FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER:

FOURTH SERIES.

VOL. VII.]	BETHANY, VA. JULY, 1857.	[NO. VII.

      "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.

      THE investigation in which we are engaged is one of the utmost practical importance. The questions before us have respect to the very life of religion--to the fountains of religious thought and to the motives of religious action. They relate to the chief matters of the reformation for which we plead, and must be elucidated and settled before any real progress can be made in the work which we have undertaken.

      We have just endeavored to show how false is the position assigned to the Scriptures by those who are secretly imbued with the sensualistic philosophy, and how completely, under this system, words are substituted for things, and Christianity is evacuated of all its substance. It is necessary to our ultimate design, that we should now direct the attention of the reader to the view which this same philosophy takes of Christian faith. This also, will be found to be quite characteristic, divesting this faith of all its spirituality, and confining it to the earth, like a bird which has been deprived of its plumage and is no longer able to mount towards the skies.

      In speaking of the means through which philosophy may have introduced itself into the reformation, we said that CONTROVERSY afforded great facility in this respect, and that it was often the case that considerations used merely as arguments would he misunderstood as a philosophy or theory, when they had any tendency to account for the facts or processes of which they were designed to furnish merely a logical proof. We have a striking illustration of this in the theory which many seem to have adopted in regard to Christian faith.

      The extravagant and unscriptural notion which many among the various religious parties of the day have entertained in relation to faith, that it is a peculiar and mysterious work inwrought upon the heart by the direct power of God's Spirit, independently of the written word, has justly been regarded as calculated to render the word of God of none effect, and to render nugatory the invitations and claims of the gospel. This notion is itself a theory or hypothesis introduced to account for the familiar fact that certain individuals only, out of the multitude who hear the gospel, are induced to believe and obey it.--It is in opposition to this theory that the argument from cause to effect has been employed, showing that, in conformity with the laws [395] of human nature, and in harmony with the express declarations of Scripture, the gospel facts are and must be the foundation of the Christian faith, and that the evidences and assurances of the Divine word are amply sufficient to produce a true and living faith, without having need of recourse to miracle, or to any kind of mystical Divine interposition for its origination. It is effectively urged that when the result can be satisfactorily accounted for upon principles which are entirely accordant with the laws of the human mind, and with all human experience, it is quite unnecessary to substitute for the ordinary and natural avenues to the human soul, the miraculous approaches of spiritual being, presenting itself suddenly within the most secret chambers, as Jesus to the disciples when the doors were shut. And that, moreover, it is especially to be deprecated that a theory should be adopted which detracts from the power of the gospel and is irreconcilable with some of the plainest statements of the Scripture.

      The argument which is thus employed, traces the chain of cause and effect as follows--It places facts first, then testimony, then faith, then feeling, then action. It endeavors to show how it is that the gospel is the power of God to salvation through the facts which it reveals, and how reasonable a thing it is that men should believe and obey the gospel upon its own proper evidences and invitations without hesitation or delay.

      Thus far, and so far as argument is concerned, all is well. But our sensualistic philosopher, seizing upon the theory which this argument involves, adopts it at once as the true philosophy of conversion, and, not content with this, proceeds to modify and fashion it so as to bring it completely into harmony with the dogmas of Locke. The power of facts must be exaggerated, the verbal narrative mUst be either endued with unwonted efficacy, or faith itself must be reduced within more convenient limits, and provided with a more material form. The Christian faith becomes now merely the belief of the historic facts presented in the gospel. To believe upon the testimony of apostles and prophets that Jesus lived and died and rose again as recorded, is to be at once in possession of the Christian faith, and it is asserted that this faith is not at all different in its nature from our confidence that such a one as Julius Caesar lived and bled and died as history reports. Faith itself, indeed, in this scheme, is made of little or no account. It is not in it, we are told, that the power resides--the whole efficacy is in the facts believed. These are in themselves the subject-matter--the terminus of faith--the ne plus ultra in this philosophy, the genius of which is ever to resolve, as far as possible, every thing into words, propositions, arguments, and to [396] reduce all spiritual phenomena to the forms of the ordinary understanding.

