see, at once, that these views of Locke and those of President Fanning perfectly coincide. Sensation furnishes all our ideas. Reflection merely compares them with each other. As God and spiritual things are not objects of sense, we can obtain no knowledge of them from our perceptions of nature. Neither can we from the workings of our own minds, since reflection is wholly occupied with the ideas furnished by perception, and is incapable of originating any. Man is thus left, in Locke's view, which is precisely that of Bro. Fanning, wholly dependent upon revelation for all his ideas of God and spiritual things.

      In corroboration of the fact that Bro. Fanning is really a philosopher of the school of Locke, we may adduce his favorable expressions in regard to both Locke himself and his philosophy. He says: vol. xi: p.4, "It is a little singular, that while most, if not all modern writers oppose Locke, they admit that his modes of thought and investigation are correct." But the most extraordinary compliment which he pays to Locke, is found on page 3d, where he says: "John Locke, the real author of the Baconian philosophy, and all correct thinking in England, since his day, was born in 1632." To attribute the authorship of the Baconian philosophy to Locke would really almost appear like a sort of posthumous flattery, especially when it is [272] remembered that the great Bacon died in 1626, some six years before Locke was born.⁶ But we would particularly advert to the second item of commendation, viz, that "John Locke is the author of all correct thinking in England since his day." Now the question arises, Is thinking a different affair in America, from what it is in England? Can thinking be carried on correctly in England upon one plan, and correctly in America upon a different one? I would not say how it might be among the Chinese, who live on the other side of the world, and whose heads, (and, of course, their ideas too, if these be material images as Locke supposed) are turned in the opposite direction from ours, and with whom it may be, for aught I know, very natural to reverse our order of things, (as they do, for instance, in their custom of putting tails to their heads; wearing white for mourning, and letting off their fire-works in the day-time, lest otherwise they should not be seen;) but I think I can answer for the Americans, who are of Anglo-Saxon lineage and speak the English language, that their thinking is pretty much the same as that which is performed in England. And now, if "John Locke is the author of all correct thinking⁷ in England since his day," depend upon it, he is [273] understood by President Fanning to be also the author of all correct thinking in America during the same interval. Surely, then, unless President F. thinks incorrectly or not at all, it must be admitted that John Locke is the author of his thinking, and that he is, however unconscious of it, a philosopher of the School of Locke, or, what is usually termed A SENSUALISTIC DOGMATIST.

      I have now done with this case, but I have by no means done with my subject, having made use of the case of Bro. Fanning because it affords so striking a proof of the insidiousness and latency of human philosophy, and that it is entirely possible for an individual to be thoroughly imbued with it, without having the slightest suspicion of the influence by which he is directed. This is, with us, at present a very important point and we have selected the case of Bro. F. in illustration of it, not for its own merits, but because, while he has made himself so conspicuous as an opponent of philosophy, we regard him as an excellent representative of a considerable class who habitually inveigh against philosophy, yet are, themselves, all the while, in like manner, in a religious point of view, its victims. And this, because they look at revelation and religion through the medium of this philosophy, which thus, as it were, becomes a part of their religion, and exercises a most unhappy influence in regard to matters affecting the best interests of Christianity and the highest enjoyments of the Christian life. It arrests their progress in every thing except in the conceit of superior knowledge. They imagine themselves to have entered the most holy place, when they are, as yet, only in the vestibule of the Divine temple. They fancy themselves to be in possession of Christianity in all its fullness, when they have as yet, but laid hold of the skirt of its mantle, and they assume the position and authority of teachers when, like some in the apostle's days, they have need to be taught even "the first principles of the oracles of God." Among these, are not a few who bring a reproach upon the cause of the present Reformation, by their unbecoming love of controversy, and by the crude and erroneous exhibitions which they make of the real purposes of this religious movement, which was never designed to establish a new philosophical system of religion, but to put an end to controversy by a simple acquiescence in the plain teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

      I have commented freely upon Bro. Fanning's writings and expressed opinions, because these are public property and justly amenable to examination. As he has, himself, been so liberal in charges without proofs against myself and others, he surely will have no reason to complain because I have advanced a single proposition in relation to himself, with the proofs. For himself, personally, I [274] entertain all due respect and kind wishes, and, I trust, I know how to appreciate his zeal and long continued labors in behalf of the Bible as the only safe guide in religion. Here, I am with him heart and hand, as I am also with him in his avowed opposition to human philosophy in religion.

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

      It is when a system of philosophy is made the basis of religious thought; when the Scriptures must be interpreted so as to agree with it, and when the dogmas thus deduced are imposed upon men as the orthodox Christian faith, that it becomes the ground-work of sectarism. In regard to this matter, the platform of the present Reformation cannot be improved upon; for it proposes that all shall approach the Scriptures without a preconceived theory, and accept its plainly expressed truths in humble trust; while at the same time, each one is at liberty to entertain what opinions he pleases, (and these include all matters of philosophy and expediency) with this proviso, that he hold them as private property, and that he does not attempt to impose them upon others. This is the only ground on which a Christian union can ever be effected. It is clearly, then, a departure from the principles of this religious movement for any one to adopt certain philosophical dogmas about human inability to do this or that, and then to denounce everybody as an "infidel" who will not receive them and interpret the Word of God in conformity to them.

      Nevertheless, since the philosophy of any thing is its reason, there is a philosophy in religion, else there would be no reason in it. But it is a divine and not a human philosophy. It is Christ crucified that is God's philosophy. It is the gospel that is God's power and wisdom. Hence it would be correct to say that Christianity contains the most glorious and sublime philosophy in the universe, since it is the divine plan or system of salvation, perfectly adapted to man through an [275] infallible knowledge of his nature, character and condition. It is because it is thus absolutely perfect in its own philosophy, that any addition of human philosophy spoils it. Christ must be our "wisdom" as he is "our righteousness, our sanctification and our redemption." But his precious teachings--this "wisdom which cometh from above," can hardly touch poor erring humanity without contamination. Thus the pure rain of heaven when it falls plenteously upon the earth, produces muddy streams, and becomes unfit to drink. This is when it is received merely upon the surface, just as it is the vain and superficial who corrupt the gospel. But as the rain received by the "good soil" sinks into its depths, and not only renders it fruitful, but reappears in the bright and sparkling waters of the fountain; so the divine truth received by the "honest and good heart," will become abundantly productive, and flow out again in streams of "living water," to refresh earth's wayworn pilgrims.

      We trust our brethren will carefully examine themselves in relation to this important subject, and, without waiting (as Bro. Fanning proposes to do) to "hear from Bro. Campbell," or from any other man, however distinguished, that they will carefully read their Bibles, and give ear to the admonition of the inspired Apostle "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ."

R. R.

[The Millennial Harbinger 28 (May 1857): 265-276.]