out] 35S 'JOHNML^ jec ' ULiN ^ Cornell University Library BX 7323.J58L32 A review of Rev. J. B. Jeter's book enti 3 1924 012 531 681 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924012531681 REVIEW RET. J. B. JETER'S BOOK tt CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. >> MOSE-S^EL LAEIV OF MISSOURI. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, OF BETHANY, TA. JHILADELPHIA: J. B.LIPPINCOTT & CO. 1- 1857. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the yeaM.86T-j by MOSES E. LARD, ^ # - > in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. PREFACE. In - the work here offered to the public, the writer has had two objects in view : — 1st, to furnish a reply to the 'material parts of " Campbellism Examined/' 2d, to present a com- pressed vindication of the chief doctrines therein attacked. In endeavoring to execute the former task,, he has aimed •to present, with what he believes to be an equitable fullness, and with as much order as was attainable in the case, what he supposed Mr. Jeter himself would deem the strong points of his work, and to renly to these without evasion or injustice. He may not always have understood, in the sense in which its author intended it to be understood, the position or the argument he has replied to ; but, if in any instance such has been the case, he claims to say that the error has not been intentional at least. The confusion amidst which these posi- tions have had to be sought, and. the rubbish in which they have been found embedded, have made a clean elimination and clear presentation of them at times not a little difficult. It is believed, however, that no important argument has been permitted to pass without notice ; while many have received notice far beyond their claims. In attempting to execute the latter task, one end constantly kept in view has been to state the position to be defended with the utmost clearness, drawing such distinctions and sub- IV PREFACE. mitting such qualifications as would tend to free it from, any existing doubt or ambiguity. The arguments then presented are believed to be at least valid and pertinent ; but whether conclusive or not is left with the candid reader to decide. Some of these arguments, be it said, are not intended so '" ft much to establish the immediate question at issue, as to pre- pare the mind for others better adapted to that end. Still, all are thought to be important and necessary.- r A work similar in object to the present has been for some time past impatiently looked for from quite another quarter. The immense labors, however, which have accumulated on Mr. Campbell's hands, have rendered it utterly impracticable for him to comply with this just expectation. This is much to be regretted. The present work is not an attempt to accomplish what he would have done. It is, however, an attempt to do all that it is believed the merits of the case demand, and that, too, with a view to leaving him to prosecute far more important labors. And, while the public will hardly feel inclined to acquit the writer for presuming to do what it was just possible even might have been done by a hand so much more competent, still, he begs that it will be remem- bered that, had not this much been attempted, it is almost certain nothing would have been realized, — at least without almost superhuman efforts. Mr. Campbell has not lacked the will to gratify the public expectation, but he has certainly lacked the power. Should it be inquired why it is that the * present work makes its appearance at so late a date, the reply is, that it has not been felt to be in the slightest degree necessary to be in haste* It was meet that Mr. Jeter's book should be allowed ample time to do its work. Meanwhile, all has been calm in PREFACE. V our ranks. No defections have occurred, no dissatisfaction has prevailed, no alarm existed. Hence, no peculiar neces- sity was felt to be in haste to repel an attack from which no perceptible injury was accrtfing. But the reader will doubtless feel curious to know why it is jthat Mr. Jeter's second book — " Campbellism Ke-examined'* — has been treated so cavalierly. The writer's reply is simply that he has seen and read the swaggering little thing : should a more elaborate reason be demanded, that reason must be sought in the character of the silence with which the work is In citing the passages of Scripture introduced into the pre- sent work, the -book, chapter, and verse, in which each can be found, has not, except in a very few cases, been referred to. This course has been adopted for two reasons : — 1st, the passages are generally such as most readers may be presumed familiar with, in which case no reference is needed : 2d, refer- ences, even when given, are rarely ever consulted ; for this reason it was not thought necessary to consume space with them. Liberty, Missouri, 1857. INTRODUCTION. The first and the last course of the spiritual banquet of Old- School or New-School Baptists — whether Gillite, Fullerite, or Sandemanian, English, Scotch, German, or American — is the New Birth, technically called Regeneration. What the Re- former Luther affirmed of justification by faith, they affirm of some indefinable idea called by them "Regeneration." It is their criterion of a standing or a falling church. Yet this word, occurring only twice in Holy Writ, in neither case refers to their conception or definition of regeneration. The Messiah in all his teachings alludes to it only once, and then in reference to the literal resurrection of the dead in Christ,— Matt. xix. 28. Paul once, in allusion to baptism, calls it the "washing of the New Birth/' and not that New Birth itself of which he speaks. But it is not the fact of the New Birth, but the theory of it, .that has become the apple of discord and contention, even among the orthodox themselves. There have been sundry ecclesiastic patents issued in theological schools for diverse modern theories of the spiritual modus operandi in all cases Of genuine- regeneration. One theory glories in pure spiritual. contact or impact of spirit upon spirit, in some indescribable' way— as a potter's hand upon clay — new-moulding it, ante- cedent to faith and independent of it. Another assumes that regeneration is effected by the mere word of God, through its own inherent power upon the understanding, the conscience, and the heart. Another class contends for bbth the word and the Spirit co-operating; and even here there are two schools of theological metaphysicians, — on# assuming that the word Fs first in order, the other, that the Spirit is first in order, 1* Yii viii INTRODUCTION. — the word working by the Spirit, the Spirit working by the word. Such may not' be precisely their terminology, but such is virtually our conception of their theory. In this,, as in all other cases, we prefer the inspired nomenclature to the unin- spired. The Messiah prays for his disciples in these words : — " Sanctify them through thy Truth : thy word is truth." There is then no abstract sanctification, else there are two forms or characters of it : — one through the Truth, and one by the Spirit without the Truth. So of being born again. Hence James oracularly says, (chap. i. 18,) " Of hit own will begat he us with the word of Truth;" and that, too, "that we should be first-fruits of his creatures." To the same effect Peter speaks, (1 Ep. chap. i. 23 :) — "Being born (or begotten) again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word>of God, which Jives and abides forever." While then the Spirit is the agent) the word of God is the instrument, in all cases, unless there be two distinct forms of generation and regene- ration. Next to the empty and deceitful philosophy on the subject of regeneration, wholly inoperative and ineffectual of good to saint or sinner, comes, from the same metaphysical cloisters, the absorbing theme of something called ■" Christian expe- rience." - We never doubted nor denied Christian experience. But in this case as in the former, in our benevolent endeavors to correct the diction and the palpable errors everywhere canon- ized on this subject, we were obliged to take- exception to the misappropriation of the term "Christian experience" to the states of mind occurring or existing antecedent to faith, re- pentance, and baptism. This was formerly almost universal in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, — indeed, in all the fields of my early labors among the Baptist brotherhood. On my first visit to the Dover Association, Virginia, A.D. 1828, I witnessed scenes of the wildest enthusiasm ever wit- nessed by me in any camp-meeting. There were "the mourn- ers," "the seekers for religion," "the screaming penitents," INTRODUCTION. "coming up to be prayed foi>," "relating their Christian expe- rience." Elder Carr, of Richmond, and Elder Jeremiah B. Jeter, were contributing their smiles and exhortations. And there too were Bishop Semple and Bishop Broaddus, &c. &c, all concurring in the scenes transpiring, so far as I could judge. The candidates fpr baptism in those days, when presenting themselves for baptism, occasionally related strange sights, marvelous scenes, irrepressible emotions, but they generally ended in "getting religion;" and such was the relation of their " Christian experience." The head and front of my offending consisted in remonstrating against this wild enthusiasm. "It had this extent, no more." It was, indeed, not peculiar to the Dover Association, nor to any other association in Virginia, Kentucky, or over the great West or South, to have from every candidate for baptism a relation, of his feelings and emotions, on which a vote of approbation was taken to entitle him to Christian baptism. >/ have no recollection of ever hearing a single confession of Christian faith or of a belief of the gospel from, any candidate among 'the Virginia Baptists in order to baptism. The candidate was baptized into his own experience, rather than into the Christian faith, as I understand it. In calling these customs into question, we, in their view, denied Christian experience ! All the appreciable difference indeed between the Virginia, Kentucky, Southwestern Bap- tists, and the adult Methodists or Congregationalists of those days, was, the former were immersed, the latter sprinkled, "in the name of Father r Son, and Holy Ghost." True, they differed in ecclesiastic politics, tactics, and eco- nomics. But in no one grand, distinctive, characteristic doc- trine, or Christian practice, did they differ; and in no special reverence or regard for the apostolic institutions. In these respects the Virginia and Kentucky Baptists in those days were greatly excelled by the Scotch and some of the English and Welsh "Baptists, especially in their zeal for primitive Chris- tianity, and in their more profound piety and consecration to the Redeemer's cause and glory. * X INTRODUCTION. While, then, we cannot approve the equivocal and tempo- rizing course adopted by Mr. Jeter on»the subjeet of Christian experience before conversion, which he himself and his breth- ren formerly demanded or inquired for as a passport to baptism, we cannot but congratulate the denomination on the felicitous change which has already come over it in this and some other respects,— so that considerable numbers (as the report has reached us) are now being substantially baptized into the faith of the person, office, and character of the Lord Jesus Christ. Alarmed at the prospects in his horizon, and eager to become a heroic " defender of the faith," Mr. Jeter, with characteristic zeal, has unsheathed his polemic sword, and, with clarion sounds,* has in two consecutive volumes twice killed an appalling hydra of his own creation nicknamed "Caitfpbellism." Not being an impartial' judge in my own case, and being absorbed in matters of transcendent moment, we found a brother, comparatively young, — one of the graduates of Beth- any College, — into whose hands we have fearlessly confided this gigantic hero of world-wide fame, without one lingering doubt that he will render to him all due honor and fully satisfy Mr. Jeter that he has as much mistaken himself as he has his subject. If Mr. Jeter be not yet satisfied with the honors done him by our brother Lard, but is still covetous of a larger fame, we have other brethren on hand — even youths in progress— that will, on the appearance of his third, or at. most his seventh, exposition and interment of " Campbellism," confer upon him the highest degree in the Eoman calendar. Bbthant, Va., 1857. REVIEW or " CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED." CHAPTER L BEASONS FOB THE PEESENT WOKE — BIOQKAPHT — TITLE Of MB. JETEB'S BOOK — SECTS, CLEEQY, ETC. SECTION I. * Mb. Jeter's book has now been in the hands of the public for nearly two years. All have read it who felt the inclination to do so, and on its merits have passed their opinions. It has now, therefore, taken its place on the shelf, seldom, or never, perhaps, to descend from that quiet abode of intellectual labor, great and small, to be read a second time. It may not be amiss there- fore, now that it has wellnigh done its work, to cast over its pages a sober second view, with the intention 4>f pronouncing upon its contents a more mature and dispassionate judgment. The views "examined" by Mr. Jeter are deemed by him not sound, hence utterly untenable, and fast be- coming obsolete. * They have been published to the world in an age of great mental activity, and, to say 9 10 KEVIEW OF CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED. the least, have now been before the ^community in their present form for. more than a quarter of a century. The men, the means, and the motives to examine these views thoroughly have been aburidant. Have they been sub- jected -to that examination? and if so, in what way? In the pulpit they have been incessantly assailed. * Uneducated "preachers, in their rude and earnest style, have pressed the attack with great violence. . Learned divines, deep-read in the various forms of heresy and versed in the surest methods of detection and exposure, have laid the line and the* pltimmet to them. The shrewd disputant has attacked them with whatever 6f skill practice can impart, and all the hoarded means which experience can collect. Even grave professors, ■»- with their suStle distinctions and rigorous logic,- have trigd them by all the laws analysis can supply and every -rule induction can suggest. Nor have they fared better from .the press. From transient paragraphs in daily sheets to the careful strictures of monthly periodicals; .from trashy letters in weekly newspapers to the most elaborate essays of pamphleteers; from the coarsest attacks malevolence can direct to the most polished critiques which learning can produce; — in all these ways have they been sub- jected to examination. ^ And yet, notwithstanding all - this, and much besides •„ notwithstanding these views are unsound, — utterly so ; notwithstanding they have wellnigh spent their force; notwithstanding their hold on the mind of the* pliant credulous public is_ daily becoming 'less firm ; notwith- standing the great and -general distrust* with which the REVIEW OP CAMPBEMJSM EXAMINED. 11 awakened world begins to view them ; in a word r not- withstanding " The Reformation," in Mr. Jeter's own language, "has proved, a failure," there yet exists, a necessity — an inexorable necessity — &>v a formal, me- thodical, and masterly exposition of these views. Surely this is not without its significance. We may affect contempt for a foe, may speak of his broken ranks and enfeebled warriors; but, While we marshal ourowlj, forces with so much tact, select our positions with so much caution, and consult with our subalterns with so much solicitude, it will be, somewhat difficult to persuade a looker-on that no formidable enemy awaits our attack. But what reception, has Mr. Jeter's book met with? His brethren have received it well. Its summary of Baptist principles, though neither fall nor strong, they accept as sound. Its defence of these ^principles they regard as satisfactory. Its .style they 'prdbounce good, its spirit excellent. And, as a refutation pf the doc- trines it professes to review, they have, or at least per- suade themselves they have,, a deep interest to consider it successful. Nor can we doubt that it enjoys the favor of those denominations who have agreed, with as much*pleasure and as little justice as Mr. Jeter, to pronounce us here- tics. Those denominations agree with him on the points touching which he dissents from us. The in- terests of both, therefore, being identical, their sym- pathies are mutual. Hence they consent to favor his book, because his-bbok subserves their cause. Nor has he ever allowed himself for a moment to overlook this circumstance." He has, it is most evident, intentionally 12 BEVIEW Or OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. refrained from introducing into, his book any matter, has studiously avoided every expression, which could have given the slightest offence to the parties whose favor he hoped to secure. And the gentlest not© that warbles through his book is the oft-recurring te deum to orthodoxy. All of which has concurred to render the book acceptable, if not popular. But,onght the book to be reviewed? We believe it,, should, and for so believing assign, from among other reasons, the following : — 1. The book as such doe's us as a people, but most of all our cause, great and gross injustice. This needs to be exposed. 2. It has attained a respectable circulation, and hence the injustice done has been widely disseminated. This should be counteracted. 3. It is highly due the cause we plead, or at least so much of it as is attacked in Mr. Jeter's book, that it should stand -before the world, not in the garbled form in which it there appears, .but, as far as this can be ac- complished in a limited review, in its own. true and proper character, and resting on its .own proper foun- dation. 4. It is due ourselves as a people that we should not tamely submit to the odium to which it is the almost sole intention of this book to expose us. ♦5. It is due the word of God that the scandalous per- versions of.it with which the book abounds should be exposed. 6. Justice to the cause of truth demands that the sophistry and unfairness with whifih Mr. Jeter attempts REVIEW OF OAMPBELUSM EXAMINED. 13 to- sustain his own doctrines should not be allowed to pass unrebuked. We decide, therefore, to review his book, and, in so doing, hope to make its contents the occasion of achiev- ing good, — contents which, whether it was designed or not, have no tendency but to evil. In executing this task, we Jhink it best to notice the topics to be treated of in -the order, for the most part, in which they are met with in Mr. Jeter's book. "What- ever lack of method, therefore, may be discovered in the present work, (and we shall admit it to be both great and obvious,) must bj attributed to the very unmethodi- cal manner in which he has arranged the materials of Eis own work. For, alftough he has affected a method, it is only a method of being affected. Of Mr. Jeter's book as a whole, we shall not, for the present, further intimate our appreciation than to say, its style is dull and haggled, its thoughts narrow, its arguments absolutely nil, its reflections trite and shal- low, its air vain and pretending, its spirit, dissembled and mean. SECTION II. But Mr. Jeter's book has more objects than one in view. It is intended to contain an attack no less on Mr. Campbell himself than on his views. On what ground else can we account for the wretched biography of Mr. Campbell which it contains? There was no necessity for this. Mr. Campbell's private personal history is not the ground on which, .his published views must stand or fall. These are to be tried by^pite a different rule 2 14 REVIEW OF CAMPBELW8M EXAMINED. 'But the case admits of a short solution. Mr. Jeter hates Mr. Campbell with an intense hatred. Hence, while professing to furnish a candid exposition of his errors, he could not resist the temptation to present a brief sketch of his life, that he might be afforded the oppor- tunity of giving expression, much as the fact is sought to be concealed, to this absorraig- feeling of his heart. But he had, besides, an 'additional reason for this- ■sketch. He feared to risk himself in a grapple with Mr. Campbell's views on their own merits; and he hence wished to enfeeble them by an effort to make it appear that they have emanated from a source not wholly un- attended by suspicious and vitiating circumstances. If Mr. Campbell's views have strength^easoned he, their author, it may be, is hot faultless ; hence they must be .made to appear attainted by being connected with him. ■The sole design of this sketch is to present Mr. Campbell before the world in a doubtful and half-ridiculous light, and thus bring discredit on his views. We .leave the reader, however, to form his own. estimate of an effort to blur a character from which, nevertheless,' the author of that effort derives his sole distinction in the world. * Had Mr. Jeter's book contained a manly examination of Mr. Campbell's real views, and not so many proofs of personal animosity, certainly it would have been less objectionable than it is. A strong, . dignified analysis and examination of these, with no indications of per- sonal ill-will, would have been received, however much we might have differed from him in his judgments, in a spirit of genuine kindness. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 15 He could not-even select a title fur his book without ^ furnishing a verification of what has just been alleged. "Campbellism" was the only term which could vent the feelings of his heart. And yet he knew no term to be^ more offensive to us as a people. And he should have known thaft it ig an act of high .discourtesy to attempt to designate the views bfoany body of believers by terms which they hold to be unjust, and which they have re- peatedly avowed do not express them. And no man, we must add, but a boor in feelings, whatever may be bis factitious position in society, will stoop to the deed. The views -associated in the public mind with the term "Campbellism" are not the views entertained by Mr. Campbell and his brethren. They are such as our ene- mies represent us as holding, and not such as we our- selves- believe in. Of this fact we believe Mr. Jeter to be not ignorant. On what principle, then, except on that of a willingness to become a -trafficker 4n misrepre- sentations and opprobrious epithets, could he consent to employ the term ? He knew the term to be one of re- proach, and hence felt himself called on to offer an ex- planation for using it ; and yet he knew it beGame not a whit the less a term of reproach for all that. If -a man consent to deal in slander, it is far from being a sufficient apology for his offence to say he does sot mean his slander to be slanderous. Eo' apology can justify the application- of this discourteous epithet to our views. But the author's scanty vocabulary, it would seem, is to be* blamed for the use of the term. It could afford him no descriptive epithet for a cause the merits of whieh he proposes gravely and decently to argue ; and 16 REVIEW OF qAMPBE"LI.JSM EXAMINED-. he is hence driven to the use of a term -familiar to none but thecharlatan, save Mr. Jeter. SECTION III. Of much that is said in Mr. Jeter's book we purpose taking no notice whatever. Especially is this remark intended to apply to the first part of the book, in' which so little is said that is worth reading, and so much less that is worth reviewing. Accordingly, under the cap- tion "Gampbellism in its inception" occur but two pas- sages to which we shall invite the attention of the reader. These we notice, because they aequamt us at the outset with that depth of penetration which we shall so frequently have occasion to admire in the volume before us. " It cannot be questioned," remarks Mr. Jeter, " that circumstances exert a mighty influence in forming the tastes, opinions, and characters, and guiding the lives, of most men;" and then on the next page adds, "Had Mr. Campbell not passed his early years in Scotland, his religious views and career would have differed widely from what they have been." Now, that Mr. Campbell's views might have differed from what they are at present is certainly not impos- sible; but that they would have differed is what Mr. Jeter does not know, though he scruples not to assert it. But, conceding the truth of his hypothesis, what then? Does it follow that Mr. Campbell's present views are wrong? TV hat his views might have baen, had the scene of his early life been different, has no- REVIEW OB O^MPBELilSM EXAMINED. 17 thing whatever to. do with the truth of his present views. Their truth rests on quite a. different founda- tion. And yet Mr. Jeter's position, if it amounts to any thing, amounts to this : — that Mr. Campbell's views, because formed not in America but in Scotland, are wrong; and of course, by the same conclusive rea- soning, that Mr. Jeter's views, ,h.ecajise formed not in Scotland but in America, are right ! ,We admire his complacent iogic ! Mr. Jeter's classic education has not only had a fine effect om his fancy, but it has enriched his speech with the most choice selection of terms which language can afford.- 'tOampbellism," mutable and transient as a dream, dances through his imagination in forms styled, with exquisite taste, "inception," "chaos,''' and forma- tion." There are many reasons why these terms should have been chosen ; some whieh even a child can under- stand. Their number is three ; . their syllables, eight ; their letters, a score and three. One is a dissyllable, the other two are not; two are trisyllables, the other one is not. They can be counted, spelted, and accented. They can ' be written, printed, and transposed. They can be sung in poetry, read in prose, and delivered in declamation. And, no doubt,, many other like curious and weighty reasons for their selection would occur to a person of Mr, Jeter's penetration; but these are enough, surely, to satisfy even the dullest ■ that the terms have been wisely chosen. Mr. Jeter styles his second chapter "Campbellim in its chaos;" and the striking resemblance between its contents and the meaning of a term in the heading 18 REVIEW OP CjiMPBElLISM EXAMJNKD. occurs to us as one of the happiest coincidences in his book. In the' second paragraph of this chapter, he says, "It would have puzzled the most careful, dis- criminating, and candid reader of the 'Christian Bap- tist' to form any clear conception of Mr. Campbell's principles or aims." But few persons) we suspect, acquainted with Mr. Campbell's writings, will be prepared to admit the cor- rectness of this statement. From the writings of no author with whom we happen to be "acquainted is it easier to collect his principles and aims, than from the writings "of Mr. Campbell. His learning, accurate dis- crimination, and fertile speech, enable him to. express himself with a clearness and precision equaled by few,, excelled perhaps by none. Simple justice to the cha- racter of a great man demands that at least this much shall be said in defence of a style of writing singularly strong and free from doubt. SECTION IV. On the twenty-fifth page of Mr. Jeter's book, he says, "Mr. Campbell aspired to the honor of being a reformer." And the emphasis laid on the word "reformer" hints, not very remotely, at the truest pledge this clergyman can give of his amiable nature, — a sneer. But was it, indeed, under the circumstances, a thing to be sneered at, to aspire to the distinction ? tTe shall see. "That a reformation was needed by the Christian sects of that time,"* says Mr. Jeter, ''none, who pos- REVIEW OP 6AMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 19 sess a tolerable acquaintance with their -condittbm and the claims of the gospel, will deny. Indeed, » what church, or member of a church, does not, in some respects ant in some degree, need reformation ? There was needed then, as at all times, an increase of reli- gious knowledge in the churches; but, more than this, an increase of piety. The reformation demanded by the times was in spirit and practice rather than doe- trine. They were then, as now, far too worldly, for- mal, and inefficient. Among the Baptist churches there were some sad evils. In parts' of the country, the churches Were infected with an antinomian spirit, and blighted by a heartless, speculative, hair-splitting ortho- doxy. These churches were mostly penurious, opposed to Christian missions and all enlarged plans and self- denying efforts for promoting the cause of Christ. In general, the careful study of the Scriptures, the reli- gious education of children, the proper observance of the Lord's day, a wholesome, scriptural discipline, the reasonable support of pastors, and, in fine, devotion to the Eedeemer's cause, were too much neglected." "Well may Mr. Jeter, after this, admit that a "reforma- tion 11 was needed by the " Christian sects" of that time ; and yet he does not blush to sneer at the man who " aspired to the honor" of effecting it. As to whether the reformation demanded was a reformation " in spirit and practice rather than doctrine," we shall leave those best acquainted with the wretched state of doctrine at the time to decide. But Mr. Campbell never proposed a reformation of "Christian sects" as such. He proposed that all sincere 20 REVIEW OF CAJIPIUCLLISM KXAMi-\'liX>. and pious Christians should abandon these "sects," and, uniting upon the great foundation -upon which, as upon a rock, Christ said he would build his church, form themselves into a churph of Christ, and not into a "sect." A "Christian sect" we pronounce simply an impossible thing. Sects there may be, innumerable; but Christian,' as sects, they can never be. A church of Christ is not .a sect, in any legitimate sense of the term. As soon as a body of believers, claiming to be a chureh of Christ, becomes a sect, it ceases to be a church of Christ. Sect and Christian are terms de- noting incompatible ideas. . Christians there may be in all the " sects," as we believe there are ; but, in them though they may. be, yet of them, if Christians, clearly they are not. Mr. Campbell's proposition never looked to the reformation of sects as such, A sect reformed would still be a sect; and sect and Christian are not convertible terms. Sectarianism originates, and neces- sarily, in the, church, hut has its consummation out of it. Hence, Paul, In addressing the church at Corinth, says, " There must be also heresies (sectarianism) amojig you, that they who are approved may be made mani- fest." But here is something which seems never to have struck the mind of Mr. Jeter, With the apostle, sectarianism originated with the. had, and -the good were excluded; but with Mr. Jeter it includes the good, and the bad are excluded. How shall we account for the difference ? As soon, however,, as the " heretic" (the sectarian) is discovered in the church, he is, by the apostle's direction, to he -admonished a first and second time, and then, if he repent not, to be rejected. Now, REVIEW OF CAMPBEDWSM EXAMINED. 21 we request to be informed by Mr. Jeter how, according to this rule, a " Christian sect' can exclude her « secta- rians" and still remain a " sect" ? Heresy and"secta- rianism are identical, being both represented by the same term in the same sense in the original ; and that which they represent has its origin in the flesh* Hence the same apostle, in enumerating the works of the flesh, mentions, among other linings, strife, • sedition, AereSy, (^Bctarianism.) Heresy or sectarianism, we are taught by the- Apostle Peter, is introduced into the churoh by "faise teachers," and is " damnable;" and yet Mr. Jeter, with true foster-father tenderness, can talk of " Chris- tian sects." SECTION V. Another peculiarity of "Campbellism in its chaos" was, it seems, a most virulent attack on the "kingdom of clergy." Mr. Jeter's defence is eminently charac- teristic, being affectionate, feeble, and short. There is something mournful and sad in its melancholy air. N6r can we wonder at the circumstance: < Few men were ever more feared or more hated by the clergy than Mr. Campbell; and few men were ever more, clerical than Mr. Jeter. Young, shallow, and bigoted, the Attic wit and racy humor of the " Christian Bap- tist" caused him excruciating pain. He learned to sigh in time long gone, and with increasing age and decreas- ing strength, his sigh has grown to a dirge. Our sym- pathies are moved for the man. And in the length and painful nature of some of his labors there is much to move even a harder heart than ours. Gazing for thirty 22 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. years intently into the " Tkifd Epistle of Petey," where his portend bearing and all the secret springs and mo- tions of his -heart lie mirrored in lines so just and true, is-ian object to, move the pity .even of a wretch. But was there.no just ground for the attack on the Clergy? We shall let the folloWing picture,- drawn by Mr. Jeter himself, of the truth of which he, we pre- sume, is the best judge, answer tho question. "They (the clergy) were by no means faultless," he observes. " Some -of them were ignorant, conceited, and vain ; others y were proud, Jiaughty, and imperious ; others, still, were hypocritical^ mercenary, and base ; and not a. few were worlds, selfish, and sycophantic." After this, it would be an idle waste of time to defend Mr. Campbell's attack on the reverend gentlemen here so happily andisavagely described. While admitting that Mr., Campbell attacked _ the clergy, *and at times, too, severely, we still insist that , his .attack was just and discriminating. To that .glass of them described 4n the preceding extract he was, we grant, not over-indulgent; nor in this will he be ad- judged to have erred. > But there were many among them whom, while he believed them to be in error^he regarded as men of great intellectual and moral worth : men whom he loved sincerely, and against whom he never let fall a shaft but to correct some waywardness in doctrine, and then always in, a spirit of real kindness. True, . their treatment of him was such as generally entitled them not even* to his respect, much less to his esteem ; and yet they shared .largely of both. When Mr. Jeter acquaints himself with the lying, bitter, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINE^. 23 Smithfield spirit with which his clerical ' brethren of that day set on Mr. Campbell, he will find his stock of charity exhausted, and his time consumed, in pro- vidinfp mantles to cover their shame,' and many a reason "to shrink from a comparison of their conduct with that of Mr. Campbell. SECTION VI. But "Campbellism in its chaos" was distinguished by another attack of a nature still more offensive, if possi- ble, than the attack on the clergy. Mr. Campbell ven- turecKo question the authority -and' doctrinal soundness of Creeds or Confessions of Faith. We admit he did, and ipaintain he was right. First, he ((proposed to examine creeds historically, for the purpose of 'ascertaining whence ^hey had sprung, and what their effects on the » church had been. Second, to inquire into their doctrines in order to determine their intrinsic value. Third, to investigate the authority with which they are invested. On examining into the history of creeds, he felt it to be fully established that they did-not originate with Christianity, neither with the primitive churches; and that they are hence without the sanction dther of Christ or the apostles. Orf the contrary, he ascertained that they originated in an age when Christianity is admitted by all to have been greajly corrupted, and that they grew out of these corruptions and embody them, with a slight admixture of truth. An<% as tojheir effects_upon the church, he ascertained that these had been to ex- clude from the church in the days of h«r corruption, trot 24 REVIEW Off «AMPBEEMSM EXAMINED. the corrupting party always, but the feebler one, and that to"o without the least regard to the soundness of its views. Qa inquiring into the doctrines of creeds, it was felt that so far as they embody the doctrines of a party as such,' whether a majority or not, they embody not strictly the doctrines* of Christianity, but merely the party's opinions, • speculations, and metaphysics; that they are intended not so much to define matters on which parties agree, as to guard, points on which they differ y, and that hence their legitimate tendency is, if not t6 create, at least to perpetuate, divisions. And, in regard to the authority of creeds, it appeared that they are intended to be' authoritative codes of laws by which the pantiefl respectively adopting them cove- nant to be governed both in their doctrine and in their discipline; that parties decide their questions of heresy, not by the Bible, but by the creed; that a person dis- senting from. the creed is pronounced a heretic, though he declare his belief in the whole Bible in the fair con- struction of its terms; and finally, that the forms of church policy and rules of discipline contained in creeds, though always binding and frequently tyrannical, 1 are without the semblance' of authority from the Holy Scrip- tures. For-'these and other weighty reasons, Mr. Camp- bell felt it to be due the Savior to repudiate creeds altogether. t In regard to the propriety of having a creed, and the kind they should have, if any, Mr. Campbell and his brethren reasoned thus: — If a creed contains less than the Bible then it contains too littl«,,but if it contains REVIEW OJP CAMI'BELLISM EXAMINED. 25 more then it contains too much; and if it contains any- thing different from the Bible it is wrong, but if it con- tains precisely what the Bible contains then it is not a «reed but a Bible* And if, they reasoned farther, our •views of the Bible are cor»BCt, there is no necessity for publishing them to the world in. the form of a cre.ed. As they are already more accurately expressed in the Bible than we can possibly express them, we will merely publish the Bible. But if they are not correct, then they should not be published in any form,\for the Bible does not sanction the publication of what is wrong. But even Mr. Campbell, it. seems, has a creed. The following is Mr. Jeter's language :— " Ther© is in Chris- tendom a great variety of creeds, from the so-called Apoa- tles' Creed down to the ' Christian System' composed by Mr. Campbell as an exhibition of the principles of the Beformation." But whether Mr. Campbell's brethren have a creed or not does not appear from Mr. Jeter's book. It is presumed, however, from the following, lan- guage, 'that they, have nonel^s— "Every intelligent Chris- tian," he remarks, "has a creed, written or unwritten.*' Blockheads, then, of course have none ! This is certainly the reason why the Baptists have creeds, and likely the reason we have none ! When Mr. Jeter penned the assertion that the "Chris- tian System" is a creed, he must have supposed his read- ers would be of a class too corrupt to receive it if true; * I am indebted for this fine argument to my sincere friend and brother, Alexander Proctor, now of St. Lonis, whose accurate learning, good sense, and talents, point him out as destined to be eminently useful to the oauss of primitive Christianity. 26 REVIEW OP 6AMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. otherwise it is difficult to account for its presence • in his book. It is an assertion which we have never met with except in the lowest class. of attacks that have been made on Mr. Campbell's views. "When we chance with a scurrilous little pamphlet, either denuded or garbed in green* or blue, clandestinely circulating over the country against these views, among the first things we expect to meet with on opening it is- the assertion that Alexander Campbell has a creed; but certainly we had no right to expect it in the decent work of a pious clergyman. The term "creed^" in its current as well as in its eccle- siastic sense, denotes a Gonfession-of Faith. In this senSe and in this only does Mr. Campbell use the term when objecting to creeds. Of this fact Mr. Je'ter cannot be ignorant. Why then does he apply the term to the "Christian System"? Does he mean to insinuate that the "Christian System" is a creed in this sense? We shall only add that if a good cause requires its advocates to resort to expe'dients like this, then the opprobrium of trickery should cease. SECTION VII. In the course of his comments on the attack on creeds, Mr. Jeter undertakes to point out what he styled a "great fallacy," which, it would seem, "lurks in our boasted purity of speech." As this "fallacy has never, that we know of, occurred as yet to any of pur breth- ren, we beg leave here to call their attention to it. The following is Mr. Jeter's language :—" They" (Mr. Camp- REVIEW OF C4.MPBELLISM EXAIVgNED. 27 bell and his brethren) "do, it is true, insist that their members ahall speak of Bible things in Bible terms. To restore a pure or scriptizral speech is one of the main objects of the Keformation for which Mr. Camphell pleads. But in their boasted _ purity of speech there lurks another great fallacy. They do not use Bible terms. The Bible, with a few slight exceptions, was written in the Hebrew and Greek tongues; and they derive their theological terms from a translation of the Bible made»by fallible men." Terms, then, derived from a translation of the Bible are not Bible terms. From this seedy premise the follow- ing conclusions result : — 1. That a translation of the Bible is no.t a Bible. For, if the single terms of a translation of the Bible are not Bible terms, neither are they collectively. Hence .they cannot form a Bible. 2. That Mr. Jeter has not produced, in his entire book, even one Bible argument against any view. of Mr. Camp- bell; for he has used only a. translation of the Bible. 3. That he has not produced a particle of Bible evi- dence "in defence of his own doctrines; since the evidence he has produced is all cited from a translation of the Bible. 4. That; for aught the world can learn from his book, Mr. Campbell's views constitute the only true and proper exposition of Christianity now extant. This only proves that he who has resolved that he will never be just has, in the act, resolved that he will be at times extremely foolish. 