      It is in propagating this theory of the nature of faith that an industry and zeal are manifested which are never exhibited in behalf of righteousness and the weighty matters of Christianity. It seems to be adopted as not only of divine authority, but as constituting the very essence of religion, so that no one is to be regarded as sound in the faith itself, unless he admits this view of its nature and makes confession accordingly. It is thus that each sect loves its own philosophical theory of religion better than religion, and labors more earnestly for its diffusion, rejecting from its communion individuals of acknowledged piety because they do not acquiesce in its opinions. It is the natural tendency of human philosophy thus ever to magnify itself against the simplicity of the truth, and completely to supplant the gospel in the hearts and minds of men. It is on this very account that the present reformatory movement was designed to banish it entirely from the precincts of Christianity, and abandoning all speculations, to enjoin nothing upon any one as a "matter of faith or duty for which there could not be produced a 'Thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms or by approved scripture precedent."

      That the maintenance and inculcation of the above philosophy of faith is a plain departure from this great principle of the reformation, is obvious. For it is nowhere propounded in the Holy Scriptures, and it is not in the power of its advocates to show that Christ or the apostles have anywhere announced "facts" as the ultimate object and terminus of the Christian faith, or that they have ever propounded such a philosophy of faith as this, that it consists in a simple conviction of the historic truth of facts. Could such Scripture authority be produced, it would end all controversy on the subject, and there would be no need of endless disquisitions upon this favorite topic.

      The absence of Scripture authority for this theory, is of course, on our own principles, a sufficient reason why it should be denied a place in the presentation of the gospel. But the propriety of this will be still more manifest when we consider it more closely, as we shall find it actually at variance with express Scripture teachings, and calculated in itself to prevent those who embrace it from ever attaining to the true Christian faith. This last end it readily accomplishes by becoming a substitute for that faith itself, since men are prone to mistake the adoption of a theory of faith for faith. But even when this is not the case, and when the theory is really applied in its fullest extent, it must necessarily prove a barrier in the way, since it leads the mind to adopt facts as the object of the Christian faith, and as the legitimate terminus of its contemplations. The facts, whatever [397] their nature, will be viewed in the light of this theory, as facts simply, rather than in regard to their personal and practical bearings, and the mind, convinced that the mere recognition of their historic truth is a true and sufficient faith, will rest in this and seek not to go beyond it. The question to which this theory naturally tends to confine the mind is, Are the facts true? This being decided in the affirmative, the mind rests content, reposing upon its acquiescence in the verity of the facts for salvation, without having any tendency to make a legitimate application of the facts themselves. To stop short thus, with the mere admission of the truthfulness of the gospel narrative, is to remain wholly destitute of the Christian faith, for which the individual has neither desire nor hope, and to attain which he makes no effort, for the simple reason that he supposes himself already in possession of it.

      If any one be disposed to doubt that there are many who thus mistake a mere acquiescence in the truth of the gospel facts for Christian faith, he must have either a very inaccurate perception of the existing state of things, or be himself deeply imbued with this same false philosophy. It is this theory which manifestly constitutes the very essence of orthodoxy in the estimation of many scribes; and which, coupled with the usual glorification of the "word alone," and spiced with the savory condiment of ridicule of "spiritual operations," forms the staple of a multitude of essays, declamations, and orations. The attempt is made to establish this theory as the chief feature of the reformation, and to make its adoption a test of orthodoxy or soundness in the faith. For this class of persons have an "orthodoxy," as clearly defined and as inexorable in its demands as that of any sect in Christendom. There is no such thing as a universal orthodoxy. Each party is orthodox to itself alone, whatever charity may pretend. The theory of each sect is its own orthodoxy, for which it contends with far greater earnestness than for the important matters of salvation. The class to which we refer, adopting the above theory of faith as their standard of correctness, have learned, like ancient Israel, to do as those who are round about them.

      I am aware that the particular point now under consideration is one of great delicacy, and that, as there are comparatively few whose minds are accustomed to make those distinctions which are essential in such cases, one is naturally exposed, in treating them, to hasty misconstruction and misrepresentation. Let the reader, however, have patience with me, and I will render to him his due. I have to regret, indeed, that the Harbinger can convey it to him only by piece-meal in monthly instalments, and that these, being separated, and presenting but a single aspect of the subject, are the more liable [398] to be misinterpreted. But it is my design to consider the matter in various lights, and to examine also certain specious and dangerous philosophies of an opposite character from that before us, in order that my views of the whole subject may be understood.

      I have just said that there are certain distinctions which are essential to a clear comprehension of matters like that now under our view. I would add, that these distinctions are often extremely nice, and that it is hence difficult to render them evident to the common mind. This, however, does not detract from their value. They are not, on that account, less essential to the knowledge and enjoyment of the truth. In all things that are radical, fundamental, or elementary, distinctions are of necessity minute, because the things to be distinguished are so. A variation of a single degree from the true bearing at the starting point, though scarcely appreciable in the beginning, will make a most palpable divergence in the end. The difference between the germinative vesicle in the egg from which a serpent is produced, and in that which gives origin to a bird of Paradise is wholly inappreciable at the earliest period of development, but there is no difficulty whatever in distinguishing from each other the things respectively evolved. Now faith is the very germ of religion, and a mistake here, in this most elementary matter, however slight, or even imperceptible at first, must necessarily issue in an ever widening divergency from the truth, and may ultimately produce a result as different from the one desired, as is a serpent from the magnificent bird which displays its gorgeous plumes amidst the aromatic groves of the isles of Arroo.

      I have not the slightest desire to be hypercritical or censorious, but being convinced, from long continued and careful observation of the progress of affairs, that many labor under the mistake above indicated in relation to the actual nature of the Christian faith, I think it most important that it should be clearly pointed out to those at least who are disposed to learn "the way of God more perfectly." The evils resulting from this error have, I think, become sufficiently obvious, to forbid any doubt as to its character and its ultimate tendency, however slightly it may seem to vary from the truth in its inception.

      Let it be observed, then, that the true Christian faith reaches beyond the recorded facts to the PERSON concerning whom the facts are related. It is CHRIST himself, and not any, nor all of the facts in his history, that is the true and proper object of this faith. But the error which we are considering, makes the facts themselves the terminus of faith, and thus prevents the mind from attaining to that personal trust or reliance in which faith essentially consists. When [399] facts themselves are made the object of faith, the mind, as we before remarked, stops there, and relies on them as having some innate or inherent power to effect salvation. The person is forgotten and left out of view. The action is contemplated, and not the actor. Faith itself is misconceived as confidence in the truth of facts when it is trust in the love and power of a person. Whatever prevents the attainment of this personal trust, is a hindrance to faith. If the mere truth of facts is substituted for it, true faith is wanting.

      It is, indeed, undeniable, that a belief of the facts related concerning Christ, is essential to the Christian faith. A belief of the facts is the very basis of this faith, but it does not constitute this faith. The facts are important, as they lead the heart to trust--the soul to rely on Christ. They are not an end but a means of faith. They are themselves, indeed, the testimony on which true faith rests. We trust, because of the facts which have been presented to us. They are presented upon evidence, but they are themselves the evidences of our faith.

      Thus we believe the recorded actions and miracles of Christ. We believe the attested facts that he died for our sins, was buried and rose again according to the prophecies of the ancient Scriptures, as set forth in the gospel. These form the basis of our trust in Christ as our Saviour. These facts were recorded not merely that we might believe them, as would have been the case if our faith was to terminate upon the facts, but that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing [this, and not the facts only] we might have life through his name. Here the personal nature and terminus of faith is clearly stated. It does not terminate on the facts recorded, but these are recorded that our faith might reach forward to something else--to something which is not recorded; to something which could not be recorded; to something which passes wholly beyond the vision of this wretched objective philosophy under review, even to the power, the love, the personal and official character of our blessed Redeemer himself, realized subjectively in the inner consciousness and affections of the soul. Of this something that is more than the belief of facts; this something which is not and cannot be recorded in the material forms which alone the sensualistic philosophy admits, we have a noble illustration in the case of the father of the child possessed of a dumb spirit. It was this something which words could not express so well as tears, and which caused him to utter that remarkable sentence, "Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief,"--an utterance emanating from the inner spiritual being; an appeal which, in the very confession of unbelief, evinces the truest faith; a personal application which is a clear and unerring [400] exponent of the nature of that faith--a trust in Jesus. This alone is the Christian faith. The belief of the facts recorded, is now necessary to it, but the belief of facts is not it. The Christian faith has thus with us a historical basis, but the belief of history is not the Christian faith.