28 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. SECTION VIII. "Another blunder, of a kind which" Mr. Jeter is no less qapable of committing than the preceding, occurs on p. 40 of his book, in 'some strictures he offers on a " discourse" he had somewhere heard* Mr. Campbell de- liter, which, it seems, was "eloquent, plausible, and sophistical." The subject of the discourse, it appears, wa's the unity of the church of Christ. Mr. Campbell assumed upon the authority of the Bible that there is "one body." He then argued that, since the "ontibody" is the church, the church is hence a unit. But it was not in this that the "sophism" consisted, in pointing out which Mr. Jeter commits his blunder. The term "church" is employed in'the* Bible in two dif- ferent senses, — one a more, the other a less, comprehen- sive sense. When used in the former sense, it compre- hends the whole body of Christians since the commence- ment of Christ's reign to the present. But, in- the latter, it applies only to a particular congregation composed of a limited number of these Christians meeting at some stated place for worship. Now, the " sophism" consisted in this : — Mr. Campbell left his audience»to infer that he and his brethren exhaust the meaning of the teian in its latest sense, i.e. that they alone constitute the body of Christ. The following is Mr. Jeter's language: — "He" (Mr. Campbell) "did not inform us, however, what body is the body of Christ. He trusted in the intelligence and candor of his hearers to infer that the body of Christ is the body that embraces the 'ancient gospel,' and that has restored the 'ancient order of things.' " REVIEW -OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 29: Now, we shall attempt no formal reply to this. We shall simply deny that it is in the memory of man that Mr. Campbell ever offered the gross insult to his under- standing that is here attributed to him. That be may have denied that the Methodist church, or the Presbyterian church, or even the Baptist church, as. such, constitutes the church of Christ, either jp whole or in part, is what we are ready to believe. The term "church," asalready stated, has two, and but two, accep- tations in the Bible. In the one, it includes the whole family of the elect since Christ to the present time. In this acceptation it is equivalent to the expression "king- dom of G.od" in the passage, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." In the other, -it denotes a particular congregation, composed of those who have entered this kingdom, meeting at some stated place for worship, as the church at Sardis. But in neither acceptation will the term apply to any one nor even to aU the denominations just named. They are neither collectively the church in the one sense, nor singly a church in the other; nor as denominations are they even part of the church of Christ in any sense. Indeed, whether we view them at large as denominations or con- sider their individual congregations, one thing is certain, they are neither in the one capacity nor the other known in the Bible, nor recognised by it, as belonging to the church of Christ. A Baptist church of Christ is as unreal a thing as a Eoman Catholic church of Christ, and there is as much authority in the Bible for the one as for the other. By this remark we do not mean to compare Baptists as individuals with Roman Catholics. Very far from it. 3* 30 REVIEW 01' CAMPBELL1SM EXAMINED. We speak of the denomination only, and of this so far only as'it*is Baptist; but we do mean that thus far it has no more sanction from the Bi«ble*than the Soman Catholic church. If the term Baptist denotes not something essential to a Christian as a Christian, neither something essential to a church of Christ as such, then it denotes something which is not Christigfi. It then denotes an attribute, as far as it denotes any, not of a church as a church y>f Christ, but of a church as distinguished from a church of Christ, and hence something not sanctioned- by ihe Bible. In which case, both what the term denotes and the term itself shpuld be rebated as essential-. neither to a Chris- tian nor to a church of Christ. But perhaps Mr. Jeter will say the expression "Bap- tist church of Christ" means no more than the expres- sion " church of Christ." But how can this be ? The expression "church of Christ" is certainly equal to itself. And if so, then of course the prefix "Baptist" means nothing, and hence should be abandoned. But, if the expression "Baptist church of Christ" means either more or less, 6r any thing elsej than the expres- sion " church of Christ," then the expression " church of Christ" means one thing, and the expression "Bap- tist church of Christ" another thing. And hence it would follow, since the Bible sanctions only a church of Christ, that it does not sanction- a Baptist church of Christ. Indeed, as already stated, the term "Baptist," whe- ther applied to the individual or the church, denotes something belonging to neither as Christian, and, there- REVIEW OF CA"MPBELLISM EXAMINED. 31 fore, should be disused. But, should it be alleged that it denotes merely the difference between one Christian and another, or between one church add another, then we reply that no such difference is sanctioned by the Btble, and hence w*e are under no obligation to provide a name for it. On the contrary,, we are under obligation to seek to cancel all such differences, as well as all terms de- noting them. Now, these differences, whether between one individual Christian and another, or between one church and another, and all terms denoting them^ are precisely what Mr. Campbell and his brethren propose shall be abolished. They propose that nothing not essential, according to the Bible, to the character of a Christian, shall be made a bond of union or a condi- tion of fellowship, either among individual Christians or churches of "Christ. It is thus that they propose to abelish all sects and sectarianism. But Mr. Campbell does not claim for himself and his brethren that they, as a body, exhaust the meaning, of the term the church, nor that they are the only persons who are members qf the church. Hence, no apology can be pleaded for Mr. Jeter's dishonorable insinuation to the contrary. Mr, Campbell concedes to all, no matter where found, who have been, in the true acceptation t)f the phrase, "bom again," that they are members of the church or body of Christ. True, he believes many of these "members to be in organizations purely sectarian, and hence unsanctioned by the Bible. And to all such members his counsel is, Come out of these organiza- tions. But Mr. Campbell does maintain that his brethren, as 32 REVJEW OF CAMPBEJ,LI«M EXAMINED. a denomination^cvre Christian; and- that hence, go for as the, body qf Christ has on earth a denominational exist- ence, they are that body. ,And this is what" he de^es to any other and to all denominations in Christendom besides. This is the great distinction which he believes t« exist between his brethren, as a body, and all other bodies. Again, he denies that, the individual congregations ;of hfs brethren, such as are of good /moral character, can, exeept in the language of envy, ignorance, or fable, be denominated sectarian. On the contrary, he insists that each one of them is, according to the Bible, in the strictest sense of the term, a church of Ohrist;. and, that, consequently,, so far as the churoh can be held to have a congregational existence, they exhaust its present meaning. Both such congregations, and the denomination itself as a body, are composed of members who repudiate everything not essentially involved in the Bible view of a Christian j and whg maintain the absolute necessity and importance of all that«is. As & body .and as congre- gations they refuse to be bound or governed by any code of laws except the New Testament, or.to acknowledge any. other names except the names which it imposes. How, then, pan eitiher be called sectarian ? Mr. Jeter is no more.at liberty to apply the term to either than he would be to apply it to the church of God which met art Corinth. We do not say he will not do it : indeed, we know he does; nor have we ground to expect aught better from him. It is a peculiarity of the guilty that they always seek to cover their own crimes by jm- REVIEW OB CAMPBBLLISM EXAMINED. 33 pitting the same to others. »He will certainly ©all us sectarians. SECTION IX. But the sorest and most offensive feature of " Gamp- bellism in its chaos" yet remains to be stated. Mr-. Campbell ventured to attack the practice of relating a " Christian experience." 'This, together with his " early writings on the subject of experimental religion, gave great pain to the friends of spiritual Christianity." So writes Mr. Jeter. True, Mr. Ckmpb&ll ventured to attack the practice in question, but on what grounds ? Bias Mr. Jeter stated them? He has not.- Policy dictated to him that what he could not answer it would be better to suppress. Indeed, after what he has written on the subject, there was little necessity to state them ; for if we are to believe the subject to be part of Christianity; and to accept his picture of it as true, to deem him itB friend and Mr. Campbell its enemy, then truly may it be said that it ra not from -its enemies, but from its friends, that Christianity suffers its chief disgrace: Let any one read Mr. Jeter's own "account of "Christian experience," bearing in mind that he is defending it against its most powerful adversary, that he knew when writing his defence that most likely' it would have to pass the ordeal of a review by' Mr. Campbell ; let him then note the things which could not be sup- pressed and imagine those that are, and he can hardly fail to conclude that, if " Christian experience" is a part of Christianity, then the line which separates the true from the fabulous has never been accurately determined. C 84 REVIEW OP C^yMPJELLISM EXAMINED. We here use the phrase. "CJiri&tian^ experience", in ihe only sense in which it is. popularly understood. Mr. Campbell attacked the practice in Question for the following reasons :— 1. It is not sanctioned by the Bible. 3, The main po^it in the experience is a fiction. 3. The practice, fosters superstition. Cp<3§. each, of these rea- sons it. may not be amiss to dwell for a moment. , JL Th$ practice is not sanctioned by the Bible. This, to a man serupulpflsly exact in matters of the highest moment, and who cherished a deep reverence for the word of G-odj would be enough. His conscience would in- stantly spurn the- practice:' He.ccmjd no longer, consent to impeach the Pivine wisdom by affirming that $0 be necessary upon wiucb % ,fchat -vsjisdom has seen fit to be silent. He could not consent t,o eumber the hearts «of his brethren with a sense of -duty where the Master has left tpem free. He could never be induced to se.t aside the word of God to make-room for & mere tradition. And&yet all this would give great pain and cause great scandal to the friends of spiritual Christianity"! 2. The main point in the experience is- a fiction. This point is the sense of forgiveness alleged to be. felt by the party at the moment when his sins are supposed to be remitted. In his account of the elements of a "Chris- tian experience," Mr. Jeter- thought it wise to, suppress this. The meaning of- the expression "sense of forgive- ness" is concisely this : — that at the instant qf regenera- tion the sinner is sensibly assured that his sins are remitted. But this is something which the Bible does not affirm. Feelings may exist, but they prove not re- mission;- impressions may be made, but they teac,h not REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, 35 forgiveness. In most instances we may hope the un- fortunate victim of this delusion to be sincere. But this alters not the mature of the case.* Whether he feigns the existence of feelings that have rio existence, (Whicb, we fear, is not seldom the case,) or adopts the fictitious construction of others of feelings that do exist, (which is perhaps more frequently the* case,) the result is the same: — the •point assumed t® be the evidenpe.of remission is a fietion. No good man of strong miaad, and unwilling to be deceived, ever yet "heard related what is popularly called a " Christian experience" with- out feeling himself deeply moved when that part of the faisce was approached which was to elicit a declaration of the sense of forgiveness. *It is difficult to say which is the greater, — 'the pity of such a man for the deluded creature who sits before him on .the inquisitorial bench to be plied with every silly question which ignorance or impudence can put, or his disgust for the„blind guide who conducts the process of torturing the feelings of a subdued and weeping sinner into every imaginable form that is false. * 3. The practice fosters superstition. Of the truth of ■ this there is no more raimistakahle evidence than the chary concessions of Mr. Jeter. That dreams, visions, sounds, voiees, and spectres, were formerly, as»they are still, common elements in the experiences related, does not admit of being denied. These things were related in public in the presence of large audiences. Many hearing them believed them real. Henee, in "seeking religion" these persons were naturally led to look for the same marvelous things " which others had seen. 36 KEVIBW OF CAMPBBLLISM EXAMINED. With their superstitious feelings thus. highly excited, how easy for them to persuade themselves that they had -seen or .heard what had either no foundation at all, or none beyond their fancy ! Henqe, jf the father had heard a souftd, nothing but a sound would satisfy the son ; if the mother had dreamed a dream, the daughter was a dreamer too ; and thus the weaknesses of parents became the weaknesses of their children, and the super- stition of one generation the superstition of the next. Of these evils Mr. Jeter is'content to say,- " They were seen, deplored, and opposed by all well-informed, Chris- tians long -before he'.' (Mr. Campbell) "commenced his reformation." KTot without many a qualification can this be aeeepted as true. "One thing ig. certain : — that where these "well-informed" Christians are still in the ascendant, no perceptible' diminution of the evil has as yet occurred. But we must not dismiss the subject without noticing Mr. Jeter's attempt to prostitute the Bible to its sup- port. "Philip," he says> "did not baptize the Ethiopian eunuch, who requested baptism, until he had catechized him. True," he continues, "the evangelist propounded but one question to the candidate ; or, at .least, in the eoncise narrative furnished by Luke, only one is re- corded,— that, under the circumstances, being deemed sufficient." Well, from Philip's propounding one question what does Mr. Jeter infer? His modest conclusion is thus •stated i — "This example, so far from restricting pastors or churches to this brief and single question, — a ques- tion never, so far as we are informed, proposed to any REVIEW OF CAMPBEfcLISM EXAMINED. 37 other applicant for- the ordinance, in apostolic times,- — fairly authorizes them to make such inquiries as the in- telligence, known characters, "and circumstances of the candidates may appear to sequise." That is, one ques- tion put? by an inspired teacher authorizes uninspired "pastors or churches" to put, if -they see fit) a thousand, or to require a "candidate" for baptism to relate a Christian experience. "When the holy word of God can be thus scandalously perverted by its professed friends merely to serve a purpose, fbr consistency's sake let the clamor of -Chris- tians against infidel injustioe be hushed forever. But, gentle t moral suasion, since it and moral sua- sion differ: but what else it is we are not told; we ape merely told-that it- differs. But, unless Mr. Jeter knows what it is, how does" he know that it differs? If he knows not what it is, -for -aught he knows it may not differ. But, if he knows what it is, why did. he not telj us ? Why merely tell us that it differs, and leave us t*o suspect that he knows not why he thus affirms ? But, conceding that it differs, what does it differ fronf? Moral suasion, we are told. But what is moral suasion? (Suasion is defined the act of persuading. But Mr. Jeter is not speaking of an act, but of an influence. L'et us .suppose, then, that he means, by suasion, not the ac> o$ -persuading,, but an influence - which persuades. Joining* to this the word moral, we have a moral in- *flmnce which perstnades, i.e. the sinner in conversion. "What,, now, can this, \>% hut t^-jnfluencjB, instead of this; should proceed to state a series of subordinate propositions, intended, it may be, to .imply its truth, and to these adduce his testimony? — in other words, that he should attempt to establish! indi- rectly the truth of his proposition by direct testimony? But Mr. Jeter is a master of logic ! Of these propositions the first is thus expressed:— " Conversion is, in the New Testament, described as a birth,— a new birth,- — a birth of the Spirit." ' Omitting a few of the redundant clauses with which Mr. Jeter rarely fails to cumber his assertions, his proposition reads thus: — Conversion is described in the 46 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. New; Testament as a birth $ the Spirit Now, we deny that such a descrl|Jteon is contained* in the Bible;.- and, if our denial ie not true, it can easily be shown to be false. Let the reader examine, by the Aid of a concord- ance, every passage in the Bible in which conversion occurs, and then say whether he; h&s^ound, even in. one, such a description. We repeat, it is not in the Bible. Had Mx. Jeter merely said conversion is eojrivalent ,to the new birth, or something to that ejfeet, the assertion might have been allowed to pass as substantially correat or harmless; but he- says conversion is, described in tke NevApestainemt as a binth of ihe, Spirit. It is then not merely described; it is described in the New Testament, described as a birth, — nay, more, as a birth of the Spirit. This reckless proposition, teems with falsehood. There is not a truthful feature in it. But perhaps we should do Mr, Jeter injustice were we not to subjoin the passages on which he seems to rest its truth. They are two, the first of which is the follow- ing:— "Thai which is bom, of the Spirit is spirit." But does this passage contain a description of. any 'thing f especially, does, it contain* a description of one thing. or that there is such a place as the fabled Styx. Merely*quoting the passage in connection with the proposition it was in- tended to prove best shows the unwarrantable use he attempts to make of it. We shall therefore dismiss it without an additional remark. But whether conversion is, in the New Testament, described as a birth of the Spirit Or not, is little to Mr. Jeter's purpose.- It is freely granted that the New Testament teaches the doctrine of a new birth, but utterly denied that it teaches the figment which he calls the new birth. Nor is it at all material to his con- clusion that conversion "shall be considered a birth in any sense. His position is, that in the nev> birth the divine nature is conveyed; and that this conveyance- is effected Wy the peculiar spiritual influence for which he contends. This position made good, we shall frankly grant he has car- ried his point. But, that we may appear to do him no ' injustice when we represent him as holding so strange a position, we shall quote his own language. "There is," he remarks, "a resemblance Between gene- ration, or the natural birth, and conversion. The Spirit of inspiration has employed this resemblance to elucidate 48 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. the subject of man's moral renovation. In physical generation the nature and qualities of the parent are conveyed to*the child. Adam begat a son in his own likeness. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, — that is, not merely corporeal, but depraved, corrupt, partak- ing of man's fallen nature, as the term < flesh' frequently means. So, in the new birth, the nature — the moral nature — of the Spirit — of God— is conveyed to his off- spring .... The argument, in brief, is this : — that the new ,or moral birth — implying a communication of the divine nature-ris effected not merely by the written word, but is ascribed to a voluntary and efficient agency of the Holy Spirit." Here now it is deliberately asserted, — first, that. in conversion th&dwme nature is communicated; second, that this communication is effected by a voluntary and effi- cient agency of the Holy Spirit, which, in Mr. Jeter's dialect, me'ans a ''supernatural agency ." — i___ But is the divine — is any nature communicated in con- version? To propound the ridiculous question -is to obtain sen.te.nce against it. It is difficult— indeed, im- possible— with those who receive such nonsense to suc- ceed in refuting it.. Nor, fortunately, is any thing of the sort very necessary, since the doctrine is, by its very extravagance, completely refuted. CandMly, does Mr. Jeter himself believe it? Does he suppose others will believe it ? Does he think the human mind so ductile, so easily warped, that it can be duped into the belief of a thing so* utterly fabulous? Alas for the worlfef he has not reckoned too far. 0$ the pliancy of its credulity, if he so thinks ! REVIEW OF CAMI'BElLIgM EXAMINED. 49 Still, as the doctrine is brought forward in a grave argument, intended to settle a great question, we must devote to it a more minute attention. What then does Mr. Jeter mean by "the divine nature"? He means "the moraL nature — ef- the Spirit — of God." But what he means by this latter expression he has furnished us no means of knowing. From the leading text, how- ever, — which he cites to prove, it would seem, that this nature is " conveyed" in conversion, — we may infer that he means spiritual-mindedness or spirituality. * This text we have, already had occasion slightly to notice, namely : — ".That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," upon which Mr. Jeter ventures to ring the following changes : — "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, — resembles ihh Spirit, partakes of, Ms holiness, — 4s spiritual." Spirit- uality, then, or a nature resembling that of the Spirit and partaking of its holiness, is^ we conclude, what he means by the expression "moral nature — of the, Spirit — of God." But it was not to define the sense in which he employs this expression, that he cited the passage, but to prove that the nature of which he speaks is. con- veyed in conversion. It will then be. necessary to look yet a little more closely into the meaning which he attaches to the passage, as well as into its force as evi- dence of what he cites it to prove. By what law of language, then, does Mr: Jeter trans- mute the substantive Spirit into the adjective spiritual? "We utterly deny that he has the right, in violation of the known laws of interpretation, to trifle thus with the word of God merely to serve a purpose. The passage does not say, that which is born of the Spirit is spiritual; 50 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISJJ1 EXAMINED. neither is this its meaning. It says, tjs#t which is born of the Spirit is spirit r positively and materially, if we may so speak, — spirit^ not spiritual, nor yet spirituality, btit spirit. That whieh is born of the Spirit, the Hol$ Spirit, is spirit, the human spirit; or, more fully still, that which is born of the Holy Spirit, changed or quick- ened by it, is the spirit of man, his-mind. jjjhe passage . teaches that in that great, vital, and inconceivably im- §©rtant r eno vation denoted by the expression "born of the Spirit," it is the spirit -of man, his intellectual and moral nature, that is the subject of it. This*is its mean- ing, this its value. "We grieve jto see a passage which, like this, contains a great truthj fall into the hands of a man who can transmute it into a prop for the tame fantasies of his own ©rain. Once' more, let the reader closely inspect the passage in hand; let him dissect it, reduce it to its simplest clauses, examine each' of these attentively, then each word ; then let him reconstruct the passage, and, look- ing broadly over it a last time,' say whether he can dis- cover in it the doctrine that, in conversion, the nature, the moral nature, of the Spirit of God is conveyed. "We ask no more. But we seem to have forgotten the "resemblance" between the natural birth and the new, on which alone, after all, Mr. Jeter's whole argument turns. If, how- ever, the new birth consists (as he maintains it does) in being merely quickened by the Spirit, then we affirm that there is nothing analogous to it known to him in heaven or in earth. There fa, we grant, an analogy be- tween the new birth, as defined in - the New Testament, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 51 and natural birHi; but between the new .birth, as quali- fied by him, and natural birth, there is no analogy. The new birth, as qualified by him, has no foundation either in revelation or 1 in nature, and hence bears no resem- blance to any created or uncreated thing. But the new birth is not a birth in the sense in which natural birth isr a birth. Indeed, what is called the new birth is not a birth. It is merely an event analogous to a birth, and is, for that reason, called a birth. Hence, it does not belong to the same class of events with natural birth, and, consequently, we cannot reason from the one to the other as though it did. Yet this is just what Mr. Jeter does. He reasons from the natural birth to the new as if they were both «vents of the same class ; and* as if, consequently, he had the* right to infer that whatever is true of the one is also true of the other. But this can be done (and then only with probable cer- tainty) where events do certainly belong to the same clafss, and not where, as in the present instance, they are merely analogous. It is now easy to see how Mr. Jeter has fallen into his error. He cannot know A priori that the divine nature is conveyed in conversion ; neither does the Bible ,teach it. On what ground, then, does he assert it 1 Simply on the ground of a resemblance between the new birth and the natural, in the latt r er of which, nature is com- municated. But, unless ¥ the new birth resembles the natural in all respects, (which it does not,) or is known to resemble it in this, (which is not known,) this conclu- sion does not follow,— as it clearly does not. From all the premises, therefore, now before us, we _ 52 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. conclude that Mr. Jeter's doctrine, that in conversion the divine nature is communicated, is a sheer fiction; and his conclusion, that it is effected by an influence of the Spirit distinct from and above the Truth, a gross* non-sequitur. SECTION III. Mr. iFeter states his second proposition thus :— " Con- version is termed in the Scriptures a creation, and is de- scribed in a variety of language of similar import." The train of argument implied in this proposition is this : — It is first assumed, that conversion and creation are — not identical events surely, but yet so very similar, "that whatever power is necessary "to create is- necessary to convert; and then inferred, since almighty power alone can create, that it alone can convert. Of course the reader is left to infer (a thing which he can easily do) that almighty power, and the influence of the Spirit, for which Mr. Jeter contends, are the same. Now, clearly, the first thing to be done in order to establish this proposition is to show the near resemblance be- tween conversion and creation which makes them alike dependent on the exertion of the same powers Butr-yet, on this, although the very point on which his whole argument depends, he bestows not so much as a single remark. •But, in attempting to sustain this proposition, Mr. Jeter has certainly committed the error of employing the term "creation," in his proposition and in the dis- cussion of it, in one sense, but in his conclusion in a very different sense. He asserts — in which, however, REVIEW OF CAMPBEl.LISM EXAMINED. 53 as usual, he is not correct — that conversion is termed in the Scriptures a creation. But, conceding for the pre- sent that he is correct, is it termed a creation in the literal acceptation of the term? Mr. Jeter alone will say it is. In a metaphorical sense only can the term creation be applied to conversion. Yet he, as if not in the least aware of this, proceeds to discuss his pro- position using the term literally, and then, when he comes to draw his conclusion, erroneously infers, since the term literally implies the exertion of almighty power, that almighty power is exerted in conversion. But a moment's reflection ought to satisfy even him that when he terms conversion a creation he is not using the term in the same sense in which it is said, irf the Bible, God created the heavens and the earth. H-ere it denotes not merely to modify or renovate, — the only sense in which it can apply to conversion, — but abso- lutely and literally to originate. But in this sense it can never apply to conversion. But, waiving any thing further on this point, we shall not hesitate to admit that Mr. Jeter has established the conclusion he aims at, provided he succeeds ip showing that the creation of which he speaks is effected by an influence of the Spirit " distinct from and above the Truth, — a supernatural agency." The first passage which he urges 'in defence of his pro- position is the following from the prophet Ezekiel : — "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will 1 put within you : and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh." On this passage three questions arise. First, is it ap- 5* 5#* REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED - . pKcaMe to the present time ? Second, is it applicable to the present question ? Third, in what acceptation is its language to he taken ? To the first question we reply, the pasftago was spoken by the prophet to his countrymen during their seventy years' captivity in- Babylon, and is by the context strictly limited to the time then present and the times immediately succeeding. ,To the second we reply, the passage, having no reference whatever to the present time, can*have none wharteVer to the present question, to- which it was neve* intended to apply ; and when so used it is scandalously perverted. To the third we -respond, the language of the passage is unquestion- ably figurative.. Had the Jews literally hearts Of stone, and was it the intention of the Lord Bterally to take* tjhese hearts out of them ? Did he intend literally to re- place these hearts with hearts of flesh; and* laterally to put within the people other and new spirits 1 besides their own ? To ask these questions is to answer them. The stony heart was simply the hard or intractable-heart on account' of which, and the wickedness to wnich it had led, the Jews were carried away into captivity. The heart„of flgsh and the new spirit were simply the subdued spirit and pliant disposition which their hard- ships while in exile had the effect, in the providence of God, to work out for them. And yet> of this change, so perfectly natural and so easily accounted for, Mr. Jeter says, it was "a work which neither men nor angels could perform." So thought not the" Lord, it seems, when, by the same pro- phet, he said to the same people, <*6|ake you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Is- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 03 raelr" And. as to whether angels could have performed the work or not, we dare not«ay, and feel confident Mrs* Jeter does not know, though he blushes not to assert it. But of one thing we feel profoundly convinced : — that the passage does not teach that conversion is effected, feyka " supernatural agency" of the Spirit. *• »*-»- M.^?- Mr. Jeter's next and last proof that convef sio&'tfs-a creation is the following: — "For we are his workman- ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works? which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." This looks more' respectable than any thing we have yet.had. The passage contains the word "created/' and sinners are converted. Now, the question is,., first, in what sense are Christians created? and, second, by what power are sinners converted? As a physical creation is not contended for, but only a "-renovation" the first question, may be disposed of at once. The only remaining question then is, by what power or influence is the sinner converted ? Since the effect itself, a reno- vation, is a moral effect, — an effect produced upon the mind of a moral agent, — the power prodwcing,jt must pi" course be moral. It must be the power which resides in light, when presented to the mind in sufficient quan- tity, to influence the judgment, and in the power of mo- tives to determine the will. But in n'othing save the gospel does this power reside ; for it is the power of God (both in respect to light and motives) for salvation to every one that believes it. * ■ But Mr. Jeter's language would seem to warrant a different conclusion. " The word employed in this text," 56 REVIEW OP CAMPBELUSM EXAMINBD. he remarks, "to denote this renovation, — created, («•#>,) — is employed to express, that exercise of power by which the universe was brought into existence. (Bpb. iii. 9; "Col. i. 16.) , No energy short of that which brought order but of chaos can f enew the soul of man. That soul is, in its # natural state, a moral "chaos, — dark, Void, formless; and .nothing but almighty power and infinite grace' can restore it to life, light, and beauty." . < ' < f At times Mr. Jeter grows exceedingly orthodox ; as, for example, in this extract.- So straight, indeed,- is he isat times, that he* even appears a little bent; and so very sound, that even ~. the orthodox may well suspect him for a heretic. Clearly, the spirit was On«him while writing the foregoing. But on-jrhat ground* rests his broad conclusion? Obviously, on.theground'that the word "created^' has but one meaning, and that a literal one. This is essential — absolutely so — to his conclusion ; and yet, if he knows any thing about the meaning of the term, he knows this to be false.- .-When applied to creation, the term has not the same meaning that it has in the' passage in hand, or when applied tor- conversion. Creation is one thing, conversion quite another; hence, the same term in the same sense can never express them both. SECTION IV. - N Mr. Jeter 'states his fourth proposition thus : — " Con- 'version is described as a resurrection from the dead." And he adopts the same fallacious course of argument to establish it which he employs in the preceding simi- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 57 lar instances. He first assumes that conversion is a resdrrection; and then, because almighty power was exerted in the resurrection of Christ; infers that the same is exerted in conversion. But thi§ is not fair. Con- version is not a resurrection, even conceding that it. is one at all, in the sense in which Christ was raised from the dead. • If it were, then it would be allowable to argue from the one event to the other. But the most that can possibly be said of the two events is, that they are merely analogous; hence, they do not necessarily imply the exertion either of the same kind or the same degree of power. The first passage quoted by Mr. Jeter, in defence of his present proposition, "is the following: — "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quick- ened us together- with Christ; (by grace ye are saved.") Here it is distinctly sard that God made the Ephc- sians, who had been dead in sins, alive: but did he make them alive in the same sense in which he made •Christ alive, when he brought him from the. dead? If not, on what ground can Mr. Jeter assert that we are converted by the same "energy which raised Christ from the dead" ? His error lies iu supposing that, because two merely analogous events are described by the same word, — it being used in the one case literally and in the other metaphorically,— s-they have both re- sulted from the same power. But this is manifestly erroneous; and yet he persists in affirming that "the Ephesians were quickened by the same power that raised Christ from the dead;" ,and, without the sem 56 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. blance of authority, asserts it to be "clear from the context." The "context" to which he alludes is the following petition of the apostle for the church at Ephesus : — " That ye may know what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, accord- ing to the working of. his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead." Mr. Jeter takes for granted what everybody . except himself knows is not true; namely, that to believe according to the working of God^s mighty power' is to believe, because that power is exerted in us. "We believe, itBut "the text teaches," says Mr. Jeter, "that the success of gospel ministers, even the most eminent, whether in the conversion of sinners or the improve- ment of -saints, is of divine influence." That is, their success depends on a "supernatural agency" of the Holy- Spirit; for this is the only conception he has of divine influence. And, continues he, "the doctrine is accord- ing to analogy."* "In the vegetable kingdom," he assures us, "God gives the increase;" and even con- descends -to acquaint us with the astounding fact that "the most skilful husbandman on earth cannot make a blade of grass grow without divine aid. It would be •easy to show/' he further remarks, "that 5 the same principle pervades the animat'kingdom;" and then adds,, ■? we might reasonably infer that this principle extends into the kingdom of grace." That Mr. Jeter might reasonably infer it, we. dare not deny; but that a "Camp- beHite" should ever do so, is, we know, the event least likely to happen of any other in the three kingdoms of which Mr. Jeter speaks. A " Campbellite" would be most certain to limit . his inferences to what the Scrip- tures do teach, either by actual assertion or necessary implication, and all beyond, we feel assured, would be left to the speculatist and to Mr. Jeter. But, in regard to the expression "God gave the in- crease," we wish to say distinctly, we cordially believe it teaches that God crowns the labors of his servants with success. What we deny is, that it teaches that he do^es so in the mode contended for by Mr. Jeter. We ,* "Analogies prove nothing." — J, B. Jeter, p. 169: "Campbellisin examined:" REVIEW OF CAMPBELtISM EXAMINED. 61 believe the fact because the word of God asserts it, and all beyond the fact is fiction. Where the all-wise Creator has thought it best to withhold an explanation of the mode in which he executes his will, we think it safest to venture none. But not so Mr. -Jeter: he speaks, as if he. were the embodiment of light, where angels need be mute. SECTION V. Mr. Jeter's next "proof" of "the doctrine of a super- natural agency in the conversion of sinners" is the follow- ing: — "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the Ttwth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren: see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." It is here distinctly said that the persons whom th« verse addresses had purified their souls in obeying the Truth. Of course, then, Mr. Jeter will admit that purifi- cation of the soul, at least, is not dependent on the peculiar influence he" advocates. "Since, then, this in- fluence is not exerted* in order to purify the soul, in order to what else, if at all, is it exerted ? In order to dispose the heart to receive and be guided by the Truth, or in order to produce obedience, is his conclusion. His language is : — "An influence distinct from and above the Truth is indispensable to the production of this obe- dience. The Holy Spirit exerts this influence not in revealing new truth or creating new faculties, hut in disposing the heart to receive and be guided by the gospel." But no passage of Scripturx is safely construed, when con- strued to mean more than its terms will fairly import. Now, 6 62 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. in the light of this golden rale, the truth of which is intiMtrtslj* ftercewes^ do we-tfeol that Mr. Jeter's con- clusion is justified by th»paseage in hand? We cannot feel so. But, he will doubtless urge, they obeyed through the Spirit, and this implies the conclusion. Ddes it, indeed? Even granting the most that he can ask; to wit, that in construing the passage, the clause, through the Spirit, is to be construed with the word obeyed, and still does the 6onclusion. follow ? Can the clause, "through the Spirit," mean only, through an influence of the Spirit dis- tinct from and above the Truth? If not, hoWean Mr. Jeter know that another influence is not meant ? Will he answer- these questions? Never, we predict. If he affirms that only an influence distinct from and above the Truth is meaat, then we deny utterly that the terms of the clause fairly import the meaning^ and demand other and weightier testimony than his bare word that he affirms truly. The truth is, that in this, as in the pre- ceding instance, the most that he can claim for his doc- trine is, that it is not impossible it may be implied. One brief sentence exhausts his logic : — it is not impossi- ble his doctrine may be Implied* -therefore it is true. But the question between him and us is not a question of mere possible implication, but a question of fact. Does • the Spirit in conversion exert on the sinner an influence dis- tinct from and above the Truth? This is the question. And we require that it be made good not by pas- sages of Scripture which may possibly imply it, but by passages which- either actually assert it or necessarily imply it. This done, Mr. Jeter has carried his cause: this not done, he has. utterly failed, and left the truth REVIEW OF CAJ^PBELLISM EXAMINED. 63 with the adverse sid<* But this as yet he has not done; neither wiM he do it, unless he produces other stronger and more pertinent evidence than is contained m the preceding passage. The expression obeyed through the Spirit, conceding this, which is not admitted, to be the proper collocation of the words, can be shown safely to import no more than this : — thai the Spirit did, through the apostles whom it inspired, present, to the minds of those whom they addressed, the Truth, which is ever able to ma^ wise to salvation, and the sufficient motives to induce their obedienee to all commands of the gospel. This exposi- tion strikes our common sense as just and natural; it falls within a jio strained construction of the clause, and accords with facts; and all beyond this lies far within a region of vague conjecture. SEpTION VI. Mr. Jeter closes what we may term the first part of his defence of his theory of spiritual influence with the following passage : — "For this is the e&vmemt that I mil make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord : I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." In this passage the Lord declared by his prophet that during the reign of Christ he would put his laws into the mind and write them in the hearts of his people,— a, declara- tion upon which Mr. Jeter relies as sustaining his theory. Now, be it distinctly noticed, that the passage asserts 64 REVIEW OF OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. only a fact, leaving the mode. of. its occurrence wholly unexplained. But a passage which asserts only a fact can never be used ia ^proving mode, unless the mode to be proved is itself the fact asserted. And yet Mr- Jeter employs this passage to prove mode and nothing else. He is not attempting to prove the fact that God puts his laws into the mind and writes them in the hearts of his people, but the mode in which h& does it, — the mode being the only thing in ^dispute. In a word, he is at- tempting to prove that God does this by a " process," jto use his own language, "above the power and skill of men or angels." What, now, is this "process" ? " The inward and effective agency of. the Holy Spirit," says Mr. Jeter. And then, in order to prove # this, he (sites a passage which, concerning "process" or "the inward and effective agency of the Holy Spirit," says nothing, and is hence wholly irrelevant. True, all facts occur in some specific mode ; but then the mode in which a fact occurs is one thing and the fact itself another ; and con- sequently, unless when a passage states a fact it also explains the mode of its occurrence, although it is* com- petent to establish the former, yet it is of no avail in proving the latter. Hence, it turns out that Mr. Jeter's present •" proof" proves nothing, unless it is that his theory is proofless. In regard to the passage, one thing is certain : — its language is figurative. What, then, is its meaning? Here we must again caution the reader against con- struing a passage to mean more than its terms will fairly import. The passage, then, can only mean that, during the reign of Christ, God would cause his people to REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. (>5 understand his laws, anS 'these laws to be impressed' on their hearts. -In order to this, two tfiings, and only two, are necessary:— 1st, that God cause his laws to be pub- lished- in an intelligible form ; 2d, that he 'accompany this publication with such .sanctions,, such tokens of paternal kindness, and such inducements to obedience, as to awaken fear, engage affection, and enlist our self- love. And all this our heavenly Father has done. His laws are intelligible to a degree exactly equaling our accountability;- and no terrors are equal to the "terrors of the Lord," no love equal to that with which he "first loved us," and no inducements to obedience equal to "immortality and eternal life." Prom all of which we conclude that Mr. Jeter's " pro- cess above the power and skill of men or angels," his " inward and effective agency of the Holy Spirit,"' rests on no foundation better than the fabulous traditions of his church, or* the fictions of his own brain. SECTION Til. We have now to notice the second part of Mr. Jeter's defence of ^supernatural agency in the conversion of sin- ners," — a part which seems- to have been suggested by the following position of Mr. Campbell, to wit : — That the Holy Spirit personally dwells, in the Christian to help his infirmities while exerting himself to attain to- eternal- life. Mr. Jeter's language is, "I go further, and insist that, the influence of the Spirit in sanctiftcation being ad- mitted, it follows, as a logical sequgjice, that the same influence is exerted in conversion, wl^h is but the com- 6* E 66 REVIEW OP CAMPBELL1SM EXAMINED. mencement of ihe work of which sanctifioation is the progress." This is not a new doctrine, but the old, argued on a new ground. The influence of the' Spirit contended for is still an influence distinct from and above the truth, and the mode of exerfing it is liy imme- diate contact of the Holy Spirit with the human. Mr. Jeter's first " direGt proof," under this- head, in defence Of his doctrine, is the following > — "My first argument respects the power of the Holy Spirit. It is this : — if the Spirit can and does dwell in believers, actually and powerfklly assisting them in the mighty struggle for eternal Hfe, then he can exert a similar influence in enlightening, quickening, and re* newing the ungodly," Not quite correct, we venture to say. Mr. Jeter's first argument is intended .to "respect?' his position, and is derived from the power of the Holy Spirit. But his " first argument" is in reality no argument at all. It is merely an instance of the fallacy of shifting the ground in debate. The question between Mr. Campbell and him is not a question respecting what the Spirit can do, but a question respecting what it does. In regard to what the Spirit can do, as an abstract question oj a question of power, Mr. Campbell raises no question. We repeat, the question is not as to what the Spirit can do, but as to what it actually does. And, since an argument re- specting what the Spirit can do (which is the argument of Mr. Jeter) has no tendency to .establish a statement respecting what "it. does, it turns out that Mr. Jeter's " first argument" proves nothing. Speaking in regard to the foregoing position of Mr. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 67 It Campbell, Mr. Jeter says, (p. 161,) "I do not, I trust, misunderstand Mr. Campbell on this vital subject. He teaches that all that is done in us before regeneration — which, in the Bethany dialect, means * fc born of water,' or immersion — 'God our Father,' not the Holy Spirit, ' effects by the word;' but after our new birth, ' the Holy Spirit is shed on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.'" In this extract occur two things^ to "Which we request the attention of the reader. 1. " Begeneration means, in the Bethany dialect, born of water, or imimersion." Once for all, we wish to correct this stale falsehood, which has been repeated by every reviler ef Mr. Camp- bell, from Greatrake down to Mr. Jeter. The satisfac- tion with which these gentlemen have dealt in this barren tale seems to have been real, heartfelt, com- plete. They have had exquisite pleasure in repeat- ing it. Begeneration, in the Bethany dialect, is exactly equiva- lent to the new birth ; and the new birth, in the Bethany dialect, means to he begotten by the Spirit and to be bofn of water, or immersed. But, because birth applies rather to the act of being born — the last act — than to any .act preceding it, so, in the Bethany dialect, regeneration applies rather to the act of being born of water — the last act— than to any act preceding it. But, as birth, though applying rather to the last act than to any act preceding it, includes nevertheless all the other acts which precede it, or the whole process of generation, so regeneration, though in the Bethany dialect applying rather to the last act— the act of being born of water— C8 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. than to any act preceding it, includes also all the other acts preceding it, or the whole process of being born agaifi. In this sense ttnd in this only, and for these reasons, has Mr. Campbell ever employed the word "regeneration" as equivalent to being' born of water, or immersion. And if in every instance where he has used the word he has not stopped to qualify it thus, still, he has done so so often elsewhere that no excuse can be* pleaded for repeating the preceding vulgar slander, "which Mr. Jeter, with all his simulated fair- ness, is not ashamed to repeat. A single extract from Mr. Campbell — an extract, too, well known to Mr. Jeter — will set this* matter forever at rest. "By the bath of regeneration," says Mr. Camp- bell, " is not meant the first, second, or third act, but the last act of regeneration, which completes the whole, and is, thertfore, used to denote the new birth. This is the reason why our Lord and his apostles unite this act with water. Being born of water, in the Savior's style, and the bath of regeneration, in the apostles' style, in the judgment of all writers and critics of eminence, refer to one and the same act, — to wit : Christian baptism." In the light of this well-weighed and cautiously-worded paragraph, in which it is the intention of Mr. Campbell to define his position, what are we to think of the regard for truth and morality, of the regard for the rights and reputa- tion of others, of the # man who has the front to come forward and say, 'Regeneration means, in the Bethany dialect, born of water, or immersion? 2. "All that is done in us before regeneration, God our Father, not the Holy Spirit, effects by the word." REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 69 Mr. Campbell not only never penned this, but never any thing which implies it. This is what he has said afteis it has passed through the mind of Mr. Jeter, the dissimilarity between which and a filter is striking. Fluids when passed through & filter come out in their freest form from impurities; but truth passed through the mind of Mr. Jeter strangely comes out error. Had the alchemists of old possessed such an instrument acting in a reverse manner, long since would all baser metals have passed into gold. Mr. Campbell has, we grant, said that all that is done in us before regeneration, (by which he means immer- sion in the sense just explained,) God our Father effects by the word ; but he has never said, neither does his language imply it, that all that is thus done in us, God our Father, not the Holy Spirit, effects by the word. Wot the, Holy Spirit was not in his thoughts when' he penned the sentence. This expression falsifies his sen- tence ; but it is a falsification for which Mr. Jeter, and not Mr. Campbell,- is responsible. True, God our Fa- ther is conceived of, in the Bethany dialect, as the author, but the remote author, of that of which the Spirit is deemed the more immediate agent; .namely, all that is effected in us before immersion. What God, however, thus effects, he effects by the Spirit; what the Spirit thus effects, it effects by the Truth. This ap- proaches much nearer both to the Bethany thought and the Bethany dialect. 70 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. SECTION VIII. " My second proof/' says Mr. Jeter, " is derived from the nature of sanctification. It is progressive holiness. It is beautifully described" by the wise man :— ' The path of the just is as the shining light j» that shineth more and more unto the' perfect day :' Prov. iv. 18. Regeneration is the commencement of holiness. Re- generation and,, sanctification do not denote different processes, but the same process in different stages. They resemble each. other as the child resembles the man, or the dawn resembles the day. . . . Conversion is hqliness begun ;., sanctification isiioliness pi^ggressing : but in both cases the holiness is of the same nature, tendency, and origin." 1. Holiness and sanctifiGatioH,* in almost every case where they occur, are represented by one and the same word in the original j ,or, still more to the point, the original wory. which is rendered sanctificatioflP'- is in- differently rendered either holiness or sanctification? Since, then, the same original word means indifferently either «»nctificati9n or holiness, ihow can sanctification be " progressive holiness" ? This is just the same as saying that sanctification is progressive sanctification, which is as ridiculous as to say a line an inch- long is a line an inch long .progressing a little. Thjis briefly, then, *do we dispose of a part, and a chijef part, of the " second proof," which turns out to be absurd. 2, But the main point in the " second proof," if it has any, and its chief defect as a " proof/'tfs an assump- REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 71 turn. It is assumed that conversion is effected by the same influences by which Christian life is admitted to be in part sustained ; and this in part is true, but it is not the rJart that is true that is assumed. It is assumed that the immediate influence of the Spirit, which we maintain to be necessary to sustain and' perfect thte Christian life,* is also necessary to conversion. Now, this is precisely the thing Which we deny, and which, therefore, should not have been assumed but proved. We maintain that the Spirit dwells*in, the Christian, because the word of God asserts it; and deny that it acts immediately ©n the sinner, because the word of God does- not assert it, neither imply it ; and since what we deny does hot follow from what we admit, clearly, it should not have been assumed to follow, but proved. Admitting that the Spirit affe.cts Christians, in whom it dwells, in a particular way, by no means justifies the inference that it- affects sinners, in whom it cannot dwell, in the same way. The admission and the in- ference have no stfch connection with one another as to enable us to deduce the one from the other. From knowing that the Spirit acts on the sinner through the Truth only, we should never be able to infer that it dwells in the Christian, neither the reverse. Hence, the main point jn the "second proof," which happens tfl be an assumption, tump out to be naughty SECTION IX. " My third proof," remarks Mr. Jeter, " is drawn from the direct testimony q£ revelation 1 . The Scriptures, I may 72 REVIEW Or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. remark, in general terms, ascribe conversion to divine agency in language as clear, strong, and varied as they do sanctification. The Spirit that nourishes is the Spirit that begets : the power . that preserves is the power that creates." * At sight this position seems plausible ;. but, on a little closer inspection, we detect in it, unfortunately for its plausibility, another instance or Iwo of the fallacy of shifting the ground. The ground in dispute is not whether conversion is, effected by divine or some other agency. "We strongly insist that conversion is effected by divine agency. For if the Spirit be divine so is its agency j and if the Truth be divine so must be its influ- ence ; and to these in all cases do we ascribe jjonversiom. But this is not the question. If either is it whether the Spirit that nourishes is the Spirit that begets. There is one Spirit. The question is, whether the Spirit which is admitted to dwell in Christians, but not in sinners, affects the latter in conversion in precisely the same way in which it affects the former after conversion. This is the question at issue, which Mr. Jeter under- takes to make good, but- the merits of which he never touches. However, in confirmation, we shall suppose, of the real question, -at .issue, he subjoins the. following pas- sage : — "Being confident of thjs very thing, that he who hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." In regard to this passage we shall only say, if its meaning*is to be regarded as settled, (and we believe it is,) it is clearly against Mr. Jeter; but, if not, then certainly it proves nothing. The "good work" re- KEVIEW OF CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED. 73 ferred to in the passage was a contribution for the spread of the gospel which the Phttippians were nobly engaged in raising, and not "the work of grace in the soul,'* as Mr. Jeter asserts, which God, by some hidden influence, had begun in them at their conversion, and was still carrying on. But, even granting that by the "good work" is meant their conversion, what then? The passage .merely asserts that God had begun this work and was still carrying it on, but by ubhat influences it does not say, and hence does not decide. But, if Mr. Jeter cites the passage merely to prove that the "work" was of God, — that is, that it was begun and carried on by him,— then he cites the passage to prove what we, at least, have never denied. In regard to the other passage cited by Mr. Jeter, — namely: "for it is God who worketh in you [PbiKppians] both to will and to do, of his good pleasure," — we have to say, that as it refers wholly to what God was doing in them as Christians, and not to what he had done for them as sinners, it has, therefore," no relevancy what- ever to the question in hand. Since then, from the "direct testimony 1 of revelation," Mr. Jeter derives no "proof" in confirmation of his position, that position must be held as resting on no other than human au- thority, and hence as false. SECTION X. "My last remark," says Mr. Jeter, in jelosing his "direct" proofs, "concerns the honor of the Holy Spirit. 7 74 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. The theory which I am opposing represents the infinite Spirit as condescending to carry on and complete a work which was commenced and passed through its most difficult stage without his influence." Whose theory it is that represents the Spirit as con- descending merely to complete a work which, without its influence, has passed through its most difficult stage, we know not ; but of two things we feel profoundly certain-s — 1st, that it is not Mr. Campbell's theory; 2d„that to effect conversion is not half so difficult a work as to achieve the ultimate, safety of the converted. According to .Mr. Campbell's theory, conversion is in every case effected by the -influence of the Spirit; but then comes the question, what influence is meant ? He denies that it is an influence "distinct from and above the Truth," and maintains that the Truth itself is that influence; and, since Mr. Jeter has not proved the thing which he denies nor refuted the thing which he maintains) we shall here let the question rest. When Mr. Jeter asserts that conversion is a more difficult work than the Christian life, he establishes one, if not more, of three things,—namely : either that he is acting disingenuously in order to create the impression that there is a necessity for his peculiar spiritual influ.- ence, or that he is profoundly ignorant of the character of the Christian fife, or of that of conversion. We should not be surprised if all three are true of him. We here close our examination of Mr. Jeter's de- fence of his proposition that "there is an influence of the Spirit, internal, mighty, and efficacious, differing from moral suasion, but ordin'arily exerted through the inspired word, in REVIEW OF CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. 75 the conversion of sinners." We now submit the case to the reader with the single remark, that, if competent to form a judgment, and candid, we fear not his decision. - It is proper to state that we have found no little difficulty in collecting oat of some seventy-five pages of matter, whose predominant trait is a masterly con- fusion, the entire material part of Mr. Jeter's defence. Still, we believe we have succeeded in doing so. And while, as we conjecture, he may deem these strictures art; times severe, yet in no sense do we feel that he can think them unjust. To misrepresent him for the worse would be difficult indeed, and to represent him fairly is, with men of thought and acquainted with the Bible, to refute him; hence, we have no interest to present him in any other than in his own light. 70 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLI6M EXAMINED. CHAPTBE III. INFLUENCE OT THE SPIRIT IN CONVERSION — OUB OWN DOCTRINE STATED AND DEFENDED. SECTION L We now proceed to state our own doctrine respecting the influence of the Spirit in conversion, and. to present a brief view of the grounds on which it rests. The work upon which we are now entering is certainly of a nature calculated to impart afar higher pleasure than that in which we have just been engaged. For, how- ever necessary it may be to expose the errors of an opponent, it can never be so pleasing a task as defend- ing our' own cause, especially when true. The thing first in order, then, is to state the proposition to be maintained, to wit : — The Holy Spirit operates in conversion through the Truth only. * Before entering upon the defence proper of this pro- position, we have a number of preliminaries to submit, which, having the effect to limit and otherwise qualify the proposition, will enable us to enter upon the discus- sion of it with a more distinct view of what we are undertaking. First, then, in regard to the Spirit itself, we wish to state distinctly that we conceive it to be a Person, in the sublimest sense of the word. We do not conceive REVIEW OF CAMFMSLMSM EXAMINED. 77 it-to be a mere influence Or impersonal emanation from the Father, or the Stoyor from both; but, in the strict- est sense of the term, » person. As to its" nature, it is spirit; personally, it is the Spirit; officially, the Holy Spirit. Personally considered!, these expressions may be said to exhaust the sum of human knowledge re- specting the Spirit. Assuming these views- to be cor- reet, no effort is here made to defend them. Second, the proposition to be discussed is not a ques- tion «f power* It is Aot a question as to what the Spirit can do, but a question as to what it does. Nor is it even a question as to what the Spirit does, except in eonversion. In regard to what the Spirit can do, as an abstract question, we venture no speculations. We presume to assign no limits to power where we can imagine none. We do, however, presume to think, without here stopping to assign the reasons for so thinking, that the Spirit d^es, in Order to effect the conversion of the human family, all it can do- according to the all-wise plans of the Savior, and in harmony with the perfect freedom of the human will; and that it can, not for physical but for moral reasons, do- no more. And what is here said may be taken as a reply to much irrelevant, if not foolish, talk in which Mr. Jeter indulges about what the Spirit can do, and about ex- pressions of Mr. Campbell to *he effect that the Spirit can operate only in this way or cannot act in that. Mr. Campbell has 'never presumed to pen a line in regard to the absolute power of the Spirit, or the question, as an abstract one, What can it do? And 7* 78 REVIEW OF OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. when he makes remarks to the effeet that the Spirit cannot operate except thus and so, it is because ope- rating otherwise is conceived to contravene some law of the human mind, or to transcend the limits within which salvation is to be effected, and k hence inad- mis&ifele» All such remarks of Mr. Campbell are limited, ami necessarily sp, either by the nature of the. subject he is speaking of, or the proposition he is dis- cussing. The slightest attention to a few points- like this would have saved Mr. Jeter much simulated anxiety occasionally to understand him, The question, then, which we are to discuss, is not a question of power, but a question of fact, and, hence, is- to be decided not by speculation but by testimony, and that not human but divine. Third : we wish to distinguish between what may be called ' strictly- the influence of conversion, and those other influences which, though purely incidental or circumstantial to it, yet in many, instances serve greatly to aid it, and which we shall denominate providential influences. This distinction is important, and we regret that our limits compel us .to treat it so briefly. Providential influences may be divided into two great ©lasses : — First, such as are purely human ; second, such as are either not human or not purely so, the influence of the Truth being excepted. To the first class belongs the influenced the church as such, or, more properly speaking, the influence of her members as members of the church'. When the members' of the church are living ki the faithful and conscientious discharge of their duty, their influence REVIEW OF CAMPBXLXJSM EXAMINED. 70 for good is great. They relieve, for example, the wants of the poor, and thus gain over them an influence,, gratefully acknowledged in most eases, by which they may induce them to frequent the house of God, where, if they receive that considerate attention which, we grieve to say, they seldom receive, their minds soon be- come enlightened, *and their hearts impressed, and as the result many of tbem-become obedient to the Faith. Again, Christians mingle im the world, and thus form friendships which make them the confidants of those wdth whom they associate. This -confidence may often be availed of to impart much useful information, to correct many a vicious habit, and frequently to induce' even an entire reformation of life. In these and various other. ways, too numerous to mention, may the members of the church often be of the greatest service in in- ducing sinners to enter that circle within which the Truth is almost sure to take effect. To the first class also belongs the influence of the preachers of the gospel, as such. Their duties well per- formed can, in point of effect, hardly be overestimated. If the Truth is distinctly stated and sufficiently ampli- fied, and kept free from all enfeebling speculations and traditions, and urged home to the. heart with tenderness and feeling, its power is just resistible, no more. To the second class may be referred those sad reverses of life which tend to break the hardness of the heart, and than prepare it for the reception of the Truth. When bereft by death • of those whom he loves, how, like a wounded bird^ does the sinner steal away into some lone spot to meditate a reform of life ! How prepared 80 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. now for the reception of the Truth 1 And even the ligibjfoeKand less noticeable, but stiM painful, incidents of life often have much the same 'effect. How, when away from the endearments of home and with the strangers heart," dees the sinner turn into the house of God to catch the holy accents of Truth, and' to muse on a home where the ties of friendship shall be broken Nevermore. These reverses often serve, like the frosts of winter, to mellow the soil of the hitman heart, which the Truth can pene- trate all the deeper for the work they have done. To affirm, as Mr. Jeter does in substance,- that these are all so many means through which the Holy Spirifr, "infinite in grace and power," accomplishes th# conver- sion of the sinner, is to affirm what he has n® evidence to prove. It is to affirm what the" Bible does not teach, what reason cannot know, and what, therefore, the in- telligent Christian cannot receive. Indeed, in regard to the. whole subject of providential influences, as well as in regard to the influence proper of conversion, Mr. Jeter's mind seems to be in -complete confusion. Clearly, he does not understand us, he does not understand the Bible, and we seriously doubt whether he understands himself. < Fourth: the proposition to be discussed limits the dis- cussion strictly, to conversion. As to how, or to what extent, the Spirit miay affect persons not in conver- sion, it says nothing. All it- affirms' is, that the Spirit operates in conversion. Again, such is its structure that it must be considered, not simply as affirming our own doWrine, but also as denying that of our oppo- nents. It says, in conversion the Spirit operates through REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 81 * the Truth. This is in fact all we affirm, and, hence, is all we can in fairness be called upon to prove. We do not affirm that the Spirit does not operate except through the Truth, and thus lay ourselves under .obligation to prove a negative. We deny that it operates, .except through the Truth, and thus devolve on the party affirming to the contrary, the responsibility of proving it. This is in reality the force, and we desire it to be. sa undeEstood, of the word only, with which the proposition ends. . In our discussions hitherto of this subject we have given our enemies the advantage in the wording of the proposition to be discussed. It is now time (and we trust our brethren will not be heedless of the hint) that we should change our policy. Let us assume .the ground which, in strict logical propriety, belongs tp us, and hold our enemies firmly to the position which their doctrines assign to them. We affirm that in conversion the Spirit operates through the Truth, and no more. Our enenjies affirm that it operates both through the Truth and without it. Let them now make the p®sition good. We deny it, and here take our stand. Indeed, the very proposition which JUr. Jeter under- takes to establish is, that the Spirit does operate otherwise than through the Truth. Or, at least, this is one of his propositions; for, in reality, he has two, — one defining, or rather attempting to define, but not defining, the two kinds of influence, for which he contends; the other stating the two modes in which these influences are .exerted. Here, now, were we confined to strictly logi- cal grounds, we should be compelled to closa the present controversy, and demand judgment against the adverse 8:i REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. party. For Mr. Jeter has not proved the existence is conversion of an influence of the Spirit distinct from and above the {Truth; neither that in conversion the Spirit exerts any' influence except through the Truth. Hence the tsontrovei'sy, so far as he is concerned, is here fairly brought to a close, and in our tfavor. Indeed he con- cedes to us the very ground we claim, and the only ground which, in this controversy, it is possible to settle: namely, that the Spirit does operate through the -Truth. His language is: — "It is freely admitted that the Spirit operates through the word in the conversion and sancti- fieation of men." "What then have we to do? Simply nothing. It would he impossible to close a controversy more completely in favor of one of the. parties than the present controversy is here closed m our favor. We shall, however, waive all technical advantages and pro- ceed to place the doctrine we advocate on its own proper foundation. We do not ask that it be received as true merely because conceded or because our opponent fails to establish his doctrine. Our doctrine has its own deep, strong basis on which it rests, to which, after the definition of a few terms, the meaning of which it is necessary dearly to state, we shall proceed to call the attention of the reader. SECTION II. First, then, in what acceptation do we employ the term conversion? Certainly not in one for which we shall plead the authority of Sacred Writ, and which, for that reason, it is necessary we- shall clearly state. We REVIEW OF CAMPfiEIiliISM EXAMINED. 83 employ it then throughout this chapter to denote strictly a mental and therefore amoral ehdnge, and not as includ- ing any outward act of obedience. In other words, we employ it as exactly equivalent to the- expressions born of the Spirit, bom of 'God, assuming these to be identical in sense. When then the Spirit produces in the sinner, that change of which in every case -it is the immediate auth&r, denoted by the expression born of the Spirit, through what instrumentality does it operate? "We respond, M operates through the Truth. _ But what do we mean when we say the Spirit operates through the Truth? We mean that it operates by the Truth; that is, that divine Truth is itself the vital power by wh'ieh in all cases the Spirit effects* conversion; in other words, that the Spirit spends on the mind of the sinner in conversion no influence except such as resides in the Truth as divine, as of the Spirit. And we shall further add, that neither in quantity nor in force do we conceive that this influence can be increased and the human will be left free. We are now prepared for the defence, of our proposition. Our first argument is, that the necessity does not exist for any influence in conversion except such as is exerted through divine Truths and that hence no other is.exerted. In the present controversy this argument, must be conceived as havingygreat weight. Nothing is done in effecting redemption for which there does not exist a necessity. And in all cases in which, like the present, a peculiar interposition is denied, the necessity for it must be first clearly shown, otherwise such denial stands 84 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. good against it. Neither can we assume the existence of-'sroh "necessity, unless we coirld show one or more actual -facts for which we could not account without it, which in conversion cannot be shown. Were it either proved or conceded that in .conversion an influence dis- tin'et from and above the Truth is exerted, then certainly we might infer a necessity for it; and such necessity would become a legitimate ground of argument. But that such an influence is exerted is neither proved nor conceded. Hence the existence of a necessity for it cannot be assumed. Moreover, where a necessity exists for doing a thing, there exists a reason for doing it; but Where no such necessity exists, the presumption k,*that the thing, if done at all, is done without a reason, which m the case of conversion -is - not admissible. We hence conclude that in conversion no influence is exerted dis- tinct from and above the Truth. And what is here said suggests the true theory of the argum REVIEW OF CAMPBELLI6M EXAMINED. 85 will thair argument be of any force or entitled to any respect. SECTION III. Ouk, second argument is, that any influence more intense than that of divine Truih and above it, sueh as Mr. Jeter contends for, would,af necessity, infringe the freedom of the- human will, and hence cannot be admitted to be 'present in conversion. In order to be responsible man must be left free. To whatever extent we interfere with his perfect freedom, whether in sinning or in obeying, to that extent precisely we destroy the essential nature of 'his act as a moral agent and degrade him to the level of a mere machine. All we can do for him or with him, as a moral agent, is to-present the Truth, proved to be 'such, distinctly to his mind, and then; leetye him free as the unfettered wind to accept it Or reject rt. y The instant we restrain him' by external force or constrain him by internal influence, that instant he ceases to be a freeman and his act is not his own, ' Now, there is but one case we need consider :-*- that of a man unwilling to receive the Truth: For, if a man is perfectly willing to receive the Truth, it i's impossible to conceive the advantage to him of, an influence de- signed to have only the effect to make him willing. But he is, suppose, no matter from what cause, unwilling or disinclined to receive the Truth. • But the Spirit in- terposes with an influence distinct from and above the Truth, and inclines him to do the thing which he him- self is incline^ not to do. Is this the act of a man s 86 REVIEW OP CAMPBEMJSM EXAMINED. acting of his own will, or is it not rather the act of a man acting against his will? Certainly, Mr. Jeter will doubtless tell us, it is the act of a man acting of his own will, for the Spirit gives the man the will. The case then is .simply this: — the man is not compelled to act against his Will; but compelled to accept a Will which is not his own. We shall leave the reader to decide how much this improves the case. According to this theory, which is the theory of Mr. Jeter and his brethren, conversion is in no sense — not even in part — in the power of the sinner himself, but depesds absolutely on the power and will of another. ^Nbw, we request him to acquaint the world whether the sinner, so circumstanced, is 'responsible for not being converted until the Spirit exerts on him that peculiar influence for which he contends; whether, in a word, the sinner is responsible- for being what he cannot but be, — a sinner? "We f£el pressed with the necessity for light on this subject, and trust our reasonable request will not go unheeded. But why, Mr. Jeter will doubtless ask, leave the sin- ner so free, and place the Christian, by the indwelling of the Spirit within. him, under an influence affecting the freedom' of his will ? We reply, that no such thing is- done. The Christian has the will, but lacks the power j hence the Spirit only helps his infirmity without affecting his will. To aid the Christian to do what he is already more than willing to do, but lacks the power to do, is a very different thing from constraining the sinner to do against his will what he has the power to do. True, God works in the Christian, as we conceive, REVIEW OP OAMPBELIiISM EXAMINED. 87 both -will and deed; but them he works the will by- motive, — the only thing that can determine' the will, — and the deed by lending aid when the power is lacking. ( SECTION IV. . , Our third argument is, that the Spirit does not exert on the sinner a special influence to induce him to receive the J'ruth and obey it, when he is perfectly conscious he can and should do both without that influence. There are some acts which a man is as oonsei©us he has the power to perform as he is of his own existence. His hand, for example, lies at rest. Now, it cannot be said that he is more cdnscipus of his existence than he is of the power to move that hand. Nor is he simply conscious of the power to move it : he is also conscious that such and such motives would induce him to exert that power; and his consciousness is no less vivid in the latter case than in the former. There is not a sin he commits which he feels not the conscious ability to refrain from committing. He -may feel that it is very certain he will not refrain, but still he feels perfectly conscious that he can do so. Nor is this less true in regard to duties, even the highest. A man to whom the proposition is presented .and explained is as conscious of the ability to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, as he is of the ability to move his hand when it lies at rest. It is this very consciousness of the ability to do what yet perhaps he neglects to do, not because he cannot do it," but simply because he does not resolve to do it, that constitutes his negligence' a crime and 88 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. makes - him feel guilty in the sight of Gfod. Destroy the consciousness of this ability, and that instant you take away not only his sense of guilt, but even the guilt itself; for man never yet sinned where he felt a con- scious inability to refrain from sinning. Whether man is thus consciolis or not is not a debatable point. Within himself he carries the clear- and certain proof that he is*s'o. c That the Holy Spirit should, by special influence, induce men to do what they are conscious they both can d<> and ought to do without such influence, is as destitute of countenance from the Bible as it is subversive of every principle of moral government. God aids men to do only what he knows $hey* cannot do without his aid, and not what they know they can do and are con- scious they should do without it. And, should it.be alleged that men never become thus conscious without a special influence, we reply that then all men have been already the subjects of it; for there is n®t a man in Christendom to whom the gospel has ever been preached who is not thus conscious. He may pretend to be infidel or atheist and consequently deny that such is the case; but he can never silence the voice within him which asserts the contrary. Mr.Jeter's doctrine presents th$ sinner in a strange predicament, truly. He is perfectly conscious he can believe the Truth and obey it? and yet it is perfectly certain that, without an influence distinct from and above the Truth, he can do neither. He resembles a man with an amputated arm, who is perfectly conscious he has the power to move an arm, and yet it is perfectly REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 89 certain that unless by miraele he receives an arm he cannot move one. And so with the sinner; >e is per- fectly conscious that he can believe the truth and obey- it, and it is perfectly certain that without a peculiar influence from the Spirit he can do neither. But (may it not be said?) a man is as conscious of the ability to live the Christian life, as he is of the ability to believe the Truth and obey it; and that hence, by the preceding argument, the gift of the Spirit is not necessary to the Christian. But this is not true. In- deed, it is a curious fact that, while men never doubt their ability to believe the Truth and obey it, they ever daubt their ability to live the Christian life. It is precisely in regard to this point that they do doubt their ability. Uot only do they distrust themselves in regard to the Christian life, but they seem to feel half conscious that they are unequal to it; and hence, from this very dis- trust, many long decline entering .on it. "We conclude, then, instead of its being true that men are as con- scious of the ability to live the Christian life as they are to believe the Truth and obey it, that the very reverse is true. SECTION V. Our fourth argument is, that the Savior andthe apostles always, addressed their audiences as ip their eonversion de- pended alone on the Truth they heard, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that it depended on the-Truth and. some- thing else. Now, the case admits of but two solutions. Either the conversion of their audiences depended alone on the 8* 90 KEVIEW OF CAMPBEtLISM EXAMINED. Truth which they heard, Or the Truth was inadequate to effect it*. If we accept the former of these solutions, tne preaching of the Savior and the apostles is easily accounted for. We then have reason not simply in what they preached, hut also for their preaching. At once We see a fitness and propriety in all they said and did, and can account for that inimitable naturalness in their speeches, which carries them so directly to the heart. Their adaptation of the Truth to the mind with such exquisite skill is then easily explained. "We .then see the reason why their proclamation of the Truth was attended wil£. such peculiar and striking evidences of reality and power. All this is easily understood if we only reflect that conversion depends on the Truth. But, if we accept the latter of these solutions, certainly the preaching of the Savior and the apostles, if not what they preached, becomes a riddle of no -ordinary intri- cacy. They knew that the Truth was inadequate to effect conversion, if such ' is the case, and yet they preached the Truth. They knew that their audiences, without, in Mr. Jeter's language, "a new and peculiar process," could not receive the Truth;, and yet they pressed it on them. They knew that their audiences could not receive the Truth j and yet they denounced condemnation against them for rejecting it. Shall this be charged on the Savior and the apostles? Or shall we say that all whom- they addressed were, by this "peculiar process," prepared to receive the Truth? Certainly not; for we know that many, very many, rejected it. Or shall .we suppose that "an influence distinct from and above the Truth" accompanied it 1 to REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 91 render it efficacious? Where, we ask, first, is the evi- dence, and where, seeond, the advantage? Still, con- version in many cases did not ensue. Or shall we be told that, although without this influence none can receive the Truth, still, with it #11 are at liberty to re- ject it ? In the one case, then, since the rejection of the Truth is necessary, — i.e. results from an inability to receive it, — the rejection is, of course, no sin. And yet if there is any one thing taught in the Bible more clearly than another, it is, that the condemnation of those to whom the gospel is -preached .dates certainly from the instant in which they reject it, and for that very reason. And, in the other ease, since men are still at liberty to reject the Truth, still free to do with it as they will, where is the advantage of the influence ? With it men do no more than what they do without it. Let any one who is not blinded by a false system of religion attentively study the speeches of the Savior and the apostles, and nothing will strike him more clearly than this: — that they delivered their speeches precisely as other men do, assuming the ability of their audiences to understand and receive what they said, without any thing more than simply saying it, and leaving them to abide the consequences of rejecting it. /This is the view which first and chiefly strikes that elemental common sense with which all are endowed; and it is not until that common sense has ljeen com- pletely stultified by some pernicious theory of religion that men abandon this view, and blindly adopt on© which neither sense nor revelation sanctions. 92 REYJEW OF that the Apostle James ascribes conversion to the Truth and U that alone, which forbids the belief that it is effected by the- Truth and something more. The passage on whieh we base this argument is the following : — "Of his own (the Father's) will begat he us with the word of Truth." The term here translated "begat," we should state, is not the term which is usually in the New Testament rendered begat. But its meaning is equally as clear, and its force and extent ®f signification precisely the same, as the usual term, when the usual term is employed to 'express the agency of the Spirit in conversion. All, then, that the term " born" denotes, or can denote, in -the expression " born 94 HEVIEW OF CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED. of the Spirit," is here expressed* by the term " begat." Bach term alike exhausts the subject, and each alike is complemented by the subject. One has not a shade of meaning which the other has not. They are synony- mous. We shall assume, presuming that the position 'will not be questioned, that what the passage ascribes to God as its. author is ascribed to him as the remote author, and was in reality effected by the Spirit as the more immediate agent. Hence, of course^ we as- sume that whatever the term "begaf denotes was effected by the Spirit. Whatever, then, is effected by the Spirit in conver- sion, and all that is effected by it, is, in the passage, comprehended in and expressed by the- term " begat" Hence, whatever the influence was, in kind or degree, by which this effect was produced, is the influence, in kind and degree, by which conversion is effected. What now was "that influeln'ce? Td this question the clearest answer is necessary, and to this question the clearest answer is at hand. That influence was "the word of Truth," or simply the Truth. " Of his 'own will begat he us with the word of Truth." If this passage does not settle the question now at issue, then it would seem that it is never to be settled. It is either an untaug%t question, and, hence, should not be debated, or it iB a mere ground for endless and fruitless wrangling, and, hence, should be abandoned. What, we inquire, is the fact which it is the intention of the passage to assert ? what, in other words, is its predication? Is it this : — "Of his own wiil begat he us"-? It is not ; and, although REVIEW OF CAMfBELLISM EXAMINED. 95 this is asserted, yet this is not the whola> nor even the chief feature, of the assertion. That feature is, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of Truth." The passage contains the answers to two questions : — 1. Are we begotten by the Father? 