      Nowhere in the Scripture is the Christian faith spoken of as a belief in facts. Every where is it referred to as a belief (eiV) on or into Christ. "Dost thou," said Jesus himself to the man who had been born blind, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" He does not ask Dost thou believe facts? Nor does the one addressed in turn inquire, What are the facts? but "Who is he, Lord that I may believe on him." He asks for a person in whom to trust, and to his heart, prepared to trust, a simple declaration was then sufficient "Thou hast both seen him and it is he that talketh with thee."--And, he said, "Lord, I believe, and he worshipped him."

      Let it here be observed that neither this individual, nor the many others who are expressly stated to have "believed on Christ" during his personal ministry, had heard the gospel facts, strictly so called, at all. These facts had not yet occurred, and, though predicted, were not anticipated, nor were they comprehended, as to their true nature, until after the ascension of Christ. Yet many are said to have "believed on him," and various individuals, as the Centurion and the Canaanitish woman, are highly commended for their faith by our Lord himself, and although it is not to be for a moment supposed that this rested upon the facts of the gospel, there was not only no defect in their faith, but it was of the noblest, truest and purest character. All such cases, however, will be at once comprehended, when it is perceived that the Christian faith is not the belief of the gospel facts, but a simple trusting in Christ as the Son of God. This trust, we see from Scripture, may be based upon prophecy, as in the case of Philip, (Jno. i: 45), upon special revelation as in that of Simeon, (Luke ii: 26), and the Shepherds, (ver. 11); upon the divine wisdom of his teaching as in that of the Samaritans, (Jno. iv: 42); upon miracle as in that of the nobleman at Capernaum, (Jno. iv: 48-53); upon sensible demonstration as in the case of Thomas, (Jno. xx: 25-27-28); or upon presentation of the entire plan of redemption embodied in the gospel facts as in the case of the multitudes who were converted during the ministry of the Apostles and of all who have been converted since; the record of the love of God, as exhibited in the gospel, being now the only real and legitimate basis of our faith.

      That the Christian faith, however, is not the mere reception of the historic testimony, but a subsequent result of this, is exhibited strikingly and in few words by Paul when he says to the Ephesians [401] that the Jewish converts who "first TRUSTED in Christ" had obtained an inheritance in him, "in whom," he adds, "ye also TRUSTED after that ye heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation."--With them, "faith came by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God," but it did not consist in either hearing or receiving the Word as true, but it was a trusting in Christ, based upon the gospel facts--a personal and not a mere logical reliance; an assurance of the heart, and not a mere conviction of the head, or ordinary understanding which is all that is concerned in the verification of facts. It would, indeed, be absurd to speak of "trusting" in facts or believing into or on (eiV) facts. We trust or believe in persons. We also believe persons and we believe facts, but such belief is never in the Scripture confounded with the Christian faith. The use of the preposition eiV to express the relation of belief to Christ is a matter of so frequent and, indeed, constant occurrence in the New Testament, that it is surprising to me how it can be so generally overlooked. Surely in connexion with belief it does not lose that well marked significance of which so much is said when it occurs in the formula of baptism.

      To make the difference still more clear we would further remark that if faith consisted in the belief of historic facts, it could admit of no increase. It might in one sense be enlarged in its extent, provided we could increase the number of facts believed. But as the gospel facts do not admit of any addition, it is impossible for such a faith to be increased in this way. It is equally impossible for it ever to be increased in degree, for when the gospel facts are once received as true, this faith has attained its highest power. The facts can never be received as more than true. They must be sincerely believed in the very first procession of faith, and never afterwards can be more than sincerely believed. Hence this faith can never be increased in degree. But the Christian faith is a growing and increasing principle of religious life and action, and consequently a mere historical belief of facts cannot be the Christian faith.

      When, however, we understand the Christian faith to be a trusting in Christ we may comprehend how it admits of increase. We are induced to trust in Christ from our conviction of the truth of the gospel in the first instance, and under the influence of this reliance upon Christ we give ourselves up to his guidance and enter into fellowship with him, into the nearest and most intimate spiritual relations. The more we know of him, the more we experience of his infinite love, mercy, wisdom, and power, the more we confide in him--the more reason we have to trust in him. As our trust in those who are worthy increases, the better we become acquainted with them, so does our faith in Christ increase the more we have fellowship with him-- [402] the more we learn of him--the more we experience of his perfections. An increase of faith thus depends, not upon external and remote testimony, upon mere declarations of ancient witnesses, but upon an actual and present Christian life, which itself springing from faith, produces faith, as the grain of corn produces the stalk which in turn produces the "full corn in the ear." The righteousness of God is thus revealed in the gospel from faith unto faith, and it is thus most truthfully and appropriately written, "the just shall live by faith." As the powers of life, feeble in the infant, increase in strength up to manhood, so does faith or trust in Christ, the very life of the Christian soul, grow in capacity and power, the more it is exercised during that spiritual progress which is at once the indication of its presence, and the means of its own development. And faith thus increases in perfect harmony with all the Christian graces--and necessarily involves their increase, as the extension of the roots of a tree is accompanied by a corresponding development of its branches, its flowers or fruits. ¹ An increase in knowledge is indispensable to the growth of faith. He must be a poor disciple, indeed, who has ceased to learn from so competent a teacher as Christ. In order to healthful growth, the intellect must be constantly gaining new insight into the sacred mysteries presented in the gospel, and a more accurate and clear comprehension of the Scripture teaching. The more deeply the soul becomes imbued with this divine knowledge, the more faith it has in Christ the more it can trust him as a teacher; because it is the more impressed with the wisdom of his instructions, with "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God." But the false philosophy of faith which we are endeavoring to expose, admitting of no increase of faith, necessarily arrests all spiritual progress. It produces, as the thoughtful and pious brethren every where must notice, a perfect stagnation in every thing appertaining to Christianity. No progress is made in the religious life; there is no growth in knowledge or in grace. Its advocates have not a new thought, drawn from the Sacred Scriptures, with which to gladden the soul. If they are writers or preachers they continue to repeat themselves from year to year without the slightest improvement. They are ready to argue, debate, discuss, at all times, in the usual round of the stereotyped philosophy, into which their minds have been cast, and will spend hours in the earnest defence of their favorite theories, but are indisposed to converse either with their own hearts or with one of the spiritually-minded brethren, for five [403] minutes, upon the character, the sayings, the doings, the perfections of Christ, or upon their own inward and spiritual state. In the absence of a prayerful, humble, thoughtful, earnest spirit; a teachable and inquiring mind; a persevering and daily devotional study of the Bible, and the consolations and aids of the Holy Spirit, what manifestation is to be expected of religious light or life of spiritual progress or enjoyment?

      To return, however, I would remark further before leaving this part of my subject, that if the Christian faith was the direct result of testimony as the theory in question supposes, then the degree of faith would depend upon the amount of testimony. It is certainly true that where there is no testimony there is no faith, for here the basis on which alone faith can be built is wanting. But is it true that where there is the most testimony there is the most faith? Does a foundation necessarily imply a building? And do men never begin to build without being able to finish? or possess a foundation on which they do not even begin to erect a super-structure? The Saviour's rule for the estimation of faith would, indeed, seem to be very different from that required by this philosophy. It is, indeed, the very reverse, and hence it is so far from being true that where there is the most testimony there is the most faith, that the very opposite appears in the various cases in which the faith of individuals is commended. In these it would appear that the faith was great because the evidence was in regard to that presented to others, comparatively small; or, in other words, because with a very moderate amount of evidence, there was exhibited a ready and confiding trust. That child-like and ingenuous condition of mind which "hopeth all things," "and believeth all things," is mast pleasing to God. I would not be understood to say, however, that faith should ever be out of proportion as compared with the testimony on which it rests. We may have testimony without faith, as we may have a foundation without any building. Or we may have much testimony and little faith, as we may have a large and wide foundation with a very low and mean building upon it. Or, finally, we may have less testimony and greater faith, as we may have a smaller foundation with a mare noble and lofty superstructure. This last is the faith commended by our Lord. The first is the sort approved by our sensualistic philosophers. They seem to think that a foundation necessarily implies a building, or that the foundation will naturally, and of itself, grow up into a building. This is one extreme. The opposite one is that of some of the popular religious parties who seem to think that faith is something communicated by a direct spiritual supernatural operation, without, or independent of testimony. This is to have a superstructure without any foundation, which, when [404] people exercise common sense, (as they, by the by, too seldom do in religious matters) they regard very justly as a "castle in the air." There is again, an approximate error, which consists in believing more than the testimony warrants. This is credulity, and is fitly represented by a building too large far the basis an which it rests.