2. And if so, by wbat means ? To the first question -the passage replies, We are begotten by the Father. To the second it replies, We are begotten by the Truth. , Here, then, in the present passage, the truth of our proposition is asserted, actually and unequivocally as- serted, in language as clear, strong, and pointed, as human ingenuity can invent, or human speech supply. If its truth is not asserted, — if, in other Words, it is not assented that conversion is effected by the Truth, — what form of human speech, we ask, could assert it ? The reply* is, none. But, Mr. Jeter will doubtless say, I admit that the Spirit "ordinarily" effect? conversion through the Truth, but maintain that in doing so it exerts through the Truth a peculiar" vital influence not inherent in it, — thsjt a virtue which is no. part of the Truth goes out of the Spirit through the Truth into the soul, converting it. In other words, he will doubtless maintain, thai}, as a spark of electricity discharged from a point passes through the atmosphere into an attracting object, so an essential, quickening influence, being discharged from the Spirit, passes through the Truth into the soul, con- verting it. But where, we ask, in the first place, is the evidence that this is true ? Soberly, we aisk, where ? If Mr. Jeter's prospects for eternity were staked upon making it gooc^ Vb REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. with sadness we should, add, he is a doomed man. Bat this is. precisely the point at which the difference be- tween him and us, begins to show itself. We maintain^- i.e. Mr. Campbell and his brethren — that in the ^Truth as such, that is, in the Truth as dwme, as of the Spirit, resides the power by. which in all cases the Spirit effects conversion; a power which, as we conceive, cannot be intensified and the human will be left free, and whicbr, for that reason, is all the influence that can be admitted, to. be present in conversion. We go. further, and main- tain that it is as much the. law of , conversion that it shall be effected by tho Truth, as it is of reproduction .that an oak shall* spring from an acorn and not from a miracle ■ and, further, that we are no- more at liberty to suppose the Spirit absent from the work of conver- sion from the fact that it is the law of conversion that it shall result from the Truth and not from some- thing els% than we are to- suppose the -Creator absent from the work of rspradufitiom from the fact that it is the law of reproduction that an oak shall spring from an .acorn and not from a miracle. But, in the second place, we inquire, has. not the ex- pression "the word of Truth" its own proper, individual signification or value, — a value which belongs to it simply as tho expression "the w,ard of Truth," — which can neither be increased nor diminished, and in which th>© influence for which Mi\ Jeter contends is not in- cluded? Either it has, or that influence is included in. the expression as an integral part iof it, ris a part of its. own individual signification simply as the ex- pression "the word of Truth." Now, let Mr. Jeter REVIEW Of CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 9t choose his alternative. If he choose the former, then is he pledged to abide the following conclusion. Of his own will begat he us : how ? By the word of Truth ? No. But by the word of Truth and something else. Hence, when the passage says, "Of his own will begat he us. by the word of Truth," since the expression the w9rd of Truth is not equivalent to the expression the word of Truth and something else, it asserts not the whole truth, but suppresses at least half of it, and is hence false. This is the fatal reef on which Mr. Jeter's doctrine drifts him, and no skill or cunning on his part will enable him to escape it. Or does he accept the latter alternative, • and say that the influence for which he contends is included in the meaning of the expression the word of Truth? — that it belongs to it as part of its own individual signification? — that, in-brief, it is, part of, or resides in, divine Truth as such? If so, then he and wo are agreed, and so the controversy is at an end. SECTION VIII. Our seventh argument is, that the Apostle Tetef. ascribes conversion, or being born again, to the Truth, and to that alone, as the means by which it had fieen effected; an:d that, therefore, we are not at liberty to ascribe it even in part to another and unknown cause. The passage on which we rest the present argument is the following : — "Being born again', not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God." The original term here rendered "being born again" k the term which is usually, in the New Testament, rendered by 98 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. the words begat, begotten, born; — with this difference: the term is here combined with a particle which has the force, in the present case, of the word again, or the prefix re. The term, as employed in the. present pas- sage, expresses precisely what is meant by the expres- si#n "born of the Spirit;" and the effect which it denotes is to be ascribed to the Spirit as the author of it. Con- sequently, we have now to determine, not what effect was produced, but by what power it was produced; not what agent was employed, but with what" instrument it wrought. In a word, the effect is known, and we have now to seek the instrumental cause from which it re- sulted. And in all such .cases what is the method t)f procedure ? It is briefly this : — We have an effect A, which is supposed to result from two causes, B and C. "We first try to produce the effect with B, and fail.- We then try 0, and fail. In this case the effect is held to be a joint result from both B and C. Or we try to produce the effect with B, and fail. We then try C, and succeed. In this case the effect is held to result from C alone, and B is excluded. But, it will no doubt be said, the present is not a ques- tion in experimental philosophy. True: but what it lacks of being a question in experimental philosophy it hapfens to have in being decided by a still less fallible authority.; and, hence, the conclusion arrived at has "all the certainty of one arrived at by actual experiment. • The effect in hand is denoted by the expression "being born again." Mr. Jeter maintains that this effect re- sulted from the joint influence of two causes, — to wit : the Truth, and "an influence distinct from and above the REVIEW 0E GAMPBELUSM EXAMINED. 99 Truth." We deny that the latter cause. had any hand in producing the effect. Let, now,, the difference be- tween us be decided .by divine authority. How, then) was the effect produced? The Bible answers, "by the word of God:" "Unless, then, the second cause consti- tutes an integral part of " the word of God," (which it cannot, since it is "distinct from and above" it,) it was excluded from any share in producing the effect ; hence, that effect resulted from the first cause alone, — the Truth; and, therefore, our proposition is true. Indeed, we now feel at liberty to say, it is impossible to esta- blish the truth of any proposition, either by argument or Holy Writ^ if the present and preceding arguments do not establish the truth of ours. We are not at all ignorant, however, of the impotent clamor which Mr. Jeter and a few bigots will raise against these conclusions. This, they will cry in the ears of the multitude deep-mired in the " ditch," is the "word-alone system." Many a gracious Compliment will be lavished upon the sectarian divinity, Orthodoxy; and her smiles- will be deemed more .than a compensation for all failures to defend her cause. But we beg to tell these gentlemen that this is not the "word-alone sys- tem." The "word-alone system" conceives the Spirit to be. ever absent from the work of conversion this system conceives it to be ever present : the "word-alone system" conceives the Truth to be as. destitute of vital force as ihe words of an obsolete almanac ; this system conceives the Truth, since of the Spirit, to teem with an intense quickening power, but ever resident in the Truth as divine: the- "word-alone system" is false; this sys- 100 REVIEW OP OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. tern is true. These are a few, and but a few, of the dis- tinctions between the "word-alone system" and this. But, should Mr. Jeter still clamor,. Yet is your system a word-alone system, we reply, Then are we the intrepid advocates of a* word-alone system, and deny that the Bible knows any other. We shall here take occasion to say, that the word "born," both in the preceding passage and in the one which we shall next cite, is not the word which most accurately expresses the sense of the original > but, as the difference is one which does not in the least affect the arguments respectively based on them, and as we purpose adverting to the matter again elsewhere, we shall for the present give it no further notice. SECTION IX. Our eighth argument is, that belief in Christ and being born of God are identical; and that, since belief in Christ depends on the Truth alone, therefore being born of God, or conversion, depends on the. Truth alone. The passage on which we base this argument is the following : — "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is' born of God." From this passage it is most clear either that to believe that Jesus is the Christ and to be born of God are identical, or that they are so inseparably con- nected that we cannot produce the former without, at the same time and by the same means, producing the latter. This point, being actually asserted, we do not allow to be debatable. Whatever influences, then, will produce belief in Christ will also produce the effect — if REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 101 belief itself is not that effect — denoted by the expression "bom of God." But the meaning of this expression is the acceptation in which we are now taking the term "conversion." "With the view, therefpre, of ascertain- ing on what immediate cause conversion depends, we shall now proceed to ascertain on what immediate cause belief or faith depends. The passage we shall first adduce is the following" from the parable of the sower:— "Now, the parable is this : the seed is the word of God. Those by the "way- side are .they that hear: then cpmeth the devil and taketh away the- word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." The word, then, or the Truth, it seems, can, and actually does, enter the hearts of the wayside men. And if it can penetrate the hearts of these, it will hardly be thought that it lacks the power to penetrate the hearts of any others. But Satan interposes ; and for what ? There is a result to be pre- vented : that result is salvation. But, in order to pre- vent this result, there is another, antecedent, specific result to be prevented^ which- is belief. To prevent belief, then, immediately, .and salvation remotely, is the object for which Satan interposes. And full well does he. know how to prevent a result or an effect. He re- moves whatever the result depends on, or the- cause of the effect, and the work is done. Now, what cause does he remove from the hearts of the wayside men in order to prevent belief? and he certainly removes the real cause. Is it an influence distinct froffi and above the Truth? This question ought to 'silence Mr. Jeter for- ever. But no; this is not the cause which Satan re- 9-s 102 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. moves from the hearts of the wayside men. ' "He taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe." The word,. then, or the Truth, is that immediate cause on which belief depends?- hence, the word or the Truth is the immediate cause on which conversion depends. If this is not demonstration, — moral, that is, — then there is no meaning in the term. But we are not quite done with the wayside men. Mr. Jeter says, the influence for which he contends is exerted "ordinarily" through the Truth. Is it now ex- erted on the waysida^inen, or is it not? Gf course it must be one or the other. Suppose, then, it is exerted. Still the Truth is taken away ; but, when the Truth is taken away, what becomes of the influence ? Does it remain?' If so, where is the advantage in it? for the men are still infidels. But suppose it is, not exerted. Still there remains in .the word a power fully adequate to produce belief without it; hence, it is not necessary.' The passage we shall next quote to show on what im- mediate cause faith depends as the following: — "So, then' faith cometh . by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." This is one of those fine* passages which no sophistry-can so pervert as t|uite to hide fts meaning. It is the compreheHsive statement' of an innumerable number of cases, and, as a brief religious formula, serves the admirable purpose of preventing a tedious enumera- tion of all the circumstances, remote and near, on which faith as an ultimate result depends. It states a great fact in religion; "and, therefore, with great propriety, states it with remarkable perspicuity. It pointedly asserts that faith comes by liearing, i.e. by hearing the REVIEW OF CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED, 103 word of God. And only what it asserts it teaches. Indeed, since it asserts strictly that faith comes hy hear- ing" the Truth, the implication is that it comes in no other way. For, the instant we show that, faith results from the Truth and some other cause, say an " influence distinct from and above the Truth/' that instant we cast a doubt over the passage. If, for illustration, it was the avowed purpose of an individual to whom the causes were all known to account for a given effect, and he should say, This effect results from such and such a cause, at the same time suppressing one. of them, what should we think of him ? - Could we conceive of him as speak- ing but to deceive? When an apostle undertakes to assign the causes of a result, does he suppress one of them? - - " * But, I grant, Mr. Jeter will say, that faith comes by hearing the word of God, but maintain that the Spirit must aid the sinner to hear— that is, to understand and receive-^-the Truth. But of the truth of this there is no evidence. It is a mere creation of the human fancy, countenanced neither by reason nor the Bible. It grew out of' that inveterate form of depravity insisted on toy Mr. Jeter, and which is itself a dream. Hence, the dream became parent to the fanoy, which is the true account of both. We conclude, then, since belief in 'Christ and being born of &od are identical, and since belief in Christ is shown by -the preceding premises to depend on the Trlith alone, that the Truth alone is that on which depends being born pf God, or conversion. 104 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. SECTION X. O^fninth argument is,' that the original of John iii. 8 in fts most natural sense- — that which it yields by the soma" est »rules of interpretation — teaches that being born of the Spirit (or conversion) is effected by hearing or re- ceiving the Truth. The well-known rendering of this verse in the com- mon version is, " The wind' bloweth where it listeth, and thdu heafest the sound Jhereqf, but canst not tell'whenee ft cometh, and whither it geeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." In citing this verse as the basis of an argument, we ha'vS three objects In view : — 1st, to* ascertain, if pos- sible, its real meaning; 2d, to- show that in its real meaning it teaches the great doctrine for which we are contending; 3d, to show that the popular interpreta- tion of it is false. In the outset we shall assume that the verse in the original contains an explanation of* the long-litigated clause, "born of the Spirit." In doing so, we are not unmindful of the fact that a very different view has been thought to be the correct one: For, by very gene- ral consent, it has been held that the verse contains an illustration of the mysterious manner in which the Spirit quickens the sinner into life. This we conceive to be the radical misconception which has utterly ob- scured the sense of this fine passage. "Without one solitary verbal mark in the original in- dicative of an illustration, or the slightest indication in REVIEW OF CAMPBELLJSM EXAMINED. 105 the verse itself or the context that such a thing was either meant or necessary, has the verse been assumed to be illustrative and rendered accordingly. A more unaccountable departure from some of the best-esta- blished laws of exegesis than its rendering in some respects exhibits, it has not been our lot td meet with. And long since, we doubt not, the present rendering would have been utterly discarded, had it not, by the mystery in which it wraps the sense of the verse, ad- ministered to the well-known species of fanaticism on spiritual influence of which Mr. Jeter , sighs to show himself a champion. No man ever yet thoughtfully read the passage in the English Bible and then laid it down feeling satisfied that he understood what he had been reading. This circumstance |alone should lcmg since have suggested the suspicion that the sense of the original was not fairly dealt with. And, believing this to be the case, we propose to re- translate the whole verse. In doing this we expect to discover an apt, germinal explanation of the expres- sion "born of the Spirit." Of course, in a statement brief almost to obscurity, we expect to find nothing elaborated but much suggested. "We expect to find the subject explained, touched father by those single rays of light with which the Savior pencilled so matchlessly, than illumined by the whole splendor of his eloquence. We expect to meet rather those hints which, cautiously traced out, lead to the truth, than to meet, at first sight, the truth itself. Still, we expect to find something de- terminate, something appreciable. • We propose submitting, as we proceed, first, a trans- 106 REVIEW OF OAJIPBELLISM EXAMINED. lation of each single word of most of the verse : we shaM then briefly append the reasons for the render- ing,, and, occasionally, shall distribute these- words into appropriate groups for the sake of indicating more •clearly their collective sense. First, then, in regard to the word which, in the com- mon version, is rendered "wind." This word occurs in the Greek New Testament three hundred and eighty- six times. In three hundred and . eighty-four of these it is- rendered into English either by the term ."spirit" or by its inelegant equivalent "ghost." Once,- in. the book of Eevelation, it is rendered "life," where,, with equal propriety and more consistency, "it might have been rendered "a spirit." But not in -a single case in the New Testament, except in the verse in hand, is it rendered "wind." Now, in translating, onetgreat rule to be observed is this : — •■to translate the same original word uniformly by the same -equivalent English word, unless the sense forbids .it. No translation is deemed good which violates this rule, none very faulty which does. not. Now, since the word in hand, out of three hundred and feighty-six instances, is, in three hundred and eighty-four of them, uniformly, rendered into Eng- lish either by the term "spirit" qr by a term having precisely the same meaning, the presumption in favor of a similar rendering in the two remaining instances is as tlune hundred and eighty-four to two. And when it is remembered that the sense interposes no obstacle to such a rendering, "this presumption becomes an im- perious necessity. For these reasons, therefore, we do REVIEW OP CAMPBEMJSM EXAMINED. 107 not hesitate to render the word in hand " spirit," lean- ing, thereby, the Holy Spirit. Should the case be thought to require it, we may add, that this rendering has been suggested, if it is not still sanctioned, by names which stand justly high in learning and sacred criticism. Its claims, however, upon public confidence must rest ultimately on its own merits. Next, respecting the word translated "bloweth." This word is found in the Greek New Testament but seven times ; in six of which it is used to express the acts of things, and only in the remaining instance (the present) the act of a person. But, in almost every case where expressive of the act of a person, it is to be ren- dered into English simply by the word "breathe." And this is so obviously the word by which it is to be ren- dered in the present instance, that we shall attempt no defence of the rendering. But in what acceptation are we to take the word "breathe"? — a literal or a figurative * To answer this question at once, we inquire, Does that essential, sub- tle person, whom we denominate the Spirit, perform the act we call breathing ? Can we predicate of it such an act in any intelligible senee; — especially in the sense in which we say of a man, he breathes ? Oertainly not. To do so would be to assert what we believe the very nature of the case forbids ; for it does not consist with our notion of spirits that they breathe. They may cause breathing, as the human spirit; but they them- selves breathe not. Hence, since the act itself— bre&th- ing--is not conceivable,- wc are not permitted to con- 108 REVIEW OP CAMPBELUSM EXAMINED. strue the term as meaning it. We deeide, therefore, to construe the term figuratively, and this the nature of the case requires. But what does the term "breath" signify? what does it express? "We reply, it certainly expresses ac- tion, hut in such a way as not to. indicate the precise kind of act performed. This we learn, as we shall pre- sently see, add with much certainty, from the attendant circumstances. The expression "where it listeth" maybe slightly im- proved thus : — where it sees fit. So far, then, the verse reads thus : — The Spirit breathes where it sees fit. .In the remark next succeeding, — to wit: "and thou hearest the sound thereof,"— 'we have the clue .to the par- ticular act expressed by the word "breath," which, of itself, is indefinite. But, in order to trace out this clue and show to what it leads, we must examine strictly the meaning of the word rendered. "sound," This Word is met with in the Greek New Testament one hundred and forty-one times; in one hundred, and thirty-one of which it is rendered "voice;" in eight, including the present case, "sound;" in one, "noise;" and in one case is joined with a verb) and rendered " noised." GenericaMy, the term expresses sound simply ; specifically, a particular kind of sound. Hence, before we can, in a given case, correctly render it- into English, we. must know what particular kind of sound is meant, or from what subject it proceeds. In the case in hand it was clearly the force, and nothing else, of the preceding substantive, wind, which deter- mined it to be rendered sound. But since the original of wind does not mean wind, but Spirit, the presumption REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 109 is that the original »f seuad does npt mean sound, feat gomething else. Now, in every other case in the New Testament (a few doubtful ones perhaps to be excepted) where it de- notes sound proceeding from a person, without distine- tion as .to whom, that sound is the voice of such person heard in the act of speaking. Hence, since in the .pre- sent case the term denotes sound proceeding from the Spirit, a person, that -sound is, if there be any value in induction, determined to be the voice of the Spirit heard in the act of .speaking. "We therefore decide .that voice is the true rendering. But this voice is what is heard in the act, breathing; hence, breathing and speaking must be only two different names for the same act, with this distinction, — that breathing is figurative, speaking literal. So far, then, the verse reads as follows : — The Spirit breathes where it sees fit, and you hear its voice; the mean- ing of which is, the Spirit speaks where it sees fit, and you hear its Voice, or what it says, • But are we borne out by facts elsewhere to be col- lected in asserting of the Spirit that it speaks? "Wo certainly are. The Sayior says, "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak." The foregoing conclusion, then, though fully Justified by the verse itself, is thus corroborated by facts. But the Holy Spirit, in an unembodied form, never uttered a monosyllable in a human ear or communicated a thought to a. human being.. Only when in man does 10 110 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. it "speak tor him. As the Word "became incarnate to save, so the Spirit becomes embodied to enlighten. Bui when in man, it then speaks by him to him for him. Bat it has thus spoken only through the prophets and tfpostles. Hence, -what we hear from the Spirit, and all we'hear, is what it has spoken by them. Consequently, in construing the word speak, in the clause the Spirit speaks, we are hot to limit "it to the mere act of speaking, but to construe it largely as embrareing all the prophets and apostles have said, or the entire word of God. Thus, likewise, are we to construe the word hear tn the expres- sion " you hear its voice." Since, then^ the Spirit speaks, what does it speak? The sespoase is, The Truth. Henee it is called "the Spirit of truth." But truth is distributed into truth proper, and facts; and facts again into facts past or history, facts present, and facts future or prophecy. " Hence, trUth proper, and facts past, present, and fulare, as far as they involve the 1 question of human" salvation, consti- tute the grand themes on which the Spirit speaks to man. But it Was not enough' that the Spirit should speak: all ft says must be authenticated. Hence its truths are confirmed by its facts; its facts again by the most" complex yet simple, strange yet natural, compact yet extended, body of testimony known to or to be con- ceived" by the human mind. It is what the Spirit has thus spoken and authenticated . that man hears ; ami what he thus hears that enlightens him ; and what thus enlightens him that "he believes ; and what he believes that melts him into pity, inspires him with hope, or moves him terarttou; as -tire -casv may b e. There is no REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Ill rescinding -this law of nature or modifying this order of things. Next, concerning the clause "but thou canst not teli whence it cpmeth and whither it goeth," which we shall alter but slightly, thus : — but you know not whence it comes and whither it goes f whieh is a literal rendering of the original. This clause has been for ages past, and still is,, the glory and the shame of the blind guide, — at once his subterfuge, his decisive argument, his joy, and his puzzle. Who, when .the mystic doctor has been pressed on his" favorite myth, — spiritual influence, — has not seen him close the argument with a triumphant air, thus ? — "Ah, but thou canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth." Even Mr. Jeter, like "the silent owl on stealthy wing," floats into the gloom of the pas- sage and there disappears. He merely quotes it,, with no attempt to explain it, leaving us in charity to hopa he may know something about ify but with many a suspicion that he knows nothing. The clause occurs, slightly varied, three times, and but three, in the New Testament, — twice in the following extract : — " Jesus answered and said to them, Though I bear recor4 of myself, yet my record is true ; for I know whence I came and whither I go; but ye cannot, tell whence I came and whither I go." It is in the form here last occurring, with a slight variation, that the expression is applied to Nicodemus. The Savior, in the extract, applies it first to himself to express something which he alone knew : — " I know whence I came and whither I go." He then applies- it adversatively to the audience 112 review of campbelijsm examined. to indicate' that what he knew they did not know : — "but ye cannot tell whence I came and whither I go." How, the form of the expression applied to the audience, and that applied to Mcodemus, mean precisely the same thing, with this-difference : — the SaVior applied it to the Jews to express something which they did not know of him, but which they should have known ; to Nicodemus he applied it to express something which he did not know of the Spirit, and which at that time perhaps he could not know. But what was the thing which Nico- demus did not know? We reply, precisely what the clause says he did not know. But what was this? Simply/*' whence it (the Spirit) comes and whither it goes." The whence and the whither, then, of the Spirit was all. But this is not the popular belief. The popular belief is, that the thing which Nieodemus -did not know was, how the Spirit operates in regeneration. But the clause says nothing about how the Spirit operates in regenera- tion ; not even whether it operates at all tfr not ; posi- tively nothing about its exerting any supposed secret influence therein. BTence these are not the things of which the clause says Nicodemus was ignorant. The whence and the whither of the Spirit, and n» more, is what he did not know. But, because Nicodemus did not then know the whence and the whither of the Spirit, does it follow that we are now ignorant of the manner in which the Spirit operates in conversion ? Such conclusion has no dependence on such premise, and hence of course cannot follow from it. The fact that Nicodemus was ignorant of one thing is no reason why we should be supposed REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 113 ignorant of a very different thing. Yet this is the popu- lar mode of reasoning from the clause. That what the clause means may be the better un- derstood, let us somewhat expand the whole passage to which it belongs by supposing the following train of thought to be passing through the mind of the Savior. The Spirit, Nicodemus, speaks to men where it sees they will heed its teachings; and you hear its instructions, which you must receive in order to be enlightened by it ; hut of the Spirit itself in other respects you are igno- rant. You know not whence it comes and whither it goes. I have told you what it does, which you may understand ; but of the Spirit itself you must remain in other respects ignorant until I am glorified. Then it will be "given.; when you will have no difficulty in un- derstanding what it is not. proper I should at present make known to you. The popular -interpretation of this clause is worthy of notice. - It is this : — You, the human family, cannot com- prehend how the Spirit exerts its mysterious influences on the human -heart in regeneration. It is as incom- prehensible to you as the operations of the wind. But all the Savior says' is this: — ""Whence it (the Spirit) comes and whither it goes, you, Mcodemus, know not." How Singularly does the speculation contrast with the truth ! Finally, we come to the concluding clause of the verse: — "so is every one that is born of the Spirit/' And first in regard to the particle rendered "so." The primary and usual meaning of this particle is " in this way." It occurs in the Greek New Testament upwards 10* H 114 REVIEW OF CAMPBEMiISM EXAMINED. of two hundred times, and is generally rendered so, in the sense of in this way. Now, a chief rule in translat- ing is this ! — to render a term invariably by its primary and usual meaning where they agree, unless the sense posi- tively forbids -it. In the present instance, therefore, since the sense does not forbid it, we are compelled to abide by the rule, and hence to render the particle in this way. But in rendering it thus, the clause to which it belongs becomes elliptical, as may be perceived thus-: — In this way is every one that is born of the Spirit The sense is here clearly incomplete, hence we invo- luntarily ask," how? .In order to complete the sense we must supply the' ellipsis. But here we come in contact with another rule, which says, Avoid an ellip- sis where \he sense can be as well expressed without it. Here, then, by the force of one rule, we come in conflict with another; and, as both cannot stand, the question arises, Which must yield ? In all such cases the rule which respects expressing the sense is held to yield to the one which respects determining -the sense, the lat- ter being necessary, the former merely discretionary. Hence we" must abide by the rule which requires us to render the particle in this way, and supply the ellipsis. But in supplying an ellipsis we are not to act arbi- trarily. Indeed, we are no more at liberty to act arbi- trarily in supplying an ellipsis than we are in creating one. The omitted word must be such as occurs to the mind readily, and, when supplied, such as satisfies it by completing the sense in an easy, natural way. In the present instance we supply the ellipsis thus : — In this way is (born) every one that is born of the Spirit REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 115 Instantly the mind seems to accept this as correct. It gives completeness to the sense, and leases us asking no questions. It imparts to us a feeling of satisfaction such only as we feel when the truth flashes full on the mind. We conclude, then, that it is correct. Substituting, then, the word begotten, which is required by the sense, for the word born, the reasons for which we shall assign elsewhere, and the whole verse reads thusr — The Spirit breathes where it sees fit, and you hear its voice, but you know not whence it comes and whither it goes: in this way is (begotten') every one that is begotten by the Spirit. ■ How then is a person begotten by the Spirit ? By hearing what it says or being enlightened by its Truth. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of Truth J' "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- ruptible, by the' word of God." Is not the conclusion overwhelming ? With a few additional remarks we shall dismiss the passage. The clause, "you know not whence it comes and whither it goes," is to be limited to Nicodemus, or rather to the time preceding the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. For, since then, in no sense can 'it be said of Christians that they know not whence the Spirit comes and whither it goes. We possess infor- mation respecting it which Nicodemus did not possess, which enabled the Savior to say of him what cannot be truly said of us. In the outset of the present argument, we assutoed that the verse in hand contains- an explanation of the expression "born of the Spirit,"' In farther confirmation of this, if further confirmation can be thought necessary. 116 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. we once more request attention to the closing expres- sion of the verse. This expression does not contain a reference to the new birth generally, but only to so much of it as consists in being begotten by the Spirit. Hence it does not say, in this way is every one born that is born again; but,- in this way is every one begotten that is begotten by the Spirit. Being begotten by the Spirit, then, is strictly what it explains. It states the mode in which this is done, — to wit, by- tearing or believing what the Spirit says. And how easily and naturally does the whole verse * develop itself into this conclusion! Each step in the investigation rests on the firmest basis; every position is determined by some simple and-obvious rule- in sacred criticism; and the conclusion accords strictly with the other conclusions already arrived at in this chapter from other portions of Holy "Writ. • SECTION XI. Our tenth argument is, that conviction of the sinner, which is peculiarly the work of the Spirit, and which may be considered as but another name for conversion in the view we are now taking of it, can be effected in no way knoum to the human mind except by the Truth. As a partial basis for this argument we cite the follow- ing scriptures: — "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, it is expedient, for you that I go away: for if I go not away the Comforter will not come to you: but if I depart I will send him to you. And when he is, come he will reprove (convince, it should have been)^Ae world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." Again, "If ye REVIEW OF OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 117 love me, keep my commandments. And I will {ff&y. the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever,' even the Spirit of troth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him' not, neither knoweth him." From these scriptures it is clear, first, that to con- vince the world is the peculiar work of the Spirit. From this work, we may add, it has never been absent a moment from the day on which it descended to com- mence it, the day of Pentecost, to the present. Indeed, conviction seems to be as peculiarly the work of the Spirit as expiation was of the Son; nor can we any more conceive of the Spirit as now absent from its work than of the Son as absent when he accomplished his. And further, as the Son, though the author of redemp- tion, effects it through agents and other means appointed by him thereto, — the way which to him seems best, — -so the Spirit; though the author of conviction, effects it, not as many ill-taught and superstitious people suppose, by an immediate contact of Spirit with spirit, but through the Ti*uth, — the way which to it seems best. There are some curious illustrations in the Acts of the Apostles of the fact that conviction is the especial work of the Spirit, and also of that singular sentence, the Spirit breathes where °'t sees fit. "We eite the following : — . " Then the- Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join thy- self to this chariot." Again, "The Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for |he work whereunto I have called fhem." And again, "Now, when they had gone through Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia,, 118 REVIEW OF CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED. after they were come to Mysia they essayed to go into Bithynia : but the Spirit suffered them not" From these extracts it seems evident, — 1st, that, in carrying on the work of conviction, the Spirit wrought, only through the apostle's and other ministers of the Word whom it inspired; 2d, that, if it had not the entire control of their labors in this work, it at least] had ;the ehief control of them; 3d, that tha Spirit breathed, or made known the Truth, not unconditionally every- where, but only where it saw fit to makeJit known, — where, in* other words, it saw that the Truth would be received. But it is clear, second, that the world — i.e. the un- converted part of it, or sinners — cannot receive the Spirit; that is, that the* Spirit cannot enter into sin- ners; for thia.is what is moant by receiving the Spirit: and yet it is clear that their conviction is to be effected by the Spirit. Since, then, the Spirit itself cannot enter into the unconverted, it must, in effecting their Convic- tion, — which is a work in the inner man, — effect i| "by something which does enter within them. And what, we ask, can this be but the Truth ? But what is conviction ? A firm persuasion that some- thing said or conceived of. is true. And this would make convietion.jn nothing distinguishable from belief. Nor can this be thought incorrect ifr we only bear in mind that the Apostle Paul, in defining belief in regard to the ,past or the unseen, ^defines it to be conviction, though un- fortunately conviction is not the word we have in the common version.. Indeed, when we say we 'firmly be- lieve a thing te be true,--say that Christ arose from the REVIEW OF CAMPBELUSM EXAMINED. 119 dead,^and we are convinced that it is true, jt is impos- sible to distinguish, in respect to. meaning, between the two forms of speech, or to show that they describe two different mental states. We conclude* then, that our view of con^ction is- correct. ^ • Now, in order to produce conviction, two things, and only* two, are necessary,' so far as the mere object and means of conviction are concerned^ — to wit : the thing of which we are to be -convinced, which must be ex- pressed intelligibly) or be conceived of, in the form of a proposition; and evidence in amount and kii|d sufficient to sustain it; These two things being present, and attended to on our part, •conviction, unless deliberately resisted, follows by an immutable law of the human mind. Let, for example, t"he thing of which we are to be convinced be, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. For this truth, whether in the form of a proposition or merely in conception, we are absolutely indebted to- the Spirit. For/however it may have been suggested by the Savior and confessed by the apostles, long since would it have perished from the memory of the world, but for the record of it which we, owe to the Spirit. How true it is that none can say that Jesus is ' the Christ but by the Spirit ! ■ But men could no more have believed^ this truth without the evidence on which it rests than have invented both the truth itself and its- evidence: Forj although within itself an absolute truth, still, to us it is a truth only as" if Is proved to be sjicTT. For this evidence again we are indebted solely to the. Spirit. Here, now, the Spjaat has furnished us not only tfee-thftjg «f whieh -we -are t» feft-COTsanoBd, but the evi- 120 KEV1EW OF CAMPBELIiISM EXAMINED. derrce in quantity and in kind on which it rests. Now, on our part, this thing and this evidence must be volun- tarily attended to ; and, if S07 conviction will as inevi- tably follow, unless deliberately resisted, as pain follows vice, vior, the Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, — that gentle bird of spring whose melancholy note and quiet man- ners made it a fit emblem of the Spirit when descend- ing upon the Prince of peace. But the apostles were now to go forth on a fiery mission, were now to engage in a fierce conflict, in which the tongue was to be the great offensive instrument, and the Truth the power. It was in fine taste, therefore, at the outset, to signify all this in tongues of flame. The hundred and twenty were all filled with the Spirit, and began to speak in different tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. This being noised abroad, 11 122 REVIEW OP OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. the people ran together and were greatly perplexed. Some ventured solutions, others wondered, others mocked. At this juncture the Apostle Peter arose and. com- menced his speech, speaking as the Spirit moved 3tjim. Into the merits of this speech we enter not. Suffice it to say, it is remarkable for its simplicity, the bold individuality of its parts, the brevity and per- $jiency .of its proofs, its regularity and grand conclu- sion. 3Jhe apostle closes thus: — "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made Jihat same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ." The effect is thus described: — "Now, when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" Let us now note the parties present, together with their relative positions. First, then, the audience was present, and giving attention. Will Mr. Jeter inform us why ? He maintains that God, by a " gracious, inward, efficacious influence of his Spirit," secures the attention of the sinner. Will he point us either to the passage or the fact, in the present case, which teaches it ? Cer- tainly not. The report had brought the people toge- ther, and what they heard and saw secured their atten- tion. This explains the matter. But the Spirit was also present : and where ? In the audience ? Certainly not ; for the world' cannot receive it. It wa.s present in the apostles, and through them speak- ing into the hearts of the people, and thus touching them into, life. Hence, when the people heard, they REVIEW OS CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 12S were pierced to the hearty or convinced. To what, now, is this conviction attributable ? To what the audience heard simply? or to what they heard and to an "in- fluence distinct from and above the Truth" ? The latter is Mr. Jeter's position ; the former, ours. The case may be stated thus : — We have art effect* — conviction — to account for: and how shall We do it? Shall we ascribe it to the one cause, the Truth, known to be present and acting, and which, therefore, need not be proved ? or shall we ascribe it to the Truth, and to another cause, whose very existence as a cause is not known, and whose presence it is hence impossible to prove? Surely none can doubt. When they heard this they were pierced to the heart: Now, what, we -ask, in reason's name, pierced them, save the Truth which they heard ? But Mr. Jeter thinks we should adopt a different con- clusion. "We-- dissent from his opinion. "We have not been fashioned after that easy model according to which blind credulity takes the place of sense, and supersti- tion the place of faith*. We believe the effect was due to, the one known cause, the Truth, which God put in requisition to produce it, and all beyond we gladly leave to that pliant credulity which can believe with- out evidence, and to that enviable penetration which can detect the presence of a cause where no cause exists. 124 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. section xm. Our twelfth argument is, that the conversion of the eunuch justifies belief in no other influence as the cause of'hisconversion'exceptthe Truth which he- heard. It is important to observe, that a case of conversion may be examined for two ; distinct objects, each of whjch hag its own separate value in argument. ■ 1st. We may examine a case for the purpose of ascer- taining to what degree of minuteness it corresponds with a conclusion assumed to be already established. In this case the effect is merely corroborative j though even corroboration may be of a nature to be decisive. If the correspondence is exact and minute, the conclu- sion may become irresistible j it being taken for granted that -no exact and very minute correspondence could exist between a false conclusion and a case of facts which must involve the very reverse of that conclusion* •2d. We may examine a case, observing and collecting its facts, for the sake of tracing them to such conclu- sion as they lead to. In this case, if the conclusion • arrived at, and the conclusion assumed to be already established, are the. same, the presumption is that .the conclusion assumed to be already established is true. The conclusion which we shall now assume to be established is that in conversion the Spirit operates through the Truth only. Now, what aid, whether we have one or the other of the preceding objects in view, does the case in hand lend to this conclusion? We shall see. REVIEW Of CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 125 The eunuch, on his way to Ethiopia, was reading the book o£ Isaiah. This the Spirit inspired the prophet to write; hence it is true. But Philip was passing, to whom the Spirit, which was in him, said, "Go near and join yourself to this chariot." He went, and, on approaching it, said to the eunuch, "Do you understand what you read?" "How can I," was the reply, "ex- cept some one should guide me?" Philip was invited to a seat in the chariot, and, on taking it, began at. the same scripture and preached to the eunuch, Jesus. The Spirit, then, was present but in Philip, and not in the eunuch; for the world cannot receive it: it hadt spoken but to Philip, and not to the eunuch. Now, however, it was speaking to the eunuch, but speaking only through Philip ; and so it continued till conviction was effected. All, then, that was said to the eunuch, the Spirit said, but said it through Philip ; all that the eunuch learned, he learned from the Spirit, but learned it through Philip; and all that the eunuch felt, the Spirit caused him to feel, but by what it said. And this is a case of conversion. First, then, to what conclusion does it lead? Clearly to the following^ — 1. That the Spirit operated on the eunuch. 