      It will be, then, apparent how true and just is the plea so forcibly urged by the advocates of the present reformation, that testimony is indispensably necessary to faith. This has been so often and so clearly presented, especially by Bro. Campbell, that we regard it as placed for the future beyond the reach of controversy. And we cannot sufficiently estimate the vast amount of benefit which has resulted to religious society in general from the establishment of this single position, which is at once a guard against fanaticism and a security far truth.

      During the discussions which have occurred in relation to this matter, great emphasis has very properly been placed upon testimony and upon fact in opposition to the animal excitements and idle dreams which modern religion has introduced as substitutes; but, so far as the argument is concerned, it has not been thought necessary to trace the relation of testimony further than to the facts themselves. It is of this that our sensualistic philosophers have taken advantage, so as to make the impression that faith is regarded as resting immediately upon testimony, while the truth is, that the facts rest upon the testimony, and that faith rests upon the facts. Facts then, stand in pretty much the same relation to faith, as testimony does to facts, and it is this link in the chain, connecting believed facts with Christ himself, that is wanting in the scheme of these philosophers. Now the absence of that single link is sufficient to dissever the soul from Christ.

      In endeavoring to elucidate this important matter, we have shown from the Divine testimony that the Christian faith is belief an Christ, a trusting in Christ, a personal reliance. We have seen, that in this view of its nature alone, faith may be increased so as to effect spiritual progress, and I would here remark further, that it is in this scriptural view of it alone, we can clearly comprehend haw it is that "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness." To "believe with the heart," here is not to believe sincerely, as same imagine who fail to perceive that "heart" is here in antithesis with "mouth" in the next clause of the sentence, and that it represents the inner nature with its powers and affections. Faith being understood as a trusting, the meaning is clear, for it is with the heart we trust. Trust is inseparable from regard. In whatever respect we trust an individual, in that respect we have regard or esteem for him. Faith then in [405] relation to Christ, is necessarily associated with the affections, and it is, thus, part of its very nature that "it worketh by love." No one has a right to philosophize and make distinctions unknown to Scripture, as to any numerical order of succession in the origin of the religious convictions and emotions of the soul. These may be simultaneous, for aught we know, as our perceptions and our instincts seem to be, and there may be no succession, but a perfect synchronism. If there be a succession, it is for the philosopher to define and mark out the intervals by his chronometer, but it is for the Christian to trust in Christ, and to hearken with reverence to the indications of his word. Moreover, it is his duty to keep his mind wholly free from that vain philosophy which, as we have formerly shown, seeks to resolve spirit into word, and which, as we now see, would fain reduce the Christian faith to the mere historic belief of facts, divesting Christianity of its energizing life, its beautiful trust, and its saving power.

      But I must close, and I cannot do it more appropriately than with the following forcible sentences from the pen of Bro. Campbell, in the last number of the Harbinger.

      "The foundation of the Christian Church is not a creed--is not a philosophy--is not a mere polity; but a grand official personage, a Divine personage, as human as Divine and as Divine as human--Emmanuel." "It is a living faith in the Divine person, mission and sacrifice of Jesus the Christ that capacitates a fallen man for a mansion in the skies. Philosophies, orthodoxies, abstractions, have no place in the oracles of God, enter not into the Christian faith, hope or love, and are not to be demanded of any man preliminary to his baptism, or to his personal introduction into the church of the Lord Jesus Christ."

R. R.

[The Millennial Harbinger 28 (July 1857): 395-406.]