2. That it operated through the Truth. 3. That it operated in no other way; since no other way is either named or hinted at. Second— but on inspection the ease will be found to correspond exactly with the conclusions heretofore arrived at in this chapter. Hence we conclude that the proposition which rests jointly on the present case and those conclusions must be true, 126 REVIEW OF OATMPBELLISM EXAMINED. But where is the evidence that the Spirit exerted on the eunlich an "influence distinct from and above the Truth" ? In what fact; hint, or circumstance, in the case itself, shall we look for it? That evidence does not exist. The persuasion that it does is" a distempered dream. SECTION XIV. ' Our thirteenth argument is, that the Apostle Paul repre* sents himself as Turning begottmvrvonverted~tht CoTifcthtOM by the gospel; and that, since the gospel in its ordinary ac- ceptation does not include an influence disfmct from and above itself, therefore the gospel is the sole influenOs of con- version. The ground on which ihiB argument rests is the following : — " Though you nave ten thousand-instructors in Christ, yet have you not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." In examining different cases of conversion, since con- version is in all cases the same, the trait with which we should expect to be most struck would b» their sub- stantial agreement amidst different circumstances. Ac- cordingly, it is curious to note that in every case of con- versien, no matter what the surrounding circumstances may have been, the first thing done was the presenta- tion of the Truth ; that this was presented by the Spirit through some inspired teacher and confirmed; that this Truth is then represented as being heard, believed, received, or rejected; and that then conversion ensued or not, just as the Truth was received or rejected. But in no case have we the slightest evidence — not even a REVIEW OP CAMPBELLIBM EXAMINED. 127 hint — that the Spirit was ever art work in any other"way or by any other means. Is it not -strange that the truth, if truth it is, should never have flashed out in a single case? The circumstance is more than suspicious. Now, what the word spoken was to the people then converted, the word written is to us of the present age. As it was then the sole influence of conversion, circum- stances providential and incidental excepted, so is it now. As 'the Spirit was then the author of what was said, and" of the evidence thereof^ amfhence x>f the rifltePt produced, so is it now the author of what is written, and of the evidence thereof, and hence of the effect which it produces.-* As the "Spirit was then present where it spoke; «o is- it now present where • it .hem written; and as what it then saidrwas <[uiek and power^ ftd,— in a word, spirit and life, — so now what it has written has without abatement the same subtle energy. And as then he "who resisted the Truth resisted the Spirit, so is itoiow; but where is -the evidence — in reason we ask where*— that any soul either then or now has ever resisted tSte' Spirit by resisting an "influence dis- tinct from and Above the 'Truth" ? Let us suppose the gospel to be the sole, the unaided cause of conversion, — i.e. unaided by any influence above itself; and that it was the intention of an apostle, in speaking of" a case of conversion which he had been chiefly instrumental in effecting, to represent this fact : in what language, if he were not speaking literally, would he speak? Would it not be in language like this? — Though you have many instructors in Christ, and may claim to have been quickened or converted 128 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. by many influences, yet have you not many fathers, nor have you been- converted by many influences; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. The gospel then, or the Truth, we again conclude, is the influence of ' conversion. SECTION XV. Our fourteenth and last argument is, that the only known or determinate cause of Lydia's conversion was the Truth which sherheard} and that this is hence the real cause of eonversio'n. The case may be resolved into the question, Mow did the Lord open Lydia's heart ? This question answered, all else is simple. ISTow, as a physical opening is not contended foi, this subject may be dismissed at once* And as to open the mind means to enlighten,., so- to open the heart, where it means 'any thing* more, means to in- fluence to act. More than this the phrase, which is certainly metaphorical, cannot without violence be made to mean. Hence the phrase, "whose Heart the Lord opened that she attended to the things spoken of Paul," resolves itself into the more' literal and more simple expression, — whom the Lord influenced to attend to what Paul said. This is clearly the meaning of the phrase; at least, more than this its terms will not safely import. New, the 'question is, by what means did the Lord influence Lydia to- attend or to obey? That he did it is certain; and equally as eertain is it that he influenced the Corinthians to obey, and the eunuch to obey; but the question is, by what means? Mr. Jeter BEVIBW OF CAMPBEMJ3M EXAMINED. 129 thinks he influenced Lydia to ebey by a "gracious, inward, efficacious influence of his Spirit." Doubtless the influence, whatever it was, was a very gracious one, for we can conceive of no other; quite inward, too, since it affected the woman's heart; very .efficacious, also, since it induced her to obey; and very certain that it was of the Spirit, but very •uncertain whether it differed from the Truth, or was any thing more than the Truth. - But on what ground does Mr. Jeter suppose the influ- ence to have been a special one? for this is clearly the force of his language. Is it because God is limited to a special influence ? If he so-affirm, then we leave him to his whim' ; and yet other ground he cannot name. Now, it. is clear, — 1st, that the Spirit was present speaking te Lydi% — speaking through the apostle ; 2d, that she heard what it said; 3d, that there is an im- mense motive-power in the Truth; 4th, but not one particle of evidence that the Spirit was operating on Lydia in some other way than through ,the Truth,, or exerting more power than is in the Truth- To what conclusion, then, are we forced? To the conclusion simply thai the Lor4 influenced, her to obey by the. light and motives of the gospel. The expression " whose heart the Lord opened" can safely mean no more than this : — that the wprk was of the Lord. Certainly it does not assert the exertion of- a special influence, neither does it necessarily imply it ; hence, there is no ground on which to infer it. It merely asserts a fact, leaving the mode of its occurrence wholly unexplained; and, in all such cases, it is cer- 130, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. tainly better t» ascribe the faet to the causes known to be present and" acting, than to such as are purely ima- ginary. Here, now, we close the defence of our proposition, and, from all the factsy premises-, and reasonings there- on, now before us, feel it to be overwhelmingly esta>. blished, that in conversion the Spirit operates through the Truth only. If this«teonelusion is not true, then there is neither meaning in fact> nor force in argument. In harmony with the consciousness, the volitions, and the instincts of the human heart, asserted and implied in the clearest language of Holy Writ, corroborated by the simplest and' most transparent reasonings, can it yet be false? It is at variance with "no incident in the life of the Savior, with none in the history of the apostles. In order to establish it the capacity of «io word has been overtaxed, no clause -forced to bear a seluctant testi- mony, no sentence unnaturally construed, nor any verse - interpreted otherwise than- in harmony with the long- established and simplest laws' of human speech. "We therefore commit it to the world, in the profound belief that all who will sincerely and thoroughly examine the grounds on Which it rests will pronounce it true, cer- tainly true. * REVIEW OF CAJfPBELJJSM EXAMINED. 131 GHAPTEK IV. OBJECTIONS OF MR. JETER TO OSE PRECEDING DOCTRINE CONSIDJ 1ED. ,s SECTION I. We now proceed to consider the objections to the doc^ trine of the preceding chapter. But before doing thip we think it important to have the precise point stated against which these objections are urged.,. The question of difference between Mr. Jeter and us is strictly a -question of fact, but a question involving two. facts. We both agree that in conversion the Spirit operates: what, then, is the difference between, us? It is the difference between accomplishing a given result by one influence of an agent acting uniformly in one way, and by two influences of the same •agent, acting, one uni- formly in one way, the other indifferently in two ways. We maintain that conversion is effected uniformly in one way,-*-namely, through the Truth. Tp this, limitation Mr. Jeter objects, and maintains that in conversion the Spirit operates not only through, the Truth, but without it ; and not only by all the power in the Truth, but also by another influence distinct from and above it. When, then, he objects to our doctrine, it is evident that he objects, not to what we do teach, but, in reality to what we do not teach. For, so far as we do teach,- he agrees wjtb us ; but he objects- tp eur teaching onlyse far. I» other 132 REVIEW OP CAMPBEil^SM EXAMINED. words, when we deny that the SjSirit operates in ■ con- version except through the Truth, or exerts therein any influence above the Truth, he affirms that we deny falsely. When, then, he urges objections against our teaching, we shall expect him to urge them against the single point now named, — to v, t : our limitation. We shall expect him to show that Chis limitation is wrong, — not directly, certainly, but indirectly, — by showing that the Spirit does, „at least in some cases, operate in conversion without the Truth; and that in all- cases it exerts an in- fluence distinct from and above it. With these prelimi- naries we shall now introduce Mr. Jeter's first objection, which he thus states :— Objection 1. "Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion over- looks, or at least underestimates, the inveteracy of human depravity." , „ It does not, then, it seems, overlook depravity, but only the inveteracy of it. It admits the existence of the thing, but denies that it exists in so intense a form as that for which Mr. Jeter contends. This is precisely the difference between him and us. He»contends not merely that depravity exists, but that it exists in such a form or to such a degree that the sinner cannot be converted simply by the Truth ; but that the Spirit must add to this — or exert without it — an influence distinct from and above it, and acting with immeasurably greater vital force. Now, as not depravity, but this peculiar degree of it, is at the very bottom of Mr. Jeter's whole system of .spiritual influence, and, as we conceive- the sole argu- REVIEW OF CAMPBESEISM EXAMINED. 133 me.nt which lie can urge in its defence, he should have been at great pains to establish it, if possible, even be- yond a cavil. But, instead of this, he attempts to esta- blish the existence of depravity simply,— -a. thing which is not in dispute. • For the question between him and us is not whether depravity exists, but whether it exists to the degree contended fbr by him. The very thing which we utterly deny is, that any degree or form of depravity exists in the human heart which renders the sinner in- capable of conversion by the Truth. Why, now, did he not attempt to establish this intense form or peculiar degree of depravity? To such a task he knew himself unequal. But a difficulty of this nature never strands Mr. Jeteit. "What he felt a conscious inability to prove, he felt a conscious ability to assume ; and, accordingly, having assumed the existence of aform or degree of de- pravity which has no existence, he bases on this as- sumption an objection to Mr. Campbell's, theory of con- version. What, now, does this objection amount to ? Simply to this:-irthat Mr. Campbell's theory overlooks Mr. Jeter's, assumption, — a small matter, truly! It is not for Mr. Campbell to offset one assumption by an- other, but to. abide by the Truth, and offset every as- sumption by a simple denial of its truth, until its truth is proved. There- are -two forms of depravity in the existence of which we do not believe : — one, a form which makes it necessary to regenerate infants in order to their salva- tion ; the other, a form which renders an influence dis- tinct from and above the Truth necessary to conversion. And, should it be said that depravity exists in these two 12 134 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. forme only, then we are prepared to deny the existence of the whole- thing. We agree to the mournful truth that man is depraved, i.e. that his reason has been greatly clouded by the fall^ that his tastes and feelings have-J>een perverted, and that he no longer reflect* the image — the moral image — of his great Original as he once reflected It; that he now reflects it only as a broken mirror reflects the image, of the face before it: The three respects in which man has chiefly suffered by the fall, we conceive td be his subjection to mortality, his loss of the moral imago of a kind Creator, and his greater exposecmess to temp- tation and sin. In some of these respects, certainly", his misfortunes may be, in great part, even? in this Hfe, re- paired by the Bemedial System; but the consummation will not' be until he is qui6kened from the dead. But, as to-,infants, we believe that all they lost in Adam, even every whit, they -gain in Christ without one vestige of influence from the Spirit, save quickening them from the grave. Neither in reason nor" in revelatifln is there one trace of evidence that an infant was ever yet, from conception up, the subject of one ray of spirituar influ- ence. The whole conception is a pure delusion, , We agree, further, that all (infants included) are so frail or weak that, after a 'certain period of life, they not only sin, but that they are even inclined 'to sin. But this inclination we believe to be owing, at first at least, rather to*the force of temptation, and the feeble- ness of the resistance offered by an immature resisting will and" untaught" judgment, than to any thing in the form of an innate, inherited depravity so inveterate REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISJH EXAMINED. 135 that resistance becomes nearly, if not quite, .impossible. True, -we all inherit that frail nature which Tenders us so extremely susceptible of temptation. Nay, we will even grant that we inherit it in an aggravated form, which is the only form in which we do inherit it. "But we inherit no form of depravity so inveterate, as to affect the perfect freedom of the will, close the heart against the Truth, or render man insusceptible of being moved by motives; in a word, no form which renders him incapable of -being converted by the simple, un- aided light and force of divine Truth. But this frailty or weakness is not sin: it is only a condition without which there had been no sin. 'Ncm is it a consequence of Adam's sin. Adam possessed it before he sinned, else he bad not sinned; hence, it is not a consequence ef his sin. It is, however, a condition of sin, since" without it Adam could not have sinned ; but it is onjy a condition. Nor, perhaps, will facts war- rant the conclusion that. this frailty is, even in our case, greatly increased. For greater weakness in sinning was never displaced than by Adam. He yielded to the first temptation ever presented to him, without, so far as we know, offering even the slightest resistance. No one of his descendants ever did more. But what has Mr. Jeter to urge in defence of this inveterate form of deprajjnty f The following extract contains his plea : — "•The Spirit of inspiration has drawn the picture of man's moral corruption in gloomy colors. He is utterly iepraved, — fleshly, sensual, and impure. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh :' John iii. 6. He ii without 136 REVIEW OF CAMPBEMJSM EXAMINED. spiritual life, without holiness, without moral worth, — ' dead in trespasses and sins :' Bph. ii. 1. He is alien- ated from God, and opposed to his law, and, conse-. quently, to truth ' and righteousness. ' Because the carnal mind is enmity against God : for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be :' Bom. viii. T. This depravity pervades and controls the whole man, — blinding the mind, perverting the affections, stupefying the conscience,' making rebellious and obstinate the will, and prostituting the members of the body as the instru- ments of sin. And . this moral corruption of human nature is universal. Tor all have sinned and come short of the glory of God :' - Eom. iii. 23." There is here an obvious effort to overstrain, the truth, which within itself is bad enough without any heightening. But all this overcolormg, which is no- thing else than a species of falsehood, is designed merely to create the impression that there is a necessity for some very peculiar spiritual influence in conversion. But it- is proper to descend to particulars. 1st. " He [man] is utterly depraved,-»-fleshly, sensual, and impure. ' That which is born of the flesh is flesh :' John iii. 6." Now, we freely grant that that which is born of the flesh is flesh ; but that flesh and utter depravity mean the same thing, or represent the same idea, is something we do not believe. To assume that they do is to as- sume the very* question In dispute. That question is not whether that which is born of the flesh is flesh, nor even whether it 'is fleshly ; but whether flesh means utter depravity, or implies a degree of it so inveterate REVIEW OF CAMPBELfcISM EXAMINED. 137 that the sinner cannot be converted without a " super- natural agency." We repeat, there is no question be- tween Mr. Jeter and us but a question of degree. He asserts not merely that man is depraved, but that he is Utterly depraved. "We deny that "the term utterly is ap- plicable : he affirms it. How, now, does he undertake to make his affirmation good? By assuming, in the first place, that the Word flesh means fleshly; .and, in the second, that to be fleshly is to be "utterly depraved. But we deny the truth of his assumption in the first place and in the second. The passage does not say, that which is born of the flesh is fleshly, neither is this its meaning, but, that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Neither does the word " flesh" imply utter depravity. ' 2d. " He [man] is without spiritual life, without holi- ness, without moral worth,— 'dead in trespasses and sins :' Eph. ii. 1." Now, We admit that man, unregenerate, is Without spiritual life, without holiness, but not quite that he is without moral worth ; or, rather, we .admit that man is unregenerate. But this is not the question at issue, neither does it imply it. Is a man who is admitted to be without spiritual life to be therefore deemed utterly- depraved f This is the question. If to be destitute of spiritual life were a consequence of utter depravity, or necessarily implied it, then of course the existence of that would prove the reality of this. But, before such destitution can be so used, it must be shown to be sueh a consequence or to carry such necessary implication. But this is what Mr. Jeter has not attempted. The absence of one thing can never be URed to prove the 12* IS8 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMIMEO. presence of another, unless the one cannot b» absent without the other being present. Hence, the absence of spiritual life can never be used to prove the presence of utter depravity, unless that could not be absent without this being present. Nor would it be sufficient^ to establish Mr. Jeter's conclusion, to show that the ab- sence of spiritual life implies the presence of depravity. It must be shown that it implies utfer depravity, -or a form of it so inveterate that conversion is impossible without a "supernatural agency." For, as before re- marked, we admit that the sinner is depraved, but still deny that any power besides the Truth is neces- sary to his conversion. The expression "dead in trespasses and sins," with which Mr. Jeter terminates the preceding extract, and upon which he rests its truth, proves nothing in his favor, if an absolute death were meant, then perhaps it might ; but such is not the case. A man absolutely dead is as incapable of sinning as he is of being righteous, whether the death, be that of the body or that of the spirit. Yet the persons alluded to "were dead in sins, — that is, the sins which they were actually committitig every day. Indeed, the very power to sin involves a virtual re- futation of one of Mr. Jeter's chief, objections to our theory of conversion,— to wit, the impotency of motives on, the sinner's will. The power to sin is not the m§re physical power to sin, but the moral power. It is the power to sin or not just as we choose. He who cannot choose between sinning and aot sinning" cannot sin. And the -power to choose implies the> power to choose REVIEW OF CAMPBEHI8M EXAMINED. 139 for reasons, and this, of course, that he who chooses* is susceptible of being determined* by motives. This is all we' contend for; bnt, in contending- for this, it must be apparent that we contend not merely that the sinner can be determined by motives in some cases, but that he can be in all cases, and hence, of course, in that of conversion. In the expression "dead in trespasses and sins," the word dead is evidently employed not in an absolute, but in a relative, sense. A sinner, though dead in sins, is not absolutely dead, but only* 'dead to righteousness: just as a righteous man, though dead in a sense, is not absolutely dead, but only dead to sin. And as the righteous man, though dead to sin, is not so far- dead that he cannot be induced, by the force of temptation, to sin again, so the sinner, though dead to righteous- ness, is not so far dead that he cannot be induced, by the force of truth and motives, to mend his life : only there is this difference, — that, being more strongly in- clined to sin than to righteousness, we -need to be acted upon by more powerful motives in the one case than in the other. What now of utter depravity is deducible from the expression "dead in trespasses and sins"? Clearly none. 3d. "He [man] is alienated from God, and opposed to his law, and, consequently, to truth and righteousness? ' Because the carnal mind is enmity against God : for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be :' Bom. viii. 7." The. carital mind — or, emphatically, the mind of the flesh, wMch is here said to be enmity to God — is something 140 REVIEW O-F CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. which, in this life, is never subject to the will of God ; indeed, it cannot be. No power can tame it. Hence it is as lawless in the saint as in the sinner. There is this difference : — the saint, by the Spirit, holds it in check; but the sinner is governed by it. Both can control it if they will, at least to a great extent; but- neither can subdue it completely. The determination to control it, the effort to do so, and the partial success, make the difference between the Christian and the sinner. But, Mr. Jeter will say, does not'this prove that there is a work to be done irf man which cannot be accom- plished by the Truth ? Certainly not. Indeed, it proves nothing about a work to be done in man, but rather that there is a work which cannot be done in him. It rather proves that there is a principle in him which cannot be subdued at all, cannot be subjected 1>o the law of God, either by the Truth or by an influence distinct from and above it. It still leaves the question of his conversion by the Truth intact ; for, wen aftes his conversion, this prineiple remains the same, except that it is kept in abeyance. Having thus complimented Mr. Jeter's first objection far beyond what any person except himself will think it merits, we shall here dismiss it. SECTION II. , Objection 2. "It [Mr. Campbell's theory of conversion] is oblivious of the chief difficulty 'in conversion." » Now, all must admit that the chief difficulty in con- version is a serious one, and -that any theory which EEVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 141 ovgrlooks it must be extremely defective. But in what consists this chief difficulty? We shall let the follow- ing language of Mr. Jeter explain : — "Mr. Campbell maintains that 'the arguments which are written in the New Testament' must be 'tinder- stood,' in order to exert -their influence on the human mind. (Christianity [Restored, p. 350.) To understand these arguments requires attention, candor, and spiritual discernment. Men attend readily to what, they delight in, and believe easily what is congenial with their tastes; but the 'natural man,' the unrenewed, sinful man, has a deep-rooted aversion to divine Truth. This aversion is an element and a proof of his depravity.. He may hear or read the arguments contained in the Scriptures, through curiosity, politeness, or a captious spirit; but to expect of him 'a candid, serious, docile, and obedient attention to them is to expect to gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles.'.' The " chief difficulty," then, it seems, in conversion, is to understand the " arguments" .of the New Testament; and of this "chief difficulty" Mr. Campbell's theory is "oblivious:" at least such is the case if we are to credit the romancing of Mr. Jeter. « Now, three things, and only three, say all sensible and sober-minded men, (and the Bible says not to the con- trary,) are necessary to understand an argument: — 1st, that it shall be within itself intelligible ; 2d, that we possess the ability to. understand it; 3d, that we give it the requisite attention. Mr. Jeter does not pretend that the arguments of the New Testament are not intelligible, nor that we have not the ability to understand them. 142 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Wh'JI, then, lack we yet? "Attention, candor, and spi- ritual discernment," it would seem. First, then, it re- quires attention. Granted. Second, it requires candor; if- ' ! p This is not true. If an argument be intelligible within itself, and a man possess the ability to understand ii, and give it the requisite attention, understand it he will though he- possess not one partiellPof candor. 'Without candor he may not acknowledge that he understands ifrj or, acknowledging it, he may not yield to it : but these are different matters altogether. Third, it requires "spiritual discernment." It requires common sense, and a nothing more. "What Mr. Jeter means by " spiritual dis- cernment", he has..not informed usj and, as we cannot conjecture, we shall pass the matter without further notice. « But how shall we secure the sinner's attention? For clearly, according to Mr. J«ter, this is the chief difficulty in the way of his understanding the Truth; and, indeed, ♦ according to our "scheme," if we are to believe him, it would seem insuperable. In the first place, we shall frankly grant that our "scheme" makes no provision to secure the attention of many of theTiuman family. "We mention the following classes : — -1. Such as wiU not come to Christ tha.t they might have life. 2. Such as hate the* light and will flat come to it. 3. Such as -reject the coun- sel of God againstllshemselves. 4. Such as judge them- selves "unworthy of eternal life. • 5. Such as close their ears and shut their eyes, lest they should see and hear and be converted. 6. Such as will not attend without a supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit. For securing the attention. of these classes, we are free to confess*, our EEVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 1,43 "scheme" makes little provision; and we shall only'add, the gospel makes none. No, gentle reader; it is Mr Jeer's "scheme?' that makes provision for securing th« attention and achieving the salvation of all these classes ! Has it not boundless ■claims on your charity? But we have not yet answered the question, How shall we secure the sinner's attention ? We reply, Precisely as did Christ and his apostles : — by presenting to his mind, as supremely worthy of his attention, immortality iind eternal life; and by showing him that" these lie com- pletely within'.his reach on condition that he. submit to the Savior. If neither these nor the terrors of the Lord move him, the wrath of God rests on him, and he is lost. Neither reason nor revelation sanctions any other mode of securing the sinner's attention. SECTION III. Objection 3. "Suppose this great difficulty obviated, ■flie sinner's attention arrested, and Truth brought clearly ' before his mind : would knowledge of divine lfruth x without ihcipecial influence ofthelSpirit, secure Ms conversion?" To which, of course, the answer is, it would not. Now, we reply, if divine Truth, when known or understoocL. effects not the Conversion of the super, then hitf con- version is -provided»for by no system' of religion which is divine. At least, if the Christian religion has made such provision, the fact has never been discovered. Against this position, so strong because so true, no argu- ment worthy of the name has ever yet been made. True, a thousand feeble sallies, such as those we Are now 144 REVIEW OF CAMPBEIXISM EXAMINED. considering, have been made against it; but as yet it has sustained no injury. It has its confirmation in the whole history of God's dealings with the human -family, and finds its sanction in the silent sense of the human soul. But, after propounding the preceding objection in the form of an inquiry r Mr. Jeter adds, "If ignorance is the only, evil with which the gospel has to contend, then, obviously, the illumination of the mind is all that is necessary for its removal. .. But ignorance, though it may be in itself, criminal, is rather the effect than the cause of man's depravity.. There is a corrupt disposi- tion which blinds the understanding. 'This is the con- demnation, that light is. come inio the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil :' John iii. 19. The love of darkness- — which signifies ignorance or error. — is the very root of man's depravity. This love iAplies an aversion to light, truth, and holiness, and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance of divine things in the world." . * The love of ignorance, then, is the very root of man's depravity, — a love which implies aversion to light, truth, and holiness, and is the cause of the prevalent ignorance of divine things in the wosld. These are certainly fear- ful results. " But are they results of majate depravity? We shall concede ! for the present that they are, and of that inveterate form of it for which Mr. Jeter contends. Now, is man the author of this form of depravity? The present generation at least is not, since it is inherited. Has he the power to modify its intensity or control it as a cause? Of course he has not. Is. he, then, responsible KEVIEW Or OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 145 for*"his lofe of darkness, his aversion to light, tru^h, and holiness^ and his ignorance of. divine things ? It is impossible. Indeed, concede the existence of this form of .depravity, and these results become harmless as the sigh of the wind. And this is a legitimate -result from Mr: Jeter's position. Deny it as he will, or explain it as he may, stillit follows. Kor, indeed, is this all. The real conclusion from his position is, that; man is the mere creature of -necessity, with no more power to avoid being what he is, or doing what he does, than a stone at rest has to put itself in motion. "We advocate no " scheme" of conversion certainly which provides a remedy for a case like this, alike disgraceful to the Author of man and destructive of human accountability. But will Mr. Jeter say that these, though results of depravity, are still to be regarded as sins ? If so, then they happened by the sanction of the human will. Man might have prevented them, but did not, — not because he could not, but because he would not. All the diffi- culty- this view of the case presents, we accept, and for it (in^the view we take of conversion) make as complete provision as can be made. •We admit certainly that, in the presentation of the Truth, other and serious obstacles -besides ignorance have to be encountered. Nay, more: we admit thgt many have to be encountered of a nature so serious that the view we take of conversion makes no provision what- ever to overcome them, and that hence many of? the human family will be lost. Does Mr. Jeter's " scheme" make provision to overcome them all? There is something ex- ceedingly perverse in his mode of treating our view of 13 K 146 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Conversion. He treats it as if faulty because it makes •not provision to overcome every conceivable obstacle in the way of conversion ; and yet be presents a no more feasible plan. Does tbe Christian religion, we ask, con- template the removal .of all obstacles to conversion, and hence the conversion of all? * » ,» But we do maintain that every removable obstasfle in the way of conversion not only may be made to, yield, but that it actually does yield, when it yields at all, t© £he Truth, and to the Truth 'alone. The inherent,, bril- liant light of the Truth, its searching heat and power, no obstacle can withstand, save the voluntary and deliberate resistance of man. And against this resist- ance no provision, can be made. SECTION rv. Objection, 4. "Th^iheory tmder discussion is- contradicted by numerous well-authenticated facts." In>proof of which Mr. Jeter presents first this "fact:" — "If all the converting power of the Spirit iB in the arguments addressed by him in words to the" mind, them it follows that, every minister of the word must be suc- cessful in converting souls to Christ in projwrtioa ijO the distinctness with, which he presents the arguments of the- Spirit to the minds of Ms hearers. The same measure of power must, under similar circumstances, produce sjmilar results. But does this conclusion agree with the experience- and observation of Christian minis- ters?", , V- "We reply, if the power be uniform, and the circum- REVIEW "OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 147 stances precisely similar, then the results will be so too. Now, we«naintain that ths converting power is in the Truth, and, hence, that the power is uniform. But are the circumstances'^recjsejy similar? Mr. Jeter knew that they are not, and yet he has -the front to gut the case as against us. • But are the circumstances so far similar as to justify the expectation of even n^arly-similarj-esults? They are not. But, on the contrary, they are so very dissimilar as to justify t"he expectation of the most dis- similar results. This is the conclusion which agrees with the experience and observation of Christian ministers. ... • Audiences vary in ways whioh are almost infinite; each one of which will serve to prevent a uniform result from preaching. No two can be found commanding precisely the same amount of intellect; and then in point of cultivation they differ m»st widely. These two cir- cumstances of themselves are enough to account for the most dissimilar results. But, in addition to these, prejudices innumerable, and as various as numerous, have *to be encountered. The resistance met with by the Truth from all these sources is such as to cause us rather to wonder that the results are so nearly uniform as they are than to expect them to be completely so. But, in farther proof of his objection, Mr. Jeter pre- sents, second^ this "fact:" — "But I need not appeal in this argument to questionable evidence. Christ was an unrivalled preacher of the gospel. Mark i. 1 : ' Never man spake as he did.' .... But what was the result of his ^ministry? It was unsuccessful: — not wholly so; — but it produced no such results as from his pre-eminent qualifi- 148 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. cations might have been expected; no great mQral revo- lution, and no extensive revival of true religion." Christ's ministry, then, was unsuccessful; only it was not wholly so. Be it so, then. But was it unsuccessful because of any want of power in the Truth? If so, Mr. Jeter has not shown it. !No. It was unsuccessful, as far as it was so at all, because of the deliberate resistance offered to the Truth by the Jews. This is the reason why it was unsuccessful. Upon, various occasions and in different language did the Savior account for his lack of success. Kow, to what causes did he ..attribute it? Among others, we mention the following : — m 1. " This people's heart is waxe.d gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, arid should be converted, and I should heal them." 2. "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have •believed me: for he wrote of .me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?." 3., "'How can yo believe, who receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from-God only?" ^ 4. "Ye will not come to me that ye might have lift." But, among all the causes assigned by th« Savior, did he ever once mention a want of power, in the Truth? Whether then is it safer to ascribe his want of success to the causes which he himself mentions, or to such as he never even once alludes to ? But how does Mr. Jeter account for the Savior's want REVIEW OF CAMFBELLISM "EXAMINED. ll@f of success? "The converting power of the Spirit," is his- own language,* "was not present, -^was withheld in wisdom and righteous Judgment." "We blush for the pen that drew this libel upon the divine character. In charity let us hdpe its author penned it ia haste, under the in- fluence of some dreadful pressure, -without stopping to reflept om his deed. The converting power of the Spirit was withheld, hence conversion was impossible; and yet the Savior said to the multitude, "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life," when he perfectly knew that they came not, not because they would not, bul because tney could not! The converting power of the Spirit was withheld, hence cbnversion could no* be;, antf yet«the unconverted were, by the high decree of heaven, doomed to- perdition fbr refiising to be' what they could not be I What is this but ip tender to man a religion which he cannot accept, and then to damn him for re- jecting it? And all this is coolly charged to the account of "wisdom and righteous judgment" ! ,■*»•.. * " SECTION Y,* Objection 5.- "Mr. Campbell's* theory of the Spirifs in- fluence is incompatible with prayer for the conversion of sinners." • 1. Has €rod but one way i» which he can answer prayer for the conversion of sinners, — to wit, through an in- fluence of ihe Spirit distinct from and above the Truth ? If not, then the objection is void. Mr. Campbell's theqry is certainly incompatible with "prayer for the conversion of siiifters through a " supernatural' agency," buf not with 13* 4BD BlS^IEW •OFfdft.fltPBEM.ISM EXAMINED. grayer -for theip conwrgi«n*in , any.'way in which con- version ever happens* 2. Mr. Jeter is profoundly ignorant of the manner in ].wnich our heavenly ^Hatber answers, .-where he does so *«b all, the prayers offchis children. .We know not what we should pray for as we ought, 'and surely much, less the manner in which, these" JSraJrers are replied to. It is enough for us tQ'.fetSw'tlta'B 1 - Sprayer for ali meV has been made., our dirty: - HeiuJe*we pray for them, not beteqpse it? ESCggeas to-'be TWfJai&Ze'with some tlseery, hdVeyefc'wiB^lfrit'$e<&-Tise i-Wi has made it our d/uty to dcr*st>.- -iaW»ey.ond%- conscientious discharge of 1 our daty we le>ve with lEtesrBwjiW^s all -things ftfter the coun- sel o*f his will." 9ClIaJ , ^*!io|s^i!n.th5.*ay which to him seems best, answer or ig£t^m^ , ^ae^^&B they happen to accord or not with his gasSiMi$HS«ptans. and to be for the good- of his erring cffi-ldceao/ we jjfcofoundly -beKewe. When, now, Mf. Jeter undertakes jfco*Befr Mr. Campbell's, "theory of the Spirit's- i^uence'i l 'asl!d«', "after having so sjgnally failed tfo. do ^p^in biker* "BeiffB^ by an objection l^&ftd-on his .profound 1 %noranee^y(Sftl^fe,nner in which •%d jj/flswers prefer, ^jRpmp^^n^fil^iierTlier his head flMEs^pSs Y> ** V; +:■&&*:. '"4« . ' ' * ".^'f Bfeterfs' S*cf. du1^3ufpri5tBu "|i%ife%>iaid necessity olp^jbieft^hristiaii men ajje ni^lS'cprdSaliy^ agreed, than tba& '©^frequent ferve%it<;piPa^efe^r-1^B--eonTersi-on of sJMiers. Any sy^temTo^*etfgl0i9L4wh*eJs*shouW- ignore it.wou-13 bwgS'sti^*expt)^d*fdi ; tlie'derision of all good men. Mr. . jjjpjy .fcneiw^Knd'^.tnitsji : (reluctantly, we fear,)- that* Mr. r&aMpfofeH' -a&fc Ui$ .brethren believe in and practise' this -dfost$* And yet~he wjshe^to expose EEVI«W OP CAMPBliiLISM BXASflNElJ. 151 us as a denomination to the ©diiam^kiGMB^^gw could attach to' a people only win* *eprai^he&ffi!e^W«f ; and this he sought to do hy^an effort* ^ftn^KiePii^t^lfifiar that our "theory" of spirttual irifluetjfce i%. -'*#t®$j|{R#& ble" with prayer for the conversion of ian^mMBfee is not a more unmanly thing in his .btfokj nuiKer&iisi^ils, such things are, than the preceding objecWmT^BpftiJ^h: a work written. to insult and not to refute/we'eSMa^fe:- pect nothing better. " ■ - » ""•!* * SECTION VI. Objection 6. "Mr. Campbell's theory of Conversion &$*- ooniistent with the introduction of the millennium,;" In support of this abjection, Mr. Jeter fh&s» written? some seven pages; and yet in hot AAA line ofthe-seven has he furnished a particle of ^Efden'ee',!|^(at hiffotfexsftiSm" states the truth. It is an ©bjteefion-of ^feoi^wfii the one immediately preceding it, 1 — Strictly," an otjfeistion based on"his ignorance. Bfeimounts tcVbhis^^-Mr. Camp- bell's theory' of conversion" 1 ^ inconsistRD't with some- thing 6f which little or notffiftg is 'known ! Mr. Jeter does not know in what thj? millennium w'iit consist, and certainly nSthow it fe to be introduced. In regard to tfte fo^mer'point, the Scriptures merely state the fact that 'there will be a millennium, with no full description certainly 6Y what it will consist in; and- in- regard' to the latter, if they are not wholly silent, yet are "they silent, it appears to us, in regard to its being- introduced by merely moral causes. It wiH not be thought disrespect- ful in us to dissent from Mr. Campbell in regard 'to a m'atter torching which he does not claim to be exempt 192 REVIEW OF OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. from liabiOi^ %q err*. " W-e eanmat- therefore agree that Mr. Jeter has furnished the»true view Of the milleniiium in the short esx&aet which he' makes from Mr. Camp- bell's writings to "de'fine what he means" by the term. And Btill less can we concede to him the. right to base an objection to our theory of conversion, on a pieee of information which he does not happen to possess. But it is proper to, 1 ear Mr. Jeter's account of the maiiner in which the millennium is to i>e -introduced. "It is," he observes, "most manifest that the millennium cannot shed its blessings on the world without some new agency or Influence, or some great increase of existing influences. We need expect no new revetefcitma for' @ui instruction, no new. powers to be imparted to the human mind, and' no new means of spreading the g@spel and enlisting attention to it. How -then is the millennium to be introduced? By an increased efficiency, of^the divine word." ' ■ • •The .miliennj*ia, "then, is to shed its blessings on the world by an increased efficiency of the divine word. Now, a more perfect conceit never haunted the brain of a Chaldean astrologer. * But still, conceit as it -is, it sewes the purpose of a point on which to poise an objection against our view of conversion. Had Mr. Jeter #tateii that the millennium is to be introduced by magnetism or submarine telegraphs, he would, for any* thing he knows, have come quite as near the truth. - "When he states that the millennium, is to be intro- duced by an increased efficiency of the divine word, he states simply the case of a miracle, and then on this bases an objection to our theory of conversion, because REVIEW ©P CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 153 it does not provide for the accomplishment of an event by ordinary means which, by his own showing, is to result from a miraculous cause ! Again, the objection -obviously assumes *that the millennium is to be introduced by conversion. But thjs we deny : hence, since it,is not granted, neither proved, no objection can rest on it. If Mr. Jeter would make out his case, let him first show from the Bible that the mMleHnima is^ to be introduced by conversion, and then, from any source, that our theory makes no provision therefor. Then we should have an objection indeed. But until then we are compelled .to pronounce his pre- sent objection sheer nonsense. SECTION VH, Objection 7. " The assumption under consideration" (that t*ne Spirit operates in conversion, through the Truth only) "is incompatible with the salvation ef infants, They enter into the world, as Mr. Campbell admits, with depraved hearts. Dying before they attain to years of intelligence, they must enter heaven with their moral natures unchanged, which is impossible; they must Jpe renovated by death, which is a mere figment; they must be renewed by the Holy Spirit without the word, the possibility of which Mr. Campbell cannot eonceive; or they must be lost. I do not charge him with 'a,dmitting this consequence;, but it appears to be logically deduced from the position which he assumes, and" all* his ingenuity has not enabled him to escape from it." 154 REVIEW OF CAMEBELI/ISM EKAMINED. . As a general rule, there - fluenee on the* human mind. "We do not say he cannot do* it, for we know not the Hmi^ of his awful power. We deny that he does it. The question is a question «f feet, which should not have been assumed, as it has been, but proved, -or not made the basis of an objection. It is a sheer fiction invented" for a special purpose. a. But j conceding that 'Satan does exert a direct in- fluence on the mind, what then ? Why, that Mr. Camp- bell concedes to him and his a,ngels a pewer which he denies to the Holy Spirit. But* Mr. Campbell sets no limits to the power of the Spirit. He denies that it does acst thus and so, not that it can. More than this he has never denied. But, even granting, as. already stated, that Satan dees exert a direct influence on the mind, is it possible that Mr. Jeter can make this the.grou»d of an argument as to what the Spirit does ? Does he mean to teach, because Satan can do a thing, and does it for wicked ends because he can, that we are therefore to conclude that the Holy Spirit does the same thisg ? This is the pith of his argument ; and yet he aflfeets to be jealous fo» the ''honor of the Holy Spirit." How dare he assert, conceding his position to be correct, that the .enormity of §atan's sin consists not jn this very thing; — that .he 156 REVIEW OF SAMWBEIiLISM EXAMINED. does, because he can, exert a direct influence 1 on- the mind 1 ? For aught he knows, this may make the great trenching difference between the Spirit's intercourse with man and Satan's,^* difference which makes the intercourse of the-lstter intensely wicked. - Scrappy as Mr. Jeter's book is, we did not expect to meet this stale piece in it. For the last quarter of a eentury this argument has been kept on. hand by none but the lowest class of Mr. Campbell's opponents, uatil now it turns up in the tidy manual of the Rev. Mr. Jeter. SECTION EX. Objection 9. "The assumption that the Spirit cftn" (does) " operate on the soul of man- in conversion only by arguments or words, is not only unphilosophicai, but contrary to divinely-recorded facts. It is mot true €hat physical power cannot pipduce a moraL effect. . . . Christ was created holy. 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,' said the angel to Mary, ' and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God :' Luke iv. 35. Was not the holiness-of the infant Redeemer a moral quality? And was not this effect produced, not by arguments, persuasion, or wards, but by the power — the physical power— of the Highest?" The holiness, then, of the infant Eedeemer was created: was it? Created exactly as a brad or an oyster is created; created, too, by the physical power of the Almighty! It was then a mere created * thing, and he^ice, per se, of no more value than $he coler of a ggoso. REVIEW OF CAMPEBBLISM EXAMINED. 157 Mow, in all the ranks of oar .brethren, where, we ask, is the man who has ever dared to utter even one sen- tence half so dishonoring to the- divine Savior as this worse than Arian piece? And yet the author of even this — who is, too, .so very orthodox 1 withal — can cant of Mr. Campbell's views of the divinity of Christ ! We shall, however, do him the justice to suppose that he would not again repeat what he has here written. Can even he be capable of the deed ? It is certainly a matter of wonder that an "assumption" which he deems to b'e so false should impel him to extremes so strange. SECTION X. • . OBjection 10. "No writer has so bitterly denounced metaphysical speculations and mystic theology as Mi - . Campbell. One great object of his reformation was to Bescue the Scriptures from the glosses of sectarian theorizers. I must say, that I have met with no writer on the- agency of the Spirit in conversion, who has in- dulged so much in metaphysical disquisition, labored so hard to establish a theory, or drawn such momentous consequences from his own fine-spun speculations." The charge that Mr. Campbell, while opposing the speculations of others, has himself turned speculatist, and that he has labored to establish a theory, is with- out foundation. Indeed, the very reverse is true. No author has labored more to keep free from speculation, and none, perhaps, has succeeded better; and, as to a theory on any subject, he' has never penned a line to establish one. But .sectarians are a peculiar race. 14 158 REVIEW OF eAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. "When Mr. Campbell neithes eats nor drinks, they say he has a devil ; tut when he both eats and drinks, they say he is a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of pub- licans and sinners. When Mr. Campbell refuses to speculate on the agency -of the Spirit in conversion, they declare he denies that agency ; but when, to please them, he consents to explain, then they clamor,- — A speculatist ! Truly, his taskmasters put him to a hard service. Mr. Campbell asserts that conviction is the iberJc of the Spirit, and here would pause. But -he is soon hurried from this positjpn. He next asserts- that sinners are quickened by the Truth) but this is unsatis- factory. He then explains; and now he is either a metaphysician or theorist. It is well that wisdom is justified by her children. H there is any one singular trait in the teachings ©f Mr. Campbell, — and the same is true of the teach- ings of his brethren, — it is their simplicity andfreeness from speculation. The facility with which audiences- understand him, the delight with which the unbigoted listen to his clear, fine thoughts, the readiness with which they accept his expositions of Scripture, — at once so fair and natural, — is the best refutation of the charge that he is either a speculatist or a theorist. It is, how- ever, not at all strange that Mr. Jeter, whose mind is a mere tissue of flimsy speculations, should, feeling him- self rebuked in the presence of a man free from specu- lation, seek to implicate him in his own- follies. Oblique talkers generally excuse their deeds by saying that other people do not aiways speak the truth. •Here, now, we close our examination of what Mr. KEVIEW OF CAMPBEIiLISM EXAMINED. 159 Jeter has to urge in the way of objections to our view of spiritual agency and influence in conversion. And are these all? If so, till heaven and earth shall pass away will that view stand. We never felt more pro- foundly penetrated with the conviction of its truth than now. These feeble objections have melted at its base like snow at the foot of the Andes, and still it stands. Mists may gather around it and objections lie on, its outskirts ; but still it towers far up into a region where mists never gather and objections never collect. Its lustre may be obscured for a day ; but, like the sun marching behind a pavilion of cloud, it will gleam forth at last all the brighter for the transient* obscurity. W» commend it, iherefor^, to the confidence of all .good men, and commit it to the safe-keeping of God. 160 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. CHAPTEB V. "THE identity of keqenekation, conversion, and baptism." SECTION I. Such is Mr. Jeter's caption to some twenty-five pages of matter curious and empirical indeed. Here his pecu- liar genius displays itself to admiration. He sports like a giant with phantoms of his own creating, and plays wiUfei the freedom of a hoy with Mr. Campbell's views, so " obscure, variable, and contradictory." His great argument, in the mastery of which- not even the infidel himself shall dispute the palm with Mr. Jeter, is here employed with its finest effect. Truth and false- hood, vice and' virtue, is and is not, are not niore con- tradictory than the views oflMx. Campbell! This has been for ages past, and still is, the chief ground on which the infidel has .disputed the truth of Christianity. The Bible, he affirms, is contradictory, therefore it is false. And Mr. Campbell's views are contradictory, affirms Mr. Jeter, and hence must be false. "With a single dis- tinction the analogy is complete : — the infidel may err, but not so Mr. Jeter ! Of all the arguments which can be urged against any cause, this, we believe, is, in the opinion of the hest judges, deemed the feeblest. And yet extract this argument, together with all that rests* on it, from Mr. Jeter's book, and the shrunken thing will resemble nothing so much as an Egyptian. REVIEW Or CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED'. 191 mummy. Of these feigned contradictions we shall take no notice. Before proceeding -to the main subject of this chapter, we have first a, few extracts to present from what Mr. Jeter has written under the preceding caption, on which a few remarks may be offered^ in order to abbreviate our future- labors and to correot some errors into which he — most innocently, no doubt — has fallen. I. "I do- not charge Mr. Campbell with denying the necessity of a moral ehange preparatory to baptism. He has written equivocally-— perhaps it would be better to say obscurely — on the subject. His love' of novelty, the immafairity of his views,' or the blinding influence of his theory, or all these causes combined, have im- pelled him to record many sentences which ingenuity less pregnant than his own finds it difficult to reconcile with my admission." We regret that we cannot be obliged to Mr. Jeter for his- " admission." Had it been made for Mr. Campbell's sitke, we might have been so; but such was not the case. "It was made, not to do Mr. Campbell justice, but to avoid a somewhat less sore event to Mr. Jeter him- self, — that of being convicted of wilful falsehood. He knew th#t the most partial and superficial reader of Mr. Campbell's writings could contradict him without this admission ; hence, he made it to save himself, — for no- thing else. But Mr. Campbell "has written equivocally — perhaps it would be better to say obscurely — on the necessity of a moral change ief ore baptism." Candidly, we are grieved at this. We are willing to 14* l> 162 KSVIEW OF OAMPBEBLISM EXAMINED. review Mr. Jeter severely^ — nay, even .bitterly, when he merits it, as .he not seldom does, — but neither unjustly nor discourteously. But how, within any of these limits, to describe what he has here said, without the appear- ance of being rude, we "confess we- know not. It is to be regretted -that an author whose pedigree points to an American origin should still by his speech so*often be- tray a Cretan extraction. In writing near half a hundred volumes and thousands of pages, it would- surely be a minacle had Mr. Campbell never penned an obscure or equivocal sentence. But is an equivocal or -obscure sentence here and there only, a just ground on which to prefer a charge »f writing equivocally or obscurely on a point which lies nearest the writer's" heart ? Are ail Mr. -Campbell's writings equivocal or obscure on the necessity «f -a moral change before baptism? Alas for the weakness "and corruption of the human heart! If,*it may truly be said, there, is any one subject on which Mr. Campbell has shed the whole splendor of his peculiar eloquence, it is the neces- ^JJ^—ifne abloTitte wecessffiy— of* a "cltangej a moral Change, a spirUualr change, a deep, -vital, pervading change of the whole inner man, preparatory to baptism. Of all the sub- jects on which he has ever written, this appears to be that on which he is most sensitive, most cautious. He has described it and insisted on the necessity of it - times innumerable, and in a style the most varied, pointed, atfd luminous. -Who,-then, we ask, that is un- willing to be recreant to the truth, can charge him with writing either equivocally or obscurely on the subject? Is there no 'moral change implied in belief? none in re- REVIEW OF CAMPBEILISM EXAMINED. 163 pentence? and does not Mr. Campbell insist that these shall precede baptism? On some subjects we may brook a charge which is both false and injurious to us as a peoplej bnt Mr. Jeter must learn that this subject is not one of them. II. "Mr. Campbell has been frequently, bnt, I think, unfairly, charged with teaching baptismal regeneration. As popularly understood, baptismal regeneration de- notes a moral change effected through the influence of Christian baptism. Some things which Mr. Campbell has written, as we have seen, seem to imply this doc- trine; and he has exposed himself to the suspicion of holding rfr by quoting its advocates in support of his peculiar views : but eertainly he has never formally proclaimed it ; he earnestly advocates principles at war with it. What he certainly maintains is, not that we are regenerated bg^beeptism, but that baptism, is itself regenera- tion, and the onlypersoned.regeneralion." We presume that Mr. Jeter has, in this extract, come as near doing Mr. Campbell justice as he has ever come doing any opponent justice; and he is far from doing him justice. He certainly, however, does Mr. Campbell the justice to acquit him of holding the doctrine of bap- tismal regeneration, for which we thank him sincerely and heartily. Baptismal regeneration, as he justly states, denotes, as popularly understood, amoral change — i.e: a change of the inner man — effected by baptism. " This doc- trine Mr. Campbell esehews from his whole heart. He has never penned "even one sentence whichy except by the most dishonest artifice, can be shown even to look towards the doctrine. . He ascribes to baptism no value 164 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Whatever except as a eonditien of remission, or (which is hardly a different thing) as a part of the new birth ; but neither as a condition of remission nor as a part of the new birth does he ascribe to it any moral effect on the heart or the soul. Even as a part of the new birth it is a part to which no moral effect {effect on the inner man) can- be ascribed. Indeed, all' that is moral, strictly so called, in the new birth, precedes baptism, and neces- sarily so. True, as a condition of remission or as a part of the new birth, Mr. Campbell ascribes to baptism an immense value ; but the value which he ascribes to it consists in no power which it has to produce any moral effect or change in the heart or the soul, but solely in its being appointed, jointly with other conditions,, far remission. But, while acquitting -Mr. Campbell of Tiolding, or rather teaching, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, Mr. Jeter had still to do so in such a manner as to leave the mind • half suspicions that he may still be tinctured with the doctrine. " Some things [we repeat what he says] which Mr. Campbell has written, as we have seen, -seem to imply this doctrine; and he has exposed him- self to the suspicion of holding it, by quoting its advocates in support of bis peculiar views." This is not manly. Why, if Mr. Jeter really wished to acquit Mr. CampUell of the charge fully, did he not do it like a man, in one clear, broad sentence, unaccompanied by any suspicion- breeding- qualifications? He acquits him because he knows him to be not guilty 5 and yet in such a way as to leave the impression that after all he may not be quite innocent. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 165 But "what h^\Mx. Campbell] clearly maintains is, not that we are regenerated ty baptism, but that baptism is itself regeneration, and the only personal regeneration." What Mr. Campbd#olearly maintains is, — 1st, that regeneration and the new birth .are identical; 2d, «fchat the new birth eonsists of two parts, — to wit : being -be- gotten, or quickened, by the Spirit, and being baptized; and 3d, that, therefore, baptism is not itself regenera- tion, i.e. the whole - of it.. But -because baptism, as a part, and especially as the last part, of regeneration, implies the other and preceding part, Mr. Campbell sometimes calls it regeneration, precisely as faith some- times stands for the whole gospel, in Which, however, it is merely a single item. In this sense, but in no other, does he maintain that baptism is itself regeneration. * III. As quoted by Mr. Jeter, Mr. Campbell thus writes: — "The sprinkling of a speechless and faithless babe never moved it one inch in the way to heaven, and never did change its heart, character, or relation to God and the kingdom of heaven. But not so a believer, im- mersed as a volunteer in- obedience of the gospel. He has put on Christ." On which Mr. Jete* comments thus : — " The sprinkling of a speechless and faithless babe never did change its heart; but what is true of the sprinkling of an infant is not true of the- voluntary im- mersion of a believer. So Mr. Campbell seems to teach." Plainly, Mr. Jeter means to say, that Mr. Campbell seems to teach that immersion changes the believer's heart.. Did not his conscience - smite Bim while penning this ? If not, he need never fear it in time to eome while sin- 166 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 'EXAMINED, mag. He may console himself with the. reflection that he enjoys immunity from the punishment of at least one great foe to injustice and crime. But to an upright mind Mr. CampbeH seems to teach,. no such doctrine as Mr. Jeter ascribes to him. Mr. Campbell certainly means to teach that there is a distinction between- the sprinkling of an infant .and the immersion of a believer. But what is it ? Has he merely implied it and left it to be in- ferred ? No. He distinctly expresses it. His language is, " not so a believer, immersed as a volunteer in bbe- dience of the gospel. He has put on Christ." , Sprink- ling the babe does ffe no 'good, but. not so the immersion of '*he believer. By it he puts an Christ. This is the dis- tinction, and the only one, which Mr. Campbell even seems to teaeh, except by a construction which converts truth into falsehood,' and. against which the imperfections of human speech afford no protection. section n. - But what is "the meaning of the terms Regeneration and Conversion, and to what extent, or in what sense, if any, are they identical with baptism ? To this question the present is not the place to reply fully. This can be better done in the chapter on remission of sins. In- deed, after what has now been said, neither a very-full nor a very formal reply can be deemed necessary. For the present, therefore, we shall be content with sub- mitting merely such distinctions and other considera- tions as the- nature of th^ case seems here to require and as can with propriety be now introduced. REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 167 As we promised in a preceding chapter to assign the reasons elsewhere for there substituting the ■'term "be- gotten" for the term "born," we shall now commence by inquiring What is the only true and proper rendering of the original word rendered "born" in the phrase "born of God." Certainly it is to be rendered either by the term "begotten" or " born," but the question is, by which? Mr. Jeter thinks it may be rendered in- differently by either, according to the taste^f the trans- lator. But in this he is unquestionably wrong. The principle which, in translating, takes precedence of all others, where it can be applied, is this : — where a doubt exists as to what English word we are to translate a term in the original by, select a case in which no doubt can exist, and render by the proper word; then, in every other case where this same- original word occurs, render by this same English word, unless the sense forbids it. This is perhaps the most important rule known to the science of interpretation, and, happily for the present question, applies, and consequently settles it forever. " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born" of God." Now, the question is, shall the word born be here retained, or shall it give place to the word begotten? In order to settle this question, the rule requires that we shall find a case in which this same original word occurs, but in which no doubt can exist as to what* English word it is to be translated by. Let "us then try the next clause : — "and every one that loveth him that — begat." Here it is impossible to employ the word born; and equally impossible to employ any other word but the word begat. This, then, is a case in which, no doubt 1B8 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. can exist. Hence,- in every case where this same origi- nal woasd occurs, it is to be rendered by begat or begotten, unless the sense forbids it. Let ns now, using this term, render, according to the rule, -jthe, entire verse from which these clauses are taken. Whosoever believefch that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten, of. him. Here, now, by the force of the ruje, we pro,duc& a rendering which is not only correct but uniform, — a circumstance constantly aimed at in every good translation. It may now be proper to -cite a passage or two in which, although the same original word occurs, neither begat nor begotten can be used, because the sense forbids it. 1. "By faith, Moses when he was bom was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child." Here it is obvious at a glance that the term begotten cannot be used, 2. ; "Except a man be born.oi water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king-' dom of God." Here again the sense requires born; because to say except a man be begotten- of water, is nonsense. For these reasons we ventured to substitute the term begotten for the term born, in John iii. 8, thus: — The Spirit breathes where it sees fit, and you hear its voice; but you know not whence it comes and whither it goes : in this iway is' (begotten) every one that is begotten by the Spirit. But in reply to this it may be asked, why not make a passage in which the original word has to be rendered borrtf as in the two last instances, the basis oi our criti- KEVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 169 cism, and compel the other passages to conform to it? We answer, where a term is used in two senses, a wider and a narrower, as is the case with the term now in hand, the rule applies to the term first in its narrower sense; since it is of necessity that the term must have its narrower sense, though not that it shall haye its wider. It is hardly necessary to add that born is a term of wider signification than begat. For this reason, therefore, the rule must be applied as in the preceding instances. But now comes the great material question, Does the phrase begotten by the Spirit or begotten of God — for they are identical in sense — eocpress the whole of the new birth ? In other words, does the new birth consist in being begotten by the Spirit, and in nothing else, even in parts Mr. Jeter animus that it does : we deny it. This constitutes the difference between us. The new birth consists in being born of water and of the Spirit. At least, so taught the Savior : — "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." That to be born of water and of the Spirit is to be born again,- no honest man acquainted with the subject ever yet denied. And this is regenera- tion. Hence, regeneration consists not in being born of water alone, nor yet in being begotten by the Spiiifc alone, but in the two jointly and inseparably, — is com- plete in neither, but only in them both. This is the doctrine for which we contend. In the order of events, it is true, being begotten by the Spirit precedes being born of water, and never suc- ceeds it. As that does not complete the new birth with- out this, so this without that is nothing. * 15 170 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISJVI EXAMINED. So far, then; as uegeneration consists in feeing bom. of water v so far it and baptism are identical; no further. Sa much, then, for the identity of regeneration and baptism. SECTION III. Next in regard to the word conversion. All we have to- say on this term shall consist in a few remarks on the following passages :^-l. "Wherefore my sentence is, fchat ye trouble not them who from amongthe Gentiles ar.e turned to God." The word here rendered "are turned" is the word which in other places is rendered convert, conversion, &c. • It was here applied to the first Geiitile converts to Christianity, and- comprehended all that made the difference between the alien and the bap- tized person, and hence, of course, baptism itself. Since, therefore, it- applied to the whole of a process of which baptism is a' part, conversion and baptism must, to a certain extent at least, be- identical. -Now, the question is, to what extent ? ' Or, putting the question in another form, Did the word conversion apply equally to all parts of the process of, which baptism is a part, or is there not evidence that it applied more particularly to one part iLpn to any other, and, if so, to which part? In order to answer this question, we shall now present the second passage, to**Mt: — "Eepen^ye,,j,herefor*ejVand is converted, that your sins^may be blotted out." Wow, we shall assume that the persons here addressed were believers, — a. thing which need not be done, since Mr. J^ter concedes it. The following is his latfguage, or, rather, view .of the passage :— " 'Repent*' said be, REVIEW ©E CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. # 171 (Peter,) change your minds, 'and be converted, reform your lives, (and these exercises clearly imply faith,') 'that your, sins may be blotted out.' " The word conversion, then, did not^ in this case, denote belief, since it was believers who were commanded to be converted. Neither did it denote repentance, since this is denoted by the appropriate term. "What, then, did it ■ denote ? After belief and repentance, what remains ? Baptism only. Baptism, then, we conclude, was that part Of the whole process of. turning to God, which the word conversion more especially applied to; hence to this extent, and. in tMs sense, but in no other, conversion and baptism are identical. This, however, we wish distinctly to state, is a point upon which we, as a people, have never laid the slight- est stress. Seldom, in a long career, has Mr. Campbell mentioned it; and then never to insist cm it as a matter of half th« moment his enemies represent it as beiiag. And, considering the offence it has given to certain weak- minded people, it would,. perhaps, have been better had it never been mentioned at all. 172 REVltfW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. CHAPTBE VI. "PBAYER NOT A DUTY OF THE CNBAPTIZED." SECTION I. Un©ee this' head Mr. Jeter devotes some five pages of his book to what he conceives a "serious error" of Mr. Campbell and his brethren; and, although not a "chief nor yet a "prominent" itemj'still, he thinks it "not an unimportant" one. He seems anxious to create the impression that we have either changed' our views respecting it, or abandoned those we formerly held altogether. His language is : — " This was an article of the primitive Campbellism, often and variously ex- pressed. It has not, so far as I have observed, been re- peated in the later writings of Mr. Campbell, nor has it been repudiated." Again: — "I do -not know that Mr." Campbell would now maintain, or that any of the re- formers now embrace, the doctrine clearly inculcated in the above extract; but I must, in justice to the system under examination, briefly expose its fallacy." Not only in regard to the item now in hand, but in regard to our views generally, Mr. Jetqr labors through- out his book to make it appear that, if we liave not, as a people, wholly abandoned some of them, we have at least materially changed them. Indeed, according to him, no man would seem to be so fickle as Mr. Campbell, and no people so fickle as his brethren. That we have REVIW 0E CAMPBE-LLISM EXAMINED. 1-73 changed in a sense, as a people, we are proud to acknow^ ledge. We have grown wiser and better and stronger; but not even the semblance of a change in any other sense do we admit. And, instead of abandoning any views heretofore held, every year serves only to deepen our conviction, of their truth and to cause us to cherish them with a more unwavering faith. We took our earlier, as we have tak«n our . later, lessons from the Bible, and as yet have seen no reason either to alter ,pr abandon' them. . We therefore plead not guilty to ;the charge of changing, — not even in regard to the preceding- item. . We assert, now, as we have ever done, that there; is not one passage in the Bible which, daring the reign of Christ, makes it the duty of an unbaptized person \o pray. Mr. Jeter is greatly mistaken if he supposes that we cherish not this as a capital item. We do not say the sinner may not pray; and, when he does pray,. we do not say it is wrong. Let us be understood. W e do say, witk singular emphasis, that it is not the duty of the sinner, the unbaptized, to pray for the % remission Of his sins ; that it is, not made his duty to do- so by the Bible, — not even by implication. It is against this practice, or rather fiction, that our objection is especially pointed. The sinner is taught by orthodox preachers — blind guides dn this case, certainly — to pray for the remission of. his sins; nay, more, that God will give him a feeing sense of remission when it occurs. Accordingly, with a broken heart and a subdued spirit, day after day, week after week, and often year after year, in blind— but, it is to be hoped, innocent — neglect of his real duties, he re- 15* 174 REVIEW Or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. peats the same fruitless prayer. And pray he may; but, unless the Savior contravene, the laws of his kingdom, to accept, in a moment of awful extremity) the will for the deed of the sincere but deluded sinner, into the pre- sence of the Lord he may come, but it will not be, we have many a fear, to remain. The sinner's agony of mind and soul during this time, though it may stop short of lunacy or suicide, as fortunately in most cases it does, is always most intense and bitter. The wail we have heard from his heart, .his indescribable look of de- spair, his shriek and smothered groan, strangely mingling with the flippant and, in too many instances, irreverent cant of the preacher, "Pray on, brother : the Lord will yet have mercy on your'souj," have never failed, while they have pierced us with inexpressible grief, to create in our mind the most painful apprehensions as to the fate of those who cherish and teach the doctrine. Of all the gross and fatal delusions of Protestants, there are few we ban deem worse than this. It is a shame to the Baptist denomination — of which we can truly say, "With all thy faults, I love thee stilP'^that it should hold' and teach this error. "Were the sinner, in a mo- ment of deep distress, to pray the Lord to forgive his sins, we could not find it in our heart to chide him for the deed; but we should certainly endeavor to teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly. But one thing we should never do : — teach him what the Bible does not teach him, — to expect the remission of his sins merely because he prayed for it. Why pray for a bless- ing which our heavenly Father has never promised to confer in this way or for this reason, but which he REVIEW -OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 175 certainly does confer in another way and for a different reason ? Where is the advantage of the prayer unless the Lord has promised to heed it ? v "We shall now present an extract from Mr. Jeter's book, containing a general summary of his faith on the present subject. "Prayer," he remarks, "has been the duty of man under every dispensation of religion. The obligation to this service springs from the relation between the infinitely-merciful God, and fallen, guilty, and dependent man in a probationary state. It is an essential element in true piety. -It is the very breath of spiritual life, — a life which, I have already shown, does not depend on the act of immersion/ but, in the evan- gelical order of things, precedes that act. It implies repentance, faith, and scriptural regeneration. No man can pray acceptably to God without renouncing his sins, believing in Christ, and having a new heart. And no man was ever a proper subject for. Christian baptism who had not been taught to pray sincerely and fervently." It would be difficult to produce, even from, this most confused of books, a paragraph indicative of greater confusion of mind than we here have. Sonte things which it contains are true ; but more than half is false. But we shall be confined to a few particulars : — 1. "Prayer»bas been the duty of man under every dispensation of religkm." This is what is termed, in logical language, begging the question The very point in dispute is, whether it is the duty of man — i.e. all men, sinners and saints — to pray under the reign of Christ. This is th«t very tiring which we deny, and which Mr. Jeter^ finding himself 176 - REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. unable to prove, quietly" assumes. It has certainly always been the duty of - men to pray; but then comes the question, What men 1 "When he says aU, this is •& petitio, and not a meeting of the point in dispute. 2. "The obligation to this service springs from the relation betweem the infinitely-merciful Grod, and fallen, guilty, and dependent man in a probationary state." It is unquestionably true that relation gives rise to obligation ; but what specific duties a relation obliges us to perform, we learn, not from the relation . itself, but from the law.s which enact them. Eelation creates obli- gation, but law defines it. Hence, although our relation to •our heavenly Father may oblige us, as it certainly and justly, does, yet in what precise respect, or to what specific 'duty, we learn -not from the relation itself, but from- the law which defines the respect or enacts the duty. The sam» relation whieh obliges us to pray would equally oblige us to believe and repent ;' and yet we learn that .these are duties, not from the relation, but from the precepts which -enact them. In precisely* the *same way must we learn the duty'of the sinner, — i.e. not from the relation which he sustains to our heavenly Fatheiy and which obliges him, but from the law which defines in what respect he is obliged, or to what duty. Consequently, since there is. no law (we* state it with emphasis) defining the sinner to be obliged to.pray for the remission of his sins, we hence con- clude that this is not his duty and therefore will avail him nothing. 3. "And no man was ever a proper subject for Chris- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 177 tian baptism who had not been taught tq pray sincerely and fervently." This is merely the bald assertion of Mr. Jetev. .That he has a strong ^persuasion of its truth we shall npt deny; but had he imbibed his religious convictions from the Bible, and not . from tradition, it is something he would never have uttered. It is difficult for a man who has been long steeped in error to persuade himself that his errors are hot divine; hence the 'boldness with which Mr. Jeter asserts the truth of his. SECTION II. But it is now proper to present Mr. Jeter's defence of his .doctrine. « What," he inquires, "say the Scrip- tures on this point? — 'And Jesus spake a parable unto them, [the disciples;] to this end, that men ought always to pray and not to faint.' " On which he comments thus: — "Christ taught that men — not. baptized men merely, but men, irrespective of their character, .rela- tions, or professions — all men — ought, are under obliga- tion, to pray." Now, waiving all dispute as to the relevancy of this parable to the real question at issue, we shall cheer- fully concede that it leaches that men ought to pr*y; but the question is, What men ? Does it teach that all men ought to pray, or only the disciples, or persons named by the Savior in the conclusion he draws from the parable ? The former is Mr. Jeter'f position, the latter ours. The whole parable and th$ conclusion are as follows : : — M 178 REVIEW OP CAMI^EMilSM EXAMINED. "And' be [Christ] spake a parable unto them, [the disciples,] to this end, that men oughl always to pray and not to faint; saying, There was in a city a Judge Which feared not God, neither regsjapded man. And there was- a widow in that city, and she came unto him, sayingj Avenge me of mine adversary : and he would not fttf a while. But afterwards he said within' himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet, because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest, by her contLinal coming, she weary me. And the Lord sard, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his 'own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them ? I tell you that he will avenge them Speedily." iTow, will this language apply to sinners? Are they God's own elect, who cry day and night to him? So to- assert would be shocking. And yet clearly "God's own elect" are the persons for whose benefit the parable was spokenj and whom it teaches to pray always and -not to faint. It has no reference whatever to sinners. But the following rendering of Dr. Campbell "settles the- question : — "He [Christ] . also showed them, [the disciples,] by a parable, that they ought te persist in prayer without growing weary." Why, now, did Mr. Jeter cite 'only the introduction to the parable, and build his argument on it, intentionally suppressing the conclusion, which he knew to be de- cisive against him ? It is surely a pity that a man who affects to oppSse. nothing but error should yet so often do so 'with those artifices with whiclj dishonest men alone stoop to oppose the truth. REVIEW OF CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED. 179 The next case alluded to by Mj\ Jeter is that of tha publican who went up to the temple to pray. But this is not a case in point. We have not denied that it was the either value in criticism or reliance to be placed in argument, the conclusion in indisputable. But let us suppose this position to be ddfaied,.and that it is maintained that baptism sustains to remission the relation of a subsequent to a former aet, and what fol- lows? Clearly, that repentance likewise sustains to remission the relation of a subsequent to a former act. But this proves too much, and hence is false. But we- wish to exhibit this position, together with its conse- quences, even to the eye, and, m order to do so, will again have recourse to the passage, from which, after transposing the clauses as before, we will first omit the word "repent," thus: — Everyone of you- be, baptized (et?) because your sins are remitted. This is exactly Mr. Jeter's 'position, — a tough one, truly. But let us grant that it is true, or, rather, that we have at last hit on * the true- meaning of the particle, and that it is unalter able. ~W.e will now replace the word "repent:" — Ever}* one of you repent and be baptized et? remission of sins Is the meaning of the particle now altered ? Of course not. Let us then bring out its meaning : — Every one of you repent and be baptized (etc) because your jsins are remitted-; or, transposing the terms, Be baptized and repent (fii?) became your sins are remitted; plainly^ Repent because- y@ur sins are remitted. How absurd! And yet, absurd, as it is, this is a strict result from Mr. Jeter's method of construing the passage. This result of false criticism and false reasoning has never yet been fairly met and honorably disposed of 'by even one of our opponents. Indeed, it cannot be. It was formerly stated that if si? be taken literal!* REVIEW OF OAMPBBELISM EXAMINED. 199 the present passage is either not intelligible or' has a very uncertain sense, and that> consequently, a different acceptation of the particle is required. This becomes' apparent by simply inserting its literal meaning, thus : — Bepent .and be baptized, every one of you, (ci?) into re- mission of sins. What can any one collect from the expression, repent into remission ? If to English ears it has any meaning at all, it certainly is a most vague and" uncertain one. Nor does the Expression "be baptised into remission" yield a sense in any respect better. Even conceding- (what is doubtful) that the sense of the pas- sage*might be collected from the primary meaning of the particle^ still, this is not the sense in which the'Holy Spirit intended it -to be taken, and hence is not the sense whieh is most easily defended. The present seems a proper place to sum tip the result of the two preceding, arguments. According, then, to the passage still in hand and the rule formerly stated, remission of sins, though it may .depend on more, can never depend on less, than repentance and baptism, these being the named conditions. In our first argument it was ascertained that remission can never depend'on less than belief and baptism. Prom the two arguments, 'there-, fore, we conclude that, although it m&y still depend on more, it can never depend on less, than belief, repentanSe and baptism, these being the sum ©f all fixe different con- ditions named'. - ~ ■ But we shall now present Mr. Jeter's exposition, or view, of the passage on which our second argument is based. It is contained in the following extract : — " In Matt. iii. 11 we have these words :— I indeed baptize you 200 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. with Water unto (esc) repentance. Here •the term can not, without gross* impropriety; be •rendered- /or or in ffmker'to. We know that John did not baptise his dis- ciples in order "that they might repent." He demanded of them not only repentance, but fruits meet for .repent- ance, before he admitted them to baptism. He baptized them; not that they might obtain repentance, but as a sign or acknowledgment that they had repented. (Matt, iia. 8, 9.) ]$ow, in the very sense in which the Har- binger baptized his disciples (ets) unto, for, into, repent- ance, did Peter command his pentecostal hearers to [let th» reSder note that the word ^repent' is here suppressed^ be baptized (en;) for, unto, into, remission of sins ; that is, not to procure, but as a sign or acknowledgment of, this psi#lege, which God has graciously and inseparably united with repentance and faith." •1st. What is here said rests on no law of exegesis known to the literary world. It is, as a critieism, false and arbitrary. If Mr,. Jeter submitted it in candor, he deserves to.be pitied; .if not, to be despised. He knew, or should have Tmown, that the passage in Matthgw differ^ from that in Acts in-the only respect which could have. required the particle to be rendered alike in both. Ee/nder the particle in the former passage as in the lat- ter, and the former passage makes nonsense ; render it in the latter passage as- in the former, and the latter passage makes nonsense. Thus ; — I indeed baptize you with water (si?} in order to repentance — nonsense ; but, repast, and be baptized (et?) in order to remission of sins — »Bense goods Bepent and be baptized (e;?) because «f remission of sinfc — nonsense ; but, I indeed baptise you REVIEW OP CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. 201 with water (e:?) because of repentance — sense good. This is enough to satisfy' any thinking person that the passages are dissimilar in the very point material to Mr. Jeter's criticism, and, consequently, that it is false. We add, that we accept the view he seems to take of the word "repent," not as correct, but merely to te*st the soundness of his- criticism. The correct view of that term would require a different rendering of the particle. But, as this is not a matter now in hand, we give it no further notice. 2d. Why, in offering his criticism, did Mr/ Jeter em- ploy the three English particles for, unto, and into, which are not synonymous, to represent but one par- ticle in the- Greek ? Did he fear to commit himself, and hence seek to render his expression as ambiguous as possible ? He knew that to bring his meaning out would prove fataT to his criticism; heffce he cunningly masked it under a trio of particles. 3d. But why did Mr. Jeter, when he came to apply hir criticism and to develop the meaning of the passage, suppress the word "repent" ? We commend him to the charity which thinks no evil. But he knew, first, that Peter commanded his audience to be baptized for the exact object for which he commanded them to repent; second, that he commanded them to repent in. order- to remission of sins; and, third, that unless the term «' repent" were suppressed this fact would become apparent and falsify his criticism. Hence, he deliberately suppressed the: term to conceal the weakness of his cause, and in the act betrayed the weakness of himself. Such trickeryas this in the work of an infidel would bq denominated base, but fn 2tHg REVIJUF OF CA,MPBi;W4SM EXA^tpJED. the »ork of a Christian we shall mildly phrase il^an error. But peujhaps Mr. Jeter "will have the adroitness to say that this was an unintentional omission, or the skiil to transmute the printer . yato a soape^goat to carry off his sin.' Printers oertainly err at times, as do other men. • But there is another class of men singularly addicted to erring, always most unintentionally it is true, but in all of whose errors $iere is noticeable this remarkable peculiarity, — they never err in favor of the adverse -party, — accountants (for example) whose books exhibit a great many false entries, but. never one against the interest of the merchant 1 section in. * * As the basis for pur third argument, we subjoin the following -.—"And now } why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away th$ sins calling on the name of fheljord," . Oajndjdly, it would seem to be useless to do more Jban mere^r quote, this passage. To misunderstand it may npt be impossible; but how its import is to be rendered more obvious by comment, it is difficult to see. And to attempt J;o defend it against the cavils of those who have resolved tp reject its teaching would be an idle con- sumption, of time. Still, the passage is top important to be jnerely quoted.and then dismissed. Thejre is no. diversity of opinion between Mr. Jeter an,d ns in regard to the character of the act which Paul was commanded to perform. It is agreed on both sides that his baptis^n was real, not metaphorical.. Nor can REVIEW &S C$MPBEt,I,rSM EXAMINED. 203 there be any doubt that the term "pine" has here its accustomed sense. These points, then, may be dis- missed at once. Consequently^ the only remaining ques- tion to be Bettled is, what is the meaning of the ex- pression "wash awayf'or, still more pertinently, what connection, if any, does it express between baptism and remission of sins? That the expression is metaphorical is granted. Sins are not washed away: they are remitted. Upon this mo controversy can arise.- But what is there in the ex- pression to indicate or suggest this? *Fhe term rendered wash away is, in the original, a strong compound verb which in its simple form denotes to wash merely. Here, however, it is compounded with a particle which s%iri- fles from, denoting the separation of one thing from another, and which has its force represented in the ex pressjoaa fey the term away. Hence, in its compound fof m the verb signifies, not to wash simply, but to sepa- rate one thing from another by washing. It implies a separation, and expresses how it is effected. Firstj then, it implies a separation: and -this is indeed the radical conception in remission. For not only does the term remit, in its underrved or Latin form, as well as in English, signify to send away, send from, or let g», (in which evidently the conception of Separation ft essen- tially involved,) but such, also, is the. exact meaning of the Greek word which remit translates. Indeed, how one thing can be washed away from another, without bUng separated from it, is not conceivable. * BJemee, We conehide that separation — i.e. of sins, cr remission — is 204 REVIEW OF CAMPBEL116M EXAMINED. the radical conception in tjie expression, — the thing for which it stan4s. Second: but not. oaJf does the expression imply a separation; it expresses how it is effected, — namely, by a washing. Separation is itp radical, ouifigurative mean- ing, the thing it denotes; and the metaphor consists in this : — that the separation is represented as effected by, or depending on, a washing, whieh, it is hardly necessary to add, consisted' in being baptized. But this view, in effect, represents Paul as being com- manded to be baptized and thereby to separate himself from his sins. 2sTor can the view be deemed far from eofrect when it js remembered that apolousai (AMooaaz) is middle, and is hence to be construed as having this force,. But how is it that a person can separate himself feaia his sins, when in reality they are separated from him, or remitted, as an act of mercy, by our heavenly Father? Clearly, by complying with the conditions, and im this way alone, on whieh the separation depends. Since, therefore, the conception which lies at the very bottom of the expression in hand is separation, and since this is the radical idea in remission, we conclude that the exact and Full force of the passage is, Aris,e, and.be baptized, and thereby separate yourself from your sins., — put them away; or, (which is evidently the sensef) Arise ami be baptised, and yoiir sins shall be remitted. » ■But perhaps a similar expression— similar, because metaphorical . and pf the same, signification — may assist, ms. ii| understanding the language of Ananias. That the expressions blot out and wash apay sins have exactly KEVIEW OF CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. 205 the same import no scholar or critic will deny. The only distinction between them is, that what is repre- sented by the one as being blotted out is represented by the other as being washed away. They do not represent different things, bat express the same thing differently. Now, when Peter in Solomon's porch said to- the people, "Bepent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," metaphor aside, what did he mean? Obviously, Bepetit and be converted, that your sins may be remitted. Precisely thus, then, must we interpret the expression wash away jftysfas,— namely, Arise and be baptized, and your sins shall be remitted. The two expressions are identical in sense, their interpretation the same. When we view baptism as a condition on which re- mission of sins depends, we have no difficulty in under- Standing the language of Ananias. Paul's sins were not remitted before his baptism. Hence, Ananias cofti- manded him to be baptized and wash them away. •* But When he complied, then God" for Christ's sake, remitted them; and, because the remission was made dependent on the baptism, the sins remitted are represented as beihgTrashed away in it. This, to a person of candor and common sense, can hardly be said to admit of dispute. When, on a subsequent occasion, Paul said to the Philippian jailer, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, Mr. Jeter has no difficulty in discovering the intimate dependence of salvation on beteefi ~Nefc -can he demy the conditional nature of belief.' He can se©»no more natural fitness in it to procure remission than he can inthe act of being baptised. • And yet when Ananias says to Paiil, Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 18 206 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. sins, Mr. Jeter ean see bo dependence of remission on baptism, can see in it nothing whieh renders it necessary, even as a condition, to remission. But "an adverse light to Mr. Jeter's creed has a singular effect on his vision. But let us suppose his theory of remission to- be correct. Paul's sins, then, were remitted the instant in which he believed, and. consequently-before his baptism. At that time, therefore, his sins had no existence what- ever. They were simply a nonentity. Indeed, he had no sins, — hence, none to be remitted, none to be washed away, none *to be disposed of in any sense. And yet Ananias, the Lord's special messenger, is represented as saying to him, Arise, and be baptized, and wash, avyiy thy sins! Did Ananias, we ask in -the name of truth, command Paul to he baptized and wash away his sins when absolutely he had not one sin remaining T If the theory of Mr. Jeter is correct, it casts, over the deed of Ananias a painful suspicion; but, if the language of Ananias is true, it brands the theory of Mr. Jeter as a human invention and false. Mr. Jeter has a "symbolic theory of baptism," by which, in a very few words, he disposes of the present passage, which will be noticed in another place. SECTION IV. The passage on which we make our fourth argument is'the following* — "According to his mercy he saved- us by •the washing^of regeneration jind renewing of the Holy Spirit." In regard to the- expression renewing of the Holy Spirit, there exists, we believe, little or no diversity of opinion. REVIEW OF OAMPBELLISM. EXAMINED. 207 With one consent, it and the. expression begotten by the Spirit are allowed to be identical in sense. If they are not, the distinction between them may be said to be this, — that begotten by the Spirit expresses the fact sim- ply, while the other is rather .descriptive of it, it being a renewing. Of this effect or renewing the Holy Spirit is the author; hence, it is called a renewing of — i.e. effected, by — the Spirit. It commences in the enlightenment of the mind, and results in a deep and earnest faith in Jesus Christ. It comprehends all between the entrance of the first ray of heavenly light into the mind of, the sinner and his first overt apt of obedience. It is. a renewing of the sinner in the inner man, the effects of which become apparent in his outward conduct ; and, without it, no act which he can perform can be truly ,styled an act of obe- dience. Its importance cannot be too weightily empha- sized, nor can too much zeal be shown in urging the Truth upon the sinner's attention through which it is effected. But what is the meaning of the expression washing of regeneration? That it refers to baptism, or is another and descriptive name for it, is almost universally con- ceded. This much, then, we might fairly take for granted. But this is not the question. • The question is not, what does it refer to, but what is its meaning? On this point nothing is allowed to fee taken for granted; bu$ why ? Is it because the expression has an uncertain mean- • ing? This is not $he reason. Is it because its structure is so involved as to hide its meaning ? 2J ot at all. Or is it an unusual form of speech, which refuses to yield its sense 208 EEVIEW- OF OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. by the common laws of language ? By no means. It con- tains a meaning which is not acceptable. This is the reason. The only difficulty in the expression seems to -lie in- deciding whether the washing named in it belongs to regeneration as an integral part of it, and therefore as essential to it, or whether it is not a washing subsequent to regeneration, and hence no part of it, — in -a word, the washing of a person already and completely regene- rated. Those who adopt the latter view separate the expression, making the term washing refer to one thing, and the term regeneration to another; while those who adopt the former view, regard the whole expression as only a complex name for baptism, and- hence as insepa- rable; and this view we think to be unquestionably the correct one. For, if the expression be separated, to what, first, refers, the word washing? To baptism, re- spond the talent and learning of Christendom. Prom this there is hardly a dissenting voice. But to what, second, refers the term regeneration? To this absolutely no answer can be given. It cannot refer to being be- gotten by the Spirit, for this is expressed by the clause re- newing of the Holy Spirit: it cannot refer to baptism, for this is represented by the word washing. Indeed, accord- ing to this view, it is simply an unmeaning redundancy with neither senee in it nor reason for its presence* ■ But a little attention to the structure of ihe expres- sion, especially .to its sense, will assure us not only that it is not separable, but that the term " regeneration" is a mere epithet, serving to qualify the, preceding word e ' washing."' And this is according to a well-known principle in the Greek language. Nouns in-4he gem- REVIEW OF OAMPEELLISM EXAMINED. 209 tive case (is the principle) are often used in»the sense of adjectives to express the qualities -of "both persons and things. This is clearly the principle according to which the expression is to be resolved or cleared /xf difficulty. The following instances are subjoined as illustrative of the principle.* 1. Take'heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief. Here the word "unbelief" is, in the original, in .the genitive, and is correctly repre- sented in English by an adjective, thusi — an evil un- believing heart. And so of the remaining instances. 2. And I say to you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness: — the unrighteous mammon. 3. For this cause God gave them up to- vile affections : — affections of vilehess, in the Greek. 4. When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination" of desolation: — the desolating abomination. 5. And the lord commended the unjust steward: — in the original, steward of injustice. 6. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and eontmueth- therein, he being not a forgetful hearer i — in the Greek, a hearer of forgetfulness. 7. "Which stood only in meats arid drinks, and divers washings, and carrt'al ordinances ■: — in the original, ordi- nances of flesh. 8. The -prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh .in the ehifctren of disobedience,' — the dis- obedient children. * It is proper to state that the' principle, not being of universal applica- tion, is to be applied with caution. 18* 210 REVIEW OF CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED. But these, instances are enough.. Now, precisely as the genitive is used in these instances is it used in the expression now in hand, thus :— According to. his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration — or, con- verting the term "regeneration" into an adjective, a regenerating washing — and the renewing Of the Holy Spirit. • By the phrase " regenerating washing" is not meant a washing which implants any holy principle in the heart, or which, in any other way, momlly affects the inner man ; but merely a washing which completes the new birth." The epithet "regenerating" is objefition- abte, we grant, for the reason that it is liable to be mis- construed. It is here,.however, employed merely to illus- •trate the principle and for the want of a better term. That the conclusion just arrived at is correct may be inferred, further, from the ambiguity of the expression "washing of regeneration." This, may be invariably set down as decisive against the correctness of a ren- dering. Not that a rendering can be inferred to be correct from its not being ambiguous; but, from its being ambiguous, its incorrectness may be certainly in- ferred. That the expression is ambiguous is evident from the uncertain import of the particle — of — which it contains. First, it may mean a washing effected by re- generation; or, second, a washing belonging to it as part of it; or, third, a washing, performed on it, — i.e. the subjects of it. The particle of has all these accep- tation* in the following expressions.: — The mark of a pen,— something effected by itj the point' of a pen, — something belonging to it as part of it; the mending REVIEW. OF CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINED. 211 of a pen, — an act performed on it. Thisus enough to •show that the expression is ambiguous. Hence, we infer the preceding to be the true meaning of the passage. But to. what is reference made in the word "saved"? or to what does it properly apply ? First, it is clear that it refers to a salvation then past, then completed. Heaee, the apostle could speak of it as a matter of his- tory. Second, that it is the salvation which occurred when Paul ceased to be "foolish, disobedient, deceived, &c." Third, that it is the' salvation which depeads on the renewing of the Holy Spirit, and is the first which happens after it. But what is this -but the remission of sins ? This, then, we conclude, is the reference in the word, or the thing to which it applies. But this salvation depended not alone on the renewing of the Holy Spirit. «F«r he saved us by the washing of regenera- tion, one thing, and the remwing of the. Holy Spirit, an- other. Hence, the washing of regeneration— or bap- tisms—is essential to the remission of sins, or is one of the conditions on which it depends. But it is proper now to present Mr. Jeter's expo- sition of the passage, which is contained in the follow- ing paragraph : — " The phrase. ' washing of regejieratioa' is found nowhere in the Scriptures but in the 'text cited from the epistle to" Titus. It is generally — not univer- sally — supposed to signify baptism. That it does, can- not be proved. My own opinion is, that it is exegetical of the following words : — ' renewing of the Holy Ghost.' .Regeneration is called a washing, because it is a moral cleansing; and this washing is precisely equivalent to the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The' text ro»v v * 212 REVIEW Of cam-pbellism examined. rendered ' the washing of regeneration, even (xok) the renewing of the Holy Ghost' The Greek particle xat is frequently rendered 'even' in the New Testament: Matt. viii. 27 ; xxv. 29 ; Mark vL 12, &c. But, so far as this argunaenrfc is concerned, I will "admit that the words ' washing of regeneration' mean haptism." In this paragraph occur some two or three matters on which we shall dwell-for a moment. First. "It [the phrase, washing of regeneration] is generally — not universally — supposed to signify bap- tism. That it does, cannot be proved. • My own opinion is," that it is ex-egetical of the following words :— renew- ing of the Hofy Ghost." The "general*'' belief then, according to Mr. Jeter, is, that the washing of fegemratien signifies baptism. This; in other wordfi, is the belief* of the learned worl€,-i«4he orthodox belief ;• and y«t he dissents from it. But why? Had this belief and ours differed, would he have dissented? There' is something singularly perverse dis- played by him in treating this and some other passages. When the orthodox belief and ours differ, he grows clamorous and urgent for the authority of Orthodoxy ; . but when the orthodox belief and ours agree, them .he dissents from both. "We have piped to you -and ydu have not danced, we have mourned and you have not lamented," is a severe description of hypocritical folly. Second. "Begeneration is called a washing, because i* is a moral cleansing; and this washifig is precisely equivalent to the renewing of the Holy Ghost." But regeneration is not called a washing in this or any other passage in the Bible. The assertion is not REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 213 true. It is merely "my opinion." The passage neither asserts nor implies that regeneration, is a washing.. On the contrary, it represents the washing as being a wash- ing «/ regeneration K and hence not. regeneration itself. It is a washing of — i.e. belonging to — regeneration as £>art of it, — something essential to.it, without which it is.in- complete ; but it is not regeneration itself. The part of a thing. is not the whole. Third. "The text may be rendered, the washing of regeneration even (seat) the renewing of the Holy Ghost." Certainly it may be so rendered; and so, falsely, may every other passage in the Bible. But it cannot be correctly rendered and be rendered thus. Mr. Jeter's criticism is utterly faulty.. It rests on no principle whatever. But what is the meaning of the particle xat, on which, it turns ? Literally and primarily it means and. This is universally conceded. Now, in trans- lating, the most saeredrule in use is this : — to translate a word uniformly fey its literal and current meaning, unless the sense forbids it. But does not the sense of the present passage forbid the literal and current mean- ing of -»dh If so, why did Mr. -Jeter not -point it out? He knew positively that it did not, and yet he rendered the particle even, and in so doing violated ±ke most sacred rule known to the science of interpretation. True, the particle. is rendered even in the passages. to which he refers; but on what ground ? . Simply on the ground that the sense forbids the literal and current mean- ing, and hence requires a different one. This becomes evident by merely inserting the literal meaning, thus : 214 REVIEW CUT CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. ■ — "What. manner of man is this, that and the winds and the sea obey him?" Matt. viii. 27. Clearly, this^is wrong. The sense forbids the use of .and, and hence re- quires another word. By inserting even we see what weird it is, thus: — "Whaf manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?", and so of the other passages referred to-. But we cannot produce a jar like the preceding by the use of and: in the passage from Titus. "We can read, in harmony with the great rule just stated, "He- saved us by the washing of re- generation and renewing of the Holy Spirit," and the reading is sjnooth, the sense good, and the mind pro- foundly convinced that we read corjectiy. The very circumstance which requires the particle to be ( rendered even im the passages referred to is. wanting in the present one; hence to substitute, even for and in it is wholly unauthorized. SECTION V. Our fifth* argument is suggested by the following :■ — " Wherein [the ark] few, that is eight, souls were saved by water. The Kke figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us, — nut the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the -answer of a good eonscience towards God." This "passage (bo exceedingly obscure in the form here cjted) is. susceptible' of a much more intelligible render- ing, thus: — In which (ark) a few, that is eight, souls were saved by water, whieh also, now saves us in its antitype, bap- tism, which consists not in putting away fleshly impurity, but m meMtfg a good conscience in God. This rendering is ac- cording to the best text ®f the Greek New Testament REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 215* extant. A few additional remarks, howler, explana- tory of it, will Hot be thought amiss. , According to the common text, antitype is the subject of the verb saves. This, however, is now regarded as in- correct; and "the true subject is held to be the relative pronoun 8. Such is the case in the text now before us. With this relative antitype is in apposition; and bap- tism with antitype ; and, although a somewhat unusual apposition, yet it is attended.with no ambigttity. The relative is in the neuter gender, agreeing with water as its antecedent, — the only npun in the sentence with which it can agree* The- terms rendered putting away and seeking are both in the nominative case, and, since no verb is expressed, of course to or after one understood. That this is the verb is, hardly admits of doubt. It is not necessary, however, in order to express the sense of the passage, to be so slavishly literal as to indicate these circumstances. Hence, in our rendering, we have not done so. But on what ground have we substituted the ward seeking for the word answer ? We reply, first, there is a necessity for it;- for the passage, as it now stands in the common version, conveys no intelligible meaning what- ever; indeed, it is simply a jumble of words without meaning: Second, it agrees better with the sense of the original term. The verb from which the original term is derived occurs in the Greek New Testament fifty- nine times; in fifty-five of which it is rendered either by the word ask or by some of its forms ; in two, de- manded; in one, desired; and in one, (jp^estioned; and in every* single case should have been rendered either '216 RESTCEW OF GAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. by ask or by some of its forms. ".To seek after" is given as one of the meanings of the verb, in the best lexiooa to the Greek Testament we have, yet seen. Hence, the neun, retaining substantially the same sense, must mean either an asking or a seeking; and, sine© seeking gives a clearer and better sense, we therefore decide ia its favor. Asking is applicable rather to per- sons than to things ; hence it is, better to say of baptism it is a seeking than an asking. But why aubstitjute in for towards? "We answer, Beeause it gives a clearer sense and accords better with the usage of the Greek particle. That it gives a clearer sense is obvious at a glance, and hence needs no further illustration. The particle in the Greek is «r, which seems to- have the- sense of (ex) in : not, that ei? is used for -ev; but there- appears to.be the idea of previous motion combined with a state of re'Bt, in- which ease ear has the force of av. The following is an instance of this usage : — " And, leaving .Nazareth, he came and dwelt (eis-) in Capernaum." In sueh cases the previous nidation is, by the best critics, -supposed to have suggested .the use of et?; the real force of the passage being, And, leaving Naaareth, he came (et?) into . Capernaum, and dwelt there. Again, the passage itself in hand supplies an iastarice of the usage. Noah entered into (previous motion) the ark; hence he is represented as having been saved (eW) in it. In the same manner, the< pre- vious use of baptism seems to .have suggested the use of cf?, which w© have rendered in instead of towards. We are baptised {««*) into Christy hence in him we ape all said to^e One. We are baptized £«c) into the name REVIEW OF OAMPBBLI^ISM EXAMINED. 217 ©£ the Father;, hence we dwell (ev) in him. Conse- quently, sine© it is by baptism that we enter into him, it would seem highly proper to represent it as consist- ing in seekiag a good conscience («c) in- him, especially when we have full authority for such a use of the particle. . The preceding view of the passage has at least this advantage, — that it is perfectly intelligible, as well as consistent with what we know to be .taught elsewhere ; and although it is here rather suggested than insisted on, still, we believe it possessed of a high degree of certainty. But all this has little to .do with our argument. The ground on which it rests is asserted in the common version,— namely, "Baptism doth also now save us." From this it is clear that there is a sense in which bap- tism saves us, or a salvation which depends on or is effected in and by baptism. The question is, What is k, or in what does it consjsti 'First, it cannot be sal- vation, in' its most comprehensive sense; for it is liputed ^0 baptism. Second, it is not, be it what it may, a par- tial? but a complete, -salvation ; for baptism "now saves u&" Hence, previously to baptism it does not exist; subsequently it does : hut without baptism it cannot exist. "What, now, is the safest and fairest method of ascertaining in* what it consists, or, since the passage asserts, the fast that baptism saves us, how shall we determine in what sense ? - Clearly, the best, method of -obtaining a- correct reply to/this question ie/to ascertain in what sense the word saved is used when used ka connection with-bajptism, or 19 218 REVIEW OT CAMPBEIiLISM EXAMINED. -what is therein accomplished to which the word is ap- plicable. Happily, this is an easy task:— S* He that belieoeth and is baptised shall be saved." "Arise? and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." 'Jointly, these pas- sages determine, definitely and conclusively, that the word " saved," when used in connection with baptism, is used to-denote remission of sins j and whatever mean- ing it certainly has in these passages it certainly has in every other precisely similar passage, and, consequently, in the present one. Hence, baptism doth" also now save us, because therein our sins are remitted. Of the truth of this, little doubt can remain, when it is remembered that the same apostle on -whose language we are now commenting commanded an audience to repent and be baptized in order te remission of sins. Hence, it may with great-propriety Be represented' that baptism consists in seeking a good conscience in God, because it consists in seeking a conscience freed from sin. Of this passage, Mr.*9eter, with characteristic shy- ness. when a passage disfavors him, says, "The text above cited from Peter is one of the most obscure in the apostolie epistles. Commentators have been greatly perplexed and divided concerning its import. As it is not necessary for my purpose, I shall not attempt to expound- it." 1. The passage, we grant, is not wholly free from difficulty j but that it is one of the most obscure in the apostolic epistles, we cannot admit. 2. That it should perplex some men is not a& all to be wondered at. Passages perplex from various causes, some, the mor«, the less obscor* they are. The present REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINE!}. 219 passage asserts that baptism now saves us ; hence, how perplexing! $. Certainly it was not necessary to Mr. Jeter's pur- pose that he should attempt to "expound" the passage;. but it extremely concerned his purpose that .he , should let it alone. He has shown his cunning once. Bu,t, as containing a comment generally on the import of the term salvation, bu£ especially, it would seem, ®n its import, as used in connection with baptism, in the passages from Titus and 1 Peter, we shall extract from Mr-Jeter the following paragraphs : — "Do these Scriptures [from Titus and 1 Peter] teach that the sine of a believer are remitted in the act of baptism? This is the question under discuSsion. " God saves us by the washing of regeneration (baptism) and re- newing of the Holy Ghost. Baptism doth also now save us." . » " The term salvation is of comprehensive import. it denotes the whole process by which we are delivered from sin, and fitted for the fenjoymenfr of heaven. It includes a thorough moral renovation, the remission of BjAS, adaption into the family of God, and perseverance unto death in the way of holiness. It is commenced in Bepentence? carried forwaisd in sanctification, and will be completed by the resurrection from the dead. The sincere- believer, in Christ, even before baptism, is in a. state of salvation, but his salvation is incomplete-. Now, God. saves us by all the means which he employs to instruct, impress, purify, and preserve us. The written W^>rd,.the ministry of the word, meditation, prayer, baptism, the Lord's Supper, afflictions, are alTmeans by 220 »EVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. which God saves us. We are said to be saved by -faith, saved by hope, to save ourselves-and others : 1 Tim. iv. 10 ; to work out our own salvation, Phil. ii. 12. Salvation is .promised to him that endureth to the end : Matt. xvi. 22. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them, that obey him : Heb. v. 9. And we are saved by baptism. All these tlftmgs have an influence is •securing our, sal- vation, — are. among the means by which God, in hk mercy, carries on and completes the work. Baptism, which symbolizes the regenerating influence of the Spirit of God, and is a public and solemn acknowledg- ment of the remission of sins through faith in Christ, is designed and fitted to separate us from the world, im- press on- us* our obligations to Christ, and aid us in the pathway to heaven. It certainly, however, does not follow from this position- that the remission of sins is suspended on, the act of baptism. This conclusion is drawn- from the assumption that whatever promotes our salvation is essential to »1tie forgiveness of sims^— an assumption manifestly false. He that endureth to<*he end shall be saved; but is. the believer unpardoned until he finishes his race ? or is he not pardoned at the com- mencement of it? Christians aTe exh opted to work mt their own salvation; but are not their sins forgive® before the completion of the work? We are'saved by baptism, not as a condition of obtaining the remission of sins, but as one of the means which God employs to perfect the work of our salvtition^a means not indispensable to that result." ' » The sote design of this- truthless paragraph is to so mystify the word sal^aition as to render the passages *> - REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAlVflNED. 221 from Titus and Peter in which it occurs of no avail to us. The design of its author was not to develop the meaning of a term, but to confuse andnperplexit, — not to render a great point clear, but to exclude a distasteful light. Having transcribed the entire paragraph, we may now request the attention of the.reader*more par- ticularly to the following points : — 1. "The term salvation is of comprehensive im- port." Sometimes it is, -but it has not always the same extent of signification. The assertion of Mr. Jeter is true in the same sense in which the testimony of a wit- ness is true who, being sworn to testify to the whole truth, suppresses a part of . it. When Paul says the gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one. that belieres, he employs the- term in its most compre- hensive sense, and certainly in: a sense much more com- prehensive than when he says, the "preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness j but to-Jis who are saved it is the* power of; God- In the latter ca*se, it is limited to and its import exhausted by an event theri past, a process then completed; but not so in the former case. 2. "It" (the term salvation) "denotes the whole pro- cess by which we are delivered from ?sin and fitted for the enjoyment of heaven." Does it, indeed, always? It is charitable to hope that "Mr. Jeter believed Jhe assertion when he made it, but it is very certain that no one else who bestows upon it a moment's reflection will believe it. "Baptism doth also now save us." Does the term nere denote the whoje process by which we are delivered from sin and fitted for heaven ? 19» 222 REVIEW OP OAJMPBELIilSM E^AMINEf). J* 3. "It" (salvation) "is commenced in repentance, carried forward in sanctification, and will be completed by*tne resurrection* from the dead/' '.-Salvation is com- menced in repentance! No" one believes it who under- stands either the '"operations of his- own mind or the teachings of-Christianity. An ignorance in the ranks of his brethren, profound enough to accept as true this and like sentiments, is' what has contributed, in no small degree, to give to Mr. Jeter's book the brief "inglorious notoriety it has attained. Nothing more clearly shows how much both he and they have yet' to learn than the tenacity with which they cling tb, and the frequency with which €hey reaffirm, this absurd dogma. It crops out in his book on more occasions than one. Attention is here called to it, not for the purpose ot discussing it, but merely for the sake of giving to it an -emphatic denial. 4. "Now, God saves us by all the means which he employs to instruct,. impress, -purify, and preserve us. The written word, the ministry of the word, meditation, prayer, baptism, the Lord' scupper, arfflictfon*, are ail means by which God saves us. "We. are said to be saved by faith, — saved by hope, — to save ourselves and others, — to work out our "own salvation. Salvation is promised to* him that endureth to the end. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him'. And we are saved by baptism." Now, granting that salmtion is a process to the com- pletion of which faith, hope, baptism, &©. (Ube items severally enumerated by Mr. Jeter) are necessary, doe« it still follow that each of these items has not its cVn B.EVTEW OT CAMPBEfcLISM EXAMINED. 223 specific -value in the accomplishment, of the general result, — a function to sperform not performable by any other? — in a word^fchat baptism is not fo» the remission of sins? To assume that it does so. follow, is to assume the very point in dispute. We grant that salvation is a process', but still maintain that the exaet sense in which, baptism is necessary to its completion is, that H i&fer the remission of sins. It is no reply to this position to- say that faith and hope are also necessary to salvation. It is freely granted that they are, but not that they are necessary in the same "sense in which baptism is necessary. To assume that such is the case, is just as erroneous as to assume that, since life- is a process to which eatftngj sleeping, and drinking are necessary, a man lives' fey sleeping in the same sense in which he lives by eating. Jtad yeJt*' if there is any argument in the preceding extract, tins is what it- amounts to. 5. "Baptism, which symbolizes the regenerating in- fluence of the •Spirit of Gdd, and is a public -and solemn acknowledgment of the remission- of sins through faith in Christ; is designed and fitted to separate us from the world,' impress on us our obligations to Christ, and -aid us in the pathway to heaven." That baptism symbolizesr the regenerating influence of the Sp"irit ©f God, is- a naked, unsupported assertion. It is- wholly false. No evidence exists in the word of God of its truth. Had such been the case, Mr. Jeter, whose fondness for a pedantic array of texts displays itself even on the most trivial occasions, would bave sa^)d us the pains of seeking that evidence. It may be an article in his creed, but it is not a doctrine ofi the 224 REVIEW OF CAMPBEIXISM EXAMBM1D. Bible ;' and, while fidelity to the former may impel him to assert it, fidelity to the latter. should impel all honest men to reject it. Nor can less than this be said of the. position that baptism is " a public and solemn acknow- ledgment of the remission of sins through faith in Christ." Three things, and only three, can be said in its defence. It is asserted by Mr. Jeter; it is a tradition- of his church; it is not, in so many words, pronounced by the Bible to be a lie. On these grounds alone it rests, • 6. "It certainly, however, does not follow from this position that the remission of sins is suspended on the act "of baptism.. This conclusion is drawn from the assumption .that whatever promotes our salvation is essential to the forgiveness of «sins, — -.an assumption manifestly false." The assumption is not only manifestly false 1 *, it is manifestly foolish,- and manifestly the assumption of nobody but Mr. Jeter. -This- is not the only occasion on which he has. constructed a foolish hypothesis for us, and then sought to make the impression that some doc- trine which we entertain is dedueible from, no other ground. It would have been far more honorable in him had he confined himself to positions which we do enter- tain, and not have feigned for us those which we do not entertain, merely for the sake of deducing from them some conclusion which, after all, renders no one half, as ridiculous as himself. REVIEW Off CAMPBELLI&M EXAMINED. 225 SECTION VI. The passage on which we base our sixth argument is this :— "Verily, Verily, I- say to you, JSxeept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdofn of God." This passage we -regard as presenting ms with a com- plete view of the new birth, — as informing us in what it consistSj or what facts' constitute it. And, Whenever the subject of regeneration is spoken of, we wish it to be distinctly understood that the< present passage -con- tains our conception of it. In declaring that "except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," the Savior .merely propounds the doctrine of the new birth generally, in a statement of the necessity of it. But in the present passage he states definitively in what the new birth consists, reiterating the neeessity- of it. The. former passage prop'ounds the doctrme,"the latter passage explains ifc That to be" born again is to be born of water and "of the Spirit, does not admit of 'argument. • • The passage was intended, when spoken, to have, not a present, but a prospective, bearing. It applied at the instant when the Messiah',s kingdom commenced, and ever afterwards, but not a moment before. We cannot agree that the importance -of the passage can be exaggerated; "When' the Savior shuts the king- dom "of heaven against all, except on certain condP tions, those conditions become of transcendent interest. Neither flight of fan«y nor fertility of imagination can invest them with an unreal importance. • "* 226 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLI6M EXAMINED. The passage naturally distributes itself into two clauses/ each clause comprehending an integral part of the new birth, and the two parts exhausting the sub- ject. These clauses are, respectively, born of water, born of the Spirit. The meaning of .these determined, all must agree that the question, In what does the new birth con- sist? is settled. 'As the .latter clause has already been explained, only the other remains tp be examined. What, then, is the meaning of the expression, born of water? ■ In order to, decide this question, we must decide, first, the. previous question, — In what acceptation must we take the language of the expression? — a literal.or a figurative?. _ » This question can be discussed best, perhaps, by re- serving the expression into the .two simple verbal mem- bers which compose it, — to wit : born of and water. To some this division may seem unnecessarily mianfe. We do not think it so. By thus breaking down the expres- sion injio these simple members its parts come singly into view, by which means -each can be subjected tp & severer, because a more distinct, examination, •Upon the acceptation in which we are to take the member born of, no diversity, of opinion exists. It is universally agreed to be metaphorical." But what its, meaning is, ie supposed tp depend on the acceptation in which the .term "water" is taken. Are we then to take this term in its literal and ordinary acceptation, or m a figurative sense? In the latter sense, is responded by many. Let us now examine the hypothesis implied "ki this* response, which, being concisely expressed in -the RHVIEW Or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 227 form of a proposition, is this : — The term "wafer" is>figit- rative. This is a tough proposition. It has led its ad- vocates into great extremes. No effort has ever yet been made to defend it, upon which the stain of iniquity does mot rest. Conceived at first in a spirit of unbelief, it has since been advocated only in crime. The uncorrupted heart spews it out as a vile conception, and the scorn of reason hes on it. Not until the mind has been robbed of its independence by the tyranny of some human creed, or stricken by some fatal paralysis, will it suffer the noisome thing to lodge within it. But it is proper to subject it to a still farther examination. Where the literal and current acceptation *of a term happen to be the same, as is the case with the term "water," the presumption is, that such a term, wher- ever found, is used in that acceptation. And siich, more- over, is the force of this presumption, that nothing can set it aside except the most stringent necessity. Either such must be the nature of the case about which the term is employed, that it cannot be taken literally, or some most obvious circumstance must attend it, indi- cating that it is employed metaphorically ; otherwise it has certainly, in every single instance where used, its current signification. But is dot the nature of the new birth such— Tthe case about which the term "water" is employed — as to for- bid the term being taken literally? If not; then it has its literal, sense. Now, we must, of course, before wja can infer any thing from the nature of the case, know what the case itself is. Here, now, at the veTy ©titset, we encounter a serious difficulty. For, until the import 228 REVIEW OP CAMPBEIHSM J1XA.MINEB. of the term "water" is settled, the meaning ,of the new birth remains dmibtM. . This term forms one of a com- pact assemblage employed by, the Savior to describf the new birth. Until, Jtherefore, we settle its meaning, we remain ignorant, to the full extent of its individual sig- nification, of what it serves jointly, to describe. Hence, from the nature of that thing so described we can infer nothing to set. aside the literal acceptation of the term- In the literal acceptation, therefore, it stands. But is. not the term attended by some obvious cir- ca : m8,tance indicating that, it is employed metaphori- cally? That it is not is evident even to the eye. ©learly,, it was not the Savior' & intention, -in mention- ing water, to institute, a comparison between it and any thing else. Had such been the, case, he would have pre- ceded the tejMm by some such particle as like, so, or as. He does not say, Except a man be barn like, borai so, or born as; but, Except a man be bom of water. Hence, •comparison is .out- of the question. . , Nor can the term be employed metaphoricaUgr. Of words* thus ased ^zxyL metaphor is limited to single words unattended by any siga of comparison) there are two classes : — 1st, such %&, on being pronounced, sug- gest their meaning instantly; 2d, those in, which -the meaning, even after they arc pronounced, remains /hid until it is brought oat by some added explanation. The following are instances x>f these two classes : — 1st. "Go- ya and -tell that fox, Behold, I casjr out devils, and. I*do cures to>-day and to-morrow, and tne. third day I shall be perfected.'' H«e th» word "fox" is applied to Herod metaphorically - t jet, om hearing it pronounced, REVIEW OF 0AMPEBLLI8M EXAMINED. 229 we as instantly collect its meaning as had the Savior said, Go and tell that eunning monarch, &c. 2d. "De- stroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Li this instance the word "temple" is employed meta- phorically, and its meaning is completely hid until it is added, "hut he spake of the temple of his body." Now, to which of these classes (and there are no others) does the term "water" belong? Not to the former; for, on being pronounced, it suggests, on the hypothesis that it is metaphorical,, absolutely no meaning at all ; nor yet to the latter, for no expkmatory clause is added. Hence, the term is not metaphorical. But, again, a term r, even granting the term to be metaphorical, it still has some real meaning; bat what it is will never be deter- From aH the preceding premises, therefore, we con- clude that the acceptation in which the term "water" is to be taken is its literal and current acceptation; that it denotes, in other words, simply the material ele- ment we call water. It is proper to note, however, that the clause ''born of water" contains, a metaphorical term^ — to wit, born. Literally, this* term, as is well known,- denotes the event 20 230 BBTIITW m CAMPKEIiMSM EXAMINE®. which brings* man into the present life. But here it is employed not literally. It is empleyed metaphorically; and, hence, must represent an event which, in one or more respeets,- resembles its literal signification. "What, now, is that etent ? or, without separating the terms, what signifies the expression bom of water? V 7 - 1. If there is any- confidence to be reposed in the talent and learning of alleges since Christ, this question is settled :—the expression signifies baptism But it is proper to have before us the precise point to which this testimony is adduced. It is not adduced to settle the value or meaning of baptism. It is adduced merely to show what thing the expression "born of water" denotes, not what the value or significance of that thing is. These are 'different questions /"hence, testi-meny fully adequate to settle the one might be very inadequate to settle the other. 2. "Water is never present in any act connected with •fthe kingdom of Christ except one. But in tha* one i* is ■always present, and from it never absent. That act is baptism. *But in the expression "born of water, M "M)nster is present. Hence; it must be ia baptism, since water can be present in nothing else. Baptism, therefore, must be the thing denoted by the expression born of water. 3. -The term born is metaphorical j yet it must signify something which, in one or more respects, resembles its literal* .meaning. This something, moreover, must be connected with water. !Now, in all Christianity, what is there whieh, even in one respect, bears the slightest resemblance to the* literal meaning of "born," except REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 231 baptism? In -baptism we come out ef the wfttery and that to live a new life. Is not this being boasn of water ? 4, If the expression "born of water" does not signify baptism, then its meaning is wholly indeterminate.. Hence, no living man can say whether he is oris mot in the- kingdafa of God. But the Savior never intended to leave man in doubt on so vital a question. We -hence infer that the expression is determinate, and signifies baptism. . . . . It is now easy to complete our argument. There are but two kingdoms on earth in which -men exist,— the kingdom of. God and the kingdom of Satan. These two kingdoms are separated from each other by one and the same line. All en this s^ide Are saints, all on that sin- ners; and all are on that gide until born of wa£er and of the Spirit : then, all thus, born are- on „this. We can, no more conceive of a saint in the kingdom of Satan than we can of a' sinner in the kingdom of God; nor can we any more conceive of a saint without his being born of water and of the Spirit than we can of a sin- ner who is. The instant m which a man's sins axe for- giyen he passes from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God, But he passes from the kingdomof Satan into the kingdom of God the instant in which he is "born of water and of the Spirit. Hence in, that instant his Mns are forgiven, . Bu$ let us suppose apart of this to be denied. Let us suppose it to^e maintained that a man, though born of ..water and of the Spirit, might still be in the kjngdom of Satan. What is true of one man in,, this re,specjfc might certainly be true of. all, Hejice all men>, though &%& REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. bora again* might still be in the kingdom and under the dominion of Satan. Clearly, this is false. From all of which we conclude thait-a man's sins are remitted -the instant in which he is born of water and of the Spirit, or,, inverting the expressions, the instant im which, being begotten by the Spirit, he is immersed. Finally^ in order to establish, if possible, still more conclusively the identity of baptism and being bourn of water, and also to exhibit the perfect agreement between what the Savior said' to iNicodemus and what be taught in the great commission," we submit the following : — He that believes and is baptized is saved : he is therefore in the kingdom of God. Hence, he that» believes and is baptized is born of water and of the Spirit j for otherwise he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The only way to escape the foree of this, is to deny either that he that believes and is baptized is saved, or that he is therefore in the kingdom of God. It is now proper to examHne the main points in what Mr. Jeter has to say on the present passage. Indeed) we regret that the length of' his disquisition forbids our transcribing it entire;' for by a sensible and' candid man it needs only to be seen to be despised). Even from Mr. Jeter it would" be difficult to produce any thing more corrupt. Take, for example, the first paragraph :^- "The reformers quote> this text [John iii. 5] with great confidence in support of their views. Let us can- didly examine *t. 'The phrase yewrjOfj if udarot; — born of water — does not elsewhere occur in the Scripture*. Its import must "be learned from the language itself, the context, and the current teaching of revelatid* REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 23g What is its meaning? Mr. Campbell maintains that it means baptism, and-feninds hie'argument for baptismal remission wholly on this interpretation. Concerning this opinion I have severakxemarks to offer." Did Mr. Jeter not know, when he said Mr. Campbell maintains that the phrase, born of water, means bap- tism, and founds his argument for baptismal remission wholly on this interpretation, J;hat he was deliberately uttering in the face of the- world wha,t. is not true?. Whatever he may have. known or thought, it matters not : he has done so. It is painful to have to speak thus of him; but we are not at liberty to suppress the truth in order to avoid saying that he has not spoken.ifc. On page 261 of his book he says, " I wiH. now endeavor briefly to show* that -the passages of Scriptasre jwine^ pally, relied on . by Mr. Campbell for the support of his doctrine utterly fail of establishing it." Now, let the reader^aote that- Mr^Jete* is .going to examine th&pas- smges-prineipatty relied on by Mr. Campbell to support his doctrine. He theb quotes the Allowing: — \. He that befeveth and is baptizedflhall.be sassed. '&,. Bepent-and be- baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gi#* of the Holy Ghost. 3/ Jesus answered, Eerily, verily, I say to thee, Except -a man be- born, of water and of the Spirit, he cannot endrer kit©- the kingdom o£ God. 4. Christ also loved the churchy and gave, hjmaelfr for it; that he might' sanctify and cleanse it with, ^he washing- ©£ water by the we^d, - Q£. which Mr. JetQs says, "This text is adduced by Mr. Campbell with gjjeat confidence in support of hje cherished theory, that sins 20* 234 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. are remitted in the very act of immersion." 5. Accord- ing to his mercy he saved us, "by the washing of regene- ration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 6. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (roo% the putting away of the filth of the flesh, -hut the answer of a good' conscience toward God) by the re- surrection of Jesus Christ. ■ Here, now, are no less than sis passages on which, it seems, Mr. Campbell principally relies in support Of his "cherished theory f and yet of the single clause born of" water, Mr. Jeter says, Mr. Campbell maintains that it -means baptism,, and founds his argument for baptismal remission wholly on this interpretaMwn ! '•"Of the *' several remarks" offered by Mr. Jeter on Mr. Campbell's mterprelwti0!& of the clause "born ofi water," we shall' transcribe the chief parts of only two or three. First. "It [the pdsition *tha* the phrase "born of water" means baptism] makes -the' answer of Christ to Nicodemus false. The kingdom of &od must mean the church of* Christ- on earth,*orthe state of heavenly glory* This position, it ills presumed, will Jiot be called in question, New, it is not true that none enter' into the visible ehurch on earth who are not born of the Spirit. In the pwrest churches there are members who are hot regenerated. In the apostolic churches there were some who were not properly of them. 'They went out from us,' said Jefcn;- 'but they were not af us ; for, if they had been "of us, they would have con- tinued with us.' " Now, we profoundly believe the expression "Mug- BEVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 235 dom of God," in John iii. 5) means the church of Christ on earth,— taking the term "church" in its largest sense j and yet we assert, that' into that kingdom no man,' woman, or child ever yet entered * unless* bbrn of water and of the Spirit. 'When the Savior says of a thing it cannot be, we pronouiree it impossible. And, as to " the purest churches" containing members who are not regenerutedj-Vwhich may he the case, — 4t is easily explained on the simple principle, that even the purest churches are not wholly pure. - But this- is* not the point in dispute. The Savior does not say, " except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into a church partly pure and partly not." He is Speaking not of a church, nor of churches) but of- the church. A man may be in a church,- and yet not in the ©hurchj but in- the church h© cannot be unless born of water and of -the Spirit. Nor can he -be even in a church of Ghrist, except- in appearance only, unless thus b&fg. Indeed, the very language of John,- when, in speaking of certain members, he says, " They went out feonv us, but they were not of- ite," clearly implies that they had been; members not in- reality but in appearance efrly. - ' Second* "Nor is it true f that none enter into the< heavenly gtery who are not baptJaedi. Prom this con- clusion, • though if* follows legitimately from his doc- trine, Mr.' Campbell 'himself recoils. The Savior's decla- ration, then, as interpreted by the reformers and many others, is not true-." Wr . Campbell does not believe that the expression "kingdom of God," in John iii. 5, means the kingdom 236 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED* of ultimate glory ; -neither does lie teach that none will be saved except those who enter the church qii earth. Qa the contrary, he teaches that the following classes will be saved without -entering it: — 1. All infants. 2. All idiots. 3. Many heathens. 4. Many honest peo- ple who are kept in profound ignorance of their duty bythe teaching of such men as Mr. Jeter. From what doctrine, then, of Mr. Campbell, does the " conclusion" freta which he "recoils" MloV so legitimately ? The reply is, none. All Mr. 'Campbell teaehes is, that none who- are responsible, and to whom the gospel is preached, ©an, unless bora -of water and of 4 the Spirit, enter into the church on earth; and that those whs, under these circumstances, refuse to enter it, have, no assurance that they shall ever enter the kingdom above. {Ehud. ** There is but one method -of evading this con- dusatam. It Is sometimes affirmed, for the purpose of avoiding it, that, a man cannot ■constitutionally, enter into the khfgdom of God except he is baptized, and bora of the Spirit." • » By whom it is so affirmed we know not ; but it is not by Mr. Campbell and his brethren. They affirm that a man, unless born of water and" of the Spirit" cannot) tn any sense, enter into the kingdom of Gfod. Thejmeither say constitutionally nor unconstitutionally} but, imqu&M~ fiedly, thai &e.canncfr enter -at all unless thus born. Fourth. "If the phrase 'born ' of * water* means jjw- mersion, the passage in which 't is found yields no sup- port to the doctrine of baptismal remission. If the king- dom of God .means, as "Mr. Campbell understands it to mean, the reign of Messiah on earth, — the visible REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. %&: church, — then the- text proves laeuely that a man eannot enter the church without baptism, and leaves the sub- ject of the remission of sins wholly untouched." . But what is the passage in which the phrase is found? It is this : — '"Except- a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, this text certainly teaches, not, simply, that a man can- not enter into the kingdom of God without being hern of water, but jfchat he cannot enter into it without being born of both water and the Spirit. But does it le"ave the subject of ithe remission of sins wholly untouched? When a man is born of water and «f ,the Spirit, are bis sins still unremitted ? ., ■ , Fifth. " So far as this passage teaches us, a man may be pardoned before, or after, as well as-in, the act of tea- mersion. It has no relevancy to the subject under dis- cussion." This is most unfair. So far as the passage teaches a man cannot enter into the kingdom ©£ God without being born of both water and the Spirit. Now, may he be pardoned before being thus born, or after, as well as when thus bom? This is the question. If he may be pardoned before being thus born, we ask> how long before— one year or ten — and on what conditions ? or, if he may be pardoned after, how long after— ten years or fifty — and on wha^conditions ? WiU Mr. Jeter favor the world with an answer to these questions ?• Mr. Campbell argues that a man is jwa-doned the instant in whioh he is born of water and the Spirit, — the instant in which these 1 two events are jointly consummated, aild 'c&nsequiemtl^'— -mnoe to be born of water is to be Zm REVIEW OR CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. ujan&ersed-^ke instant in which he is begotten by the Spkit and immersed. And, unless a man can be par- doned before or after the joint happening of these two events, his argument, is overwhelming. True, being begotten by the Spirit is precedent to being immersed, but Jhen' the value of each depends on the two- as eon- cwwent, and not as separate, events. Six-th. "But what does the text under discussion mean? It is not "incumbent on me to show its mean- ing. I have proved that it does not refer to baptism, and that, if it does, it fails to support the doctrine of baptismal remission f this is sufficient for my purpose, I will, however, perform a work of supererogation. I will quote on this subject a passage from a sermon of the Eev. James Saurin, formerly pastor of the French church at the' Hague, celebrated alike -for his learning, eloquence, and piety. The phrase, says this incompa- rable writer, to be born of water and of the Spirit, is a Hebraical phraseology, •importing to be born of spiritual % "Whatever Mr. Saurin may have been in learning or im eloquence is a matter of no consequence here. He has offered an insult, in the instance in hand, to the word of God, which no term but shocking will describe. Judging from the present specimen, ho stands alone in- this respect, the gentlemen excepted who cites and indorses his language. To be born of water and of the Spirit imports to be born of- spiritual water J New, let not the reader conclude from this that Mr. Jeter is impious enough to ridicule the .passage or daring enough to assert outright that it is a lie. Suek «nM>t-,the ease* REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINES. 289 All he means is, that, when the Savior says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," neither water nor Spirit is meant True, the Savior says water and Spirit^ but then Mr. Jeter knows- perfectly that he meant neither. Henoe, all the passage means is, Except a man be born of spiritual water, he cannot' enter into the kingdom of GodI section vn. Our seventh argument is suggested by the follow- ing: — "Christ also loved- the ehurch, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." That the phrase by the word is, in construing the pas- sage, to be joined with the verb sanctify, is s© obviously true that nothing need be urged in its defence, — the proper collocation of the words being, Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that, having cleansed it by the washing of water, he might sanctify*it by the • word. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." The following rendering of the passage we extract from a recent work exhibiting in many respectp the neatest taste and most accurate scholarship: — "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that, having purified it by the water wherein it is washed, he might hallow it by the indwelling of the word of God." Eut what signifies the expression cleansed it by the washing of water? This question can be best answered. 240 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. perhaps, by detea»B.jn*ag separately^ the signifieation f water.* Of the much that Mr. Jeter has to say on this passage, but little is worthy of notice, and even that little, of but slight notice. In speaking of the word cleansed, (p. ^70,) he* saySy "In one "place, the word probably refers- to the removal" .of ** guilt from the conscience by the -bfeod of Christ. (Hefo. m. 14.) In every ether passage where it relates to the redemption of man it denotes a moral renwalrion." . Thef object of this assertirtau is to ete&te the itaptessiatf thast iha word- cteam&BeL m nowhere in the New Testamen* eE&pfoi^eal"' to ■tafp&fy' a ■"Lansing jiroffm sin r and, eonse- quep1%, not to #10 passage in hand. Bat the foHowifUg 21 Q 242 KETiEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINE®. passages, in one of which, the word occurs in the. form of a noun, ia-the other in that of a verb, (a circumstance n®t in -the least- affecting its application,)- will show how much confidence is to be reposed in the assertion, — "The blood of Jesus Christ his son' cleaneeth us from all smi.'M John i. 7. "But he that laeketh these things is blind* and cannot see far off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." 2 Pet. i."9. "If," says Mr. Jeter, "the phrase .washing of water means baptism, then the text teaches, not the remission of sins in the act of baptism, but rather baptismal re- generation and sanctification. At any rate, it will be the business of those who contend for that meaning of the phrase to free the passage from a consequence which is exceedingly plausible, if it is not legitimate." Wrst. The "text* does not ascribe sanctification to the washing of water. It is the cleansing alone which is. effected in the water. Sanctification is ascribed to the word. And this repels a plebeian allusion of Mr. Jeter-4o something which he with characteristic grace styles "the Bethany dialect." Second.* But suppose the passage 4oes teach the.doc- 'trine'of baptismal regeneration: what then? Shall the passage be rejected because itjteaches the doctrine? Or shall we attempt t© make it -teach -another doctrine ? If the passage teaches the doctrine, then the doctrine is true. Or does Mr. Jeter set himself, up to be judge «f what the divine wpid ought to teaeh, and then, because it d«BS not teach to his liking, compel it t@ teach differ- ently? This is not the first instance in which this im- plication has escaped his pen. .Jfe" tost dearly reveals, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 243 on more occasions than one, tkat the ground of his faith is not the Bible, but the.suggestions of his corrupt imagi- nation. . His creed contains but a single article ) — Where th*e Bible and his whim| agree, the Bible is true : where the Bible and his whims differ, the Bible is* false'. "But the "text" does not teach — even. conceding that the phrase Washing of water signifies baptism*, as we profoundly believe it does — what Mr. Jeter affeets to think so '(-exceedingly plausible." Even a child can he mad© to understand that whatever is ascribed to 'the washing of water or baptism is ascribed .to it merely as a cohditioB, on compliance with which, whatever is so ascribed is conferred by our heavenly Father as a matter of grace or mercy. A position so obvious as this needs no further comment. SECTION VIII. Our eighth argument is derived from the following : — "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male, nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. -And if ye be Chrisfs, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according; to promise." Certainly, the expression "in Christ" is not to be taken literally; and yet there can exist little or no doubt as to'its import or the relation which it expresses. Now, we maintain that the very fact that we enter into Christ by baptism, or into the relation which this language ex- presses, involves the connection between baptism and the. remission of sins for which we contend. - • 244 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. That the instant in which a. person becomes an "heir according to promise*," he becomes a Christian, or is for- given, can hardly be' supposed to admit of argument. To suppose a person an "heir" and yet not forgiven, or forgive'n -and yet not an heir, involves a contradiction, if "not in words, at least • in fact. But when do we be- come Jierrs ? The reply is, when We become Abraham's children'; not according to the flesh certainly, but when "we are constituted such. But when do we become Abraham's children ? * Certainly when we become * Christ's ; and we betome Christ's when in Mm, and not before. For, says the apostle, you are all one in Christ,'and, if Christ's, (which you are if in him,)- then are yo"u Abraham's seed, and heirs according to •promise. !NoW, what persons alone are in Christ ? As many, is the reply, as have been baptized into Christ, and not one more. If, now, none outK>f. Christ are forgiven, (and let him who so affirms prove it,} and if all in 'him are, then the very act of -entering into him makes, the difference between the forgiven, and the unforgiven person. If there is any value in implication, this is conclusive. Again, out- of Christ' alone do the distinctions exist between Jew and Greek, bond and free, male and female. Now, not for a moment' can -it be doubted that the in- stant in which these distinctions cease to exist is the instant in which we are forgiven. These are worldly distinctions, and cease to exist only when we cease to be of the world, which happens the. instant in whicn we are fftrgiven'. Now,- that the instant «n which these-dis- tinCtions cease to exist is the instant ia whieh we are REVIEW Of CAMPBKLUSM EXAMINED, !*i§ baptized into ' Christ, is -positively certain. Hence, hardly less certain, is it that in that instant we ar»e forgiven. But doubtless Mr. Jeter will say, are we not all ^ie children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ? Certainly we are all the children of God by faith in Christ; for it is by faith that we are led to be baptized into him when alone we become his ; and it will hardly he sai(J that we become the children of God before we become Christ's. SECTION rx. As the basis of our ninth and last argument we cite the following : — "And he said, TSirs, what must I da to be saved? And fhey said,~Believe on the Lord Jesu» -Christ.,, and thou shalt be saved, and thy. house". This passage is cited,not so much to make it the basis of an 'argument, as to show that it warrants no conclu- sion at variance with, the conclusions now arrived at frem the preceding arguments. The question then to be considered is, Does the pas- sage teaoh that salvation- depends on faith- alone ? - Mr. Jeter is constrained to admit that it does not. He con* cedes that it implies a condition which it.dees cot name; but on- what ground does he maintain that it implies but one? One, certainly, is* all it names; but- if- it implies others, why not tea as well as one? To assert that it impEes'but one is the language of arbitrariness and not of criticism. Mr. Jeter concedes that it implies repent- ance ; but why ? Sf. on»the ground -that repentance is taught elsewhere,, so is baptism j but if on the ground 21* 246 REVIEW OF CAMPBtfLLJSM EXAMINED. that ifeith and "repentaaee arg necessarily united* we d«ny the position, and assert that they are neeesBwrily not united. If belief cannot exist without repentaijce, why does the word of God ever -enjoin repentance ? In Uhat case belief alone need be enjoined, since, if a man believe, he must of necessity repent. The very feet that the word of God enjoins belief in one command, repent- ance in a second, and baptism in a third, proves that beliflf and repentance are as distinct as belief and bap- tism. Poor, indeed, are his conceptions, as well of the workings of his own mind as of the teachings of Holy "Writ, who affirms to the contrary. The truth is, that belief not only "precedes repentance, but is the very ground of it. Prom repentance we may certainly infer belief, but from belief hot certainly repentance. JJr. Jeter's position that belief implies repentance, but not baptism, rests on no foundatioa worthy o£ the name. It is an insult to reason no Jess than to revelation. Had it suited his purpose, to ■ exclude repentance, he would 'have done so with as little compunction as he excludes baptism. - - The obvious reason why the- apostle's injunction in- cluded only belief is, that the jailer, be/ng ignorant of his duty, needed to be taught the whole of it, which, in all cases r begins with belief. But, being properly taught in this, respeet, every. other duty would be, by a person in his state of mind, promptly cemplied with as soon as pointed out. We are not, however, to con- clude, because baptism was not commanded, that it was therefore not necessary, but siiaply that it was not necessary to command it; of, rather, that when*' com- REVIEW OF CAMPBELfclSM EXAMINED, 247 mandirig the first duty it was not necessary, in the same Biftiteiiee, to uomniand every other. Neither are we -to conclude, because the design of baptism is not in every instance stated, that it is not therefore necessary to the remission of sins. The Apostle Peter, in Salo- mon's porch, did not command his audience to brieve, not because belief is not necessary, but simply beeauBe, under the circumstances, it was not necessary to. com- mand it. Neither did Paul, when enjoining upon the jailer his first duty, commamd him either to repent or be baptized in order to the remission of. sins; but how illogical to infer that therefore neither is necessary to that end ! Whatever an apostle, in any case, commanded for 'sal- vation or remission, became by that very fact essential to salvation in every case; and, although it should never have been mentioned again as- necessary, fts value would not have been in the least affected by that cir- cumstance. One command, never repeated a second timej is enough to establish forever a duty, and a single expression, never again reiterated, enough to define and fix its value ; but a thousand omissions to mention these subsequently • are ' insufficient to affect either. The Apostle Peter commanded an audience to repent and be baptized in order to the remission of sins, which alone, to say nothing ■'of other corroborative passages, forever fixed the- Value of both repentance aSd baptism, and, thtfugh neither had ever been mentioned again, this would still be theirvatee. But, waiving all more exact inquiries, upon what broad basis can we place the salvation of the' jtriler 248 REVIEW. OB CAMPBEH.ISM EXAMINED, which, as a, precedent, will leave no doubt in any mind? The facts in his* case are these: — he heard the IFputh, believed it, and was baptized, the same hour, of the night. The law in his case was- this : — he ihdt'be- lieves and is baptized- shall be saved. Upon this view of the case not a doubt. can possibly arise. Why, thftn, staip short of absolute certainty where the interests of eternity are at stake ? But here -we must close our arguments upon the con- nection between baptism and the ceinissidn of sin*. And, while We regret thai; our. limits will not allow us to extend them further, we confess -we are not sensi- ble, every thing considered, that such extension is de- manded. Some matteus. which have been, omitted alto- gether might, perhaps, have been introduced and dwelt upon with profit ; and yet even these might have added length to the present chapter, without deepening the conviction it is intended to ^>r»duoe> A few points touched* upon might have been treated, and with ad- vantage, as we conceive, with greater fullness of detail j> bat even he»e we have- feM *hat something of import- ance might, with .propriety, be sacrificed to brevity. Upon the whole, the subject if, submitted to the. con- siderate judgment .of the reader, in. the firm persuasioa that if examined in the light of the^pceceding passages and arguments based thereon, as well as in the light of his own calm reason, he cannot fail to arrive at the con- clusion that, the position for which we contend enjoys the clear and certain sanction of Holy Writ. REVIEW OF CAMPBEELI6M EXAMINED. 249 CHAPTEE VIII. ~ OBJECTIONS TO THE PRECEDING DOCTRINE OF REMISSION CONSIDERED. SECTION I. Objection First. "Baptism,, according to the 'an- cient gospel,' is not the figure "or formal acknowledg- ment of the remission of Bins, but the indispensable, and, it Would seem, the only, condition of obtaining it. ..... Is this scheme of forgiveness scriptural f Is baptism, like -cepentance *and faith, an indispensable con- dition of the remission of sins-? Let the reader notice, — -first, that this scheme of remission flatly contradicts plain and numerous Scripture testimonies. These testi- monies, or specimens of i;hem, I have already adduced. Now, it is a sound and 'admitted principle of Biblical in- terpretation, that the Scriptures should be construed in harmony with themselves. The obscure must be eluci- dated-lby the clear, and the figurative by the literal. It is impossible for words to express more clearly; point- edly, and emphatically, than do the Scriptures, tha* God has suspended' the forgiveness of sins on the exercise of faith. Take, fpr an illustration, the words of Christ to the Jewish Eabbi : — 'Be that believeth ®n him (the Son) is not condemned;' and is, consequently, pardoned or justified". Now, baptism for the remission of sins — a phrase susceptible of different interpretations — must be 350 REVIEW Off CAMSBELLISM EXAMINED. construed in harmony with this unambiguous language of the great Teacher. Apd. the remark is true of all the texts under consideration." . * In this extsact, which eontains Mr. Jeter's leading and certainly his- most serious objection, occur several things which we think it best to single- out and notice separately. " * 1. "Baptism is the indispensable, and, it would seem, the only, condition of obtaining remission." Candidly, we are not seldom at a loss to know how to characterize^ some of Mr. Jeter's assertioas "without transcending the limits which courtesy imposes/ To call this assertion a downright falsehood would be too harsh, and"to call 4t the truth .would be a falsehood, ^Tamelessj then, we let it stand. Mr. Campbell main- tains (and Mr. Jeter is perfectly acquainted with the fact) tha.t. there are three conditions on which remission of sins depends, — to wit: belief, repentance, and bap- tism. "Wherefore, then, the preceding false and .slan- derous assertion ? - ■ 2. "Is baptism, like repentance and faith^an indis- pensable condition of the remission of sins.?"- In what cases the Savior will dispense with "a comr dition to which he "has . required all to whom the gos- pel is preaehed to submit, is a question the- decision of which- we are not bold enough to undertake. The Savior himself has not decided, it, nether have the .apostles. We should tremble to enter eternity in the gloom of their silence, . * . . 3. " This scheme of remission flatly contr-adicts plain and numerous Scripture testimonies." REVIEW OP eA"MPBELLISM EXAMINED. 251 This is a grave charge, and, if true, certainly the "scheme" against which it is urged merits universal condemnation. . Has Mr. Jeter sustained .the charge-? "We shall now examine what he alleges in its defence. ■ 1. fit is impossible for words to express more-«learly, pointedly, 'and emphatically, than do the Scriptures, that God has suspended the forgiveness of sins on the exercise of faith." Substituting, for the ridiculous expression " the exer- cise Of faith," simply faith, and every word of this is granted. But it is certainly possible for words to, ex- press most clearly a very different proposition, — one which the Scriptures do not express, and which is the sole ground on which Mr. Jeter's objection- rests, — ■ namely, that God has suspended the forgiveness- of sins on faith alone. This proposition the Scriptures do not express, for the simple reason that they express nothing which is false ; and this is the only proposition which our " scheme" of remission contradicts. 2. "The phrase 'baptism for the remission of sins' is susceptible of different interpretations.'.' If the phrase, as it stands in Mr. Jeter^s assertion, were the whole of the phrase in the word of God, then, p&rhaps, there might be some foundation for his remark. But such is not the ease. The phrase in the word of God is not baptism for the remission of sins, but repent- . ance and baptism for. the remission of sins. There are no two interpretations of which this phrase is sus- ceptible. Whatever repentance is for, baptism is for; and whatever baptism is fb», repentance is for.* Conse- • quently, since repentance is for — that is, is necessary to — 2S£ REVIEW" M CAJ^»Bfii,LtSM KX^HJNEB. • the remission of sing, remission of sine is what baptism is for, or "the things t© w.hieh it is nec&es'sary.' Why, now, we ask, unlesa to conceal this, was Mr. Jeter guilty of the preceding mutilation of a portion of God's holy wwtfd? Alas fen- a man when he can be moved to. render such Beryice as .this at the shrine of Qsthodoxy, for np higher end than merely to he considered a, Notary there! .3. "He that believeth on him (the gion) is not con- demned, and is, consequently, pardoned or justified." The passage from which, this conclusion does notJoUom was spoken by the- Savi»r previously to his prescribing the grounds on. which justification, during his. reign, is to fee enjoyed, and, hence, previously to baptism. Gon- seqwently, to infer &om it that we are now justified by fai'th -akwie without baptism is, to confound times which are wholly distinct, and to .reader null an .existing i D ~ sti&utioa hf a- passage which ,«ppljed before, it had .an But in all each passages faith is to be /viewed not so nwieh as a eendjiian- of remission ^thoagh it eertainly is one) as the great priaeipie of action which leads to compliance wifch all our other duties j and, where it is the faith of a SMB»er,.as standing for— because it leads to compliance. ;afitb. them -rr the other conditions, of- r^e- mission, p»ecisflly»as. one of a class fr^qpently represents .the whole class. There is no passage in the. word pf Qad which represents faith as .the sale, condition ©/ uwiissio^ during Christ's reign, .and h^nee none -which our ".scbenje" of remission eontc^dietSj - ... 4. 3iWj, says J^ Jeter, the phr-ase, baptism, for tiie reuKssiom. ©f si»s, nwgt b« construed in barn&pny wjtb. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 263 the unambiguous language of "the great Teacher, — He that believeth on him (the Son) is not condemned. "Unquestionably the phrase must be so construed. How now shall this be done? The language of the great Teacher does not say, neither does it imply, that faith is the sole condition of remission; while the lan- guage of the Apostle Peter does say that repentance and baptism are for remission. Hence, since the lan- guage of the Apostle expressly includes repentance and baptism as for, or necessary to, remission", and since the language of the Savior does not even by implication ex- clude them, as not necessary, therefore, since not thus excluded, they must be considered as intended by the Savfor to be understood as necessary. Certainly, what one passage does not exclude as not necessary to remis- sion another may include as necessary without involving a contradiction. Thus, therefore, baptism for the re- mission of sins can be made to harmonize strictly with "the language of the great Teacher. But Mr. Jeter " maintains, in common with evangelical Christians of every name, that the sinner passes from a state of condemnation to a state of justification at the precipe moment when he truly believes in Christ, or, Which is the same thing, receives him as a Deliverer." At the precise moment, then, when a person believes*, his sins are remitted. In other words, faith is the sole condition' of remission, all others being excluded. But faith precedes and is distinct from- both repentance and baptism; hence they are both excluded as conditions of remission. And yet the Apostle Peter says that re- pentance and baptism are fy>r — i.e. necessary to — remis- 22 254 BJEVIEW OF CAMPBELLI8M EXAMINE©. sion. Here now is an irreconcilable contradiction, and that too between Mr. Jeter's own "scheme" of remis- sion and the word of God. "Will he, therefore, relieve hie own "scheme" of the odium of contradiction before he again attempts to charge it upon the "scheme" of Mr. Gampbell ? • # SECTION II. Objection Second. "That the Scriptures manifestly make a distinction 'between the relation which faith and that which baptism bears to the .remission of sins, we read in the Scriptures; and many such passages may be founds: — 'He thaff believeth not shall.be damped.' 'Except ye repentj ye shall all likewise perish.' 'If any man love net th» Lord Jesus. Christ, Jet him be anathema maranatha.' !Now, we do not read, nor is it intimated, nor is any thing recorded from which it may be fairly inferred, th.it if a man is. not immersed he is condemned, — doomed to- perish and to be anathematized a£ the coming of our Lord* But if Christ has made, as Mr. Campbell contends,' repentance, faith, and immersion equally necessary to forgiveness, how can it be accounted for that neither Christ nor his apostles ever uttered a malediction against the unbaptized." 1. " The ^ Scriptures manifestly make a distinction between the relation which faith and that Which .bap- tism bears. to the remission of sins." They manifestly make this distinction, — that faith is the first and baptism the'last of the three conditions on which remission depondsj^but they do not make this REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 255 distinction,-**-that faith is essential, but baptism not, to remission. 2. "Bat if Christ has made, as Mi'. Campbell con- tends, repentance, faith, and immersion equally necessary to forgiveness, how can it be accounted for that neither Christ nor his apostles ever uttered a malediction against the unbaptized?" , Mr. Jeteris question amounts to this : — that one thing which the Bible does say is to be rejected because it does not say another. The Bible does say that repent- ance and baptism are for the remission of sins, and it does not maledict the unbaptized: what then? Shall we reject the* thing which it does say because it does not say the other? How foolish some men can make them- selves appear ! But, if he who " keeps the whole law and yet offends in one point is guilty of all," will Mr. Jeter inform the world whether the word of GMd must anathe- matize the unbaptized before his negligence can be con- sidered a crime for which he may be condemned ? SECTION IK. Objection Third. " There are consequences involved in the theory of baptismal remission which may well make us hesitate to adopt it." The first of which, in Mr. Jeter's own language, is the following: — "That the salvationjof men, even of penitent believers, is in the hands of the authorized baptizers. Popish priests have claimed the power of remitting sins; but Protestants have ever considered the claim an arrogant assumption. I freely concede that -those who maintain the sentiment 296 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. which. I am opposing may not -have examined its bearing and consequences. I speak not of them, but of *helr doctrine. It is, however, as clear as that two and two make four, that the remission of -the believer's sins, according to (this theory, depends, not on the will of God, but on the will of men. He cannot baptize him- self; and, if the qualified administrator does not choose, under no matter what plea, to baptize (or regenerate) him, he must either be pardoned without immersion, be saved with»ut pardon, Or- be lost. No sophistry can evade this consequence." The Apostle Paul propounds the following questions : — "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? and .how shall they hear without a preacher?" The reply to which is> they cannot believe in him of whom they have not heard, nejther can they hear with- out a preacher. And yet the Savisr says, "He. that believeth nQt shall be damned.", Now, there are consequences involved in this theory of salvation which may well make us hesitate to adopt it. We mention the following : — That the salvation of men, even of the best-intentioned, is in the hands of the authorized preachers. Popish priests have claimed the power of remitting sins; but Protestants have ever con- sidered the claim an arrogant assumption. We freely concede that the Savior and the apostles may not have examined the bearing and consequences of the senti- ment they have published to the world. We speak not of them, but of their doctrine. It is, however, as clear as that two and two make four, that the salvation of the sinner, according to this theory, depends, not on REVIEW OE CAMPBELLISM. EXAMINED. 257 the 'will of God, but on the will -of men. He cannot save himself, he cannot be saved without belief, and he cannot believe without a preacher. Now, if the qualified preacher does not choose, under no matter what plea, to preach' to him, (save him,) he must either be saved without belief, believe without hearing, or be lost. No sophistry can evade this consequence. But doubtless Mr. Jeter will say the cases are not parallel, since, when the Savior says, he that believeth not shall be damned, he alludes to a person only, to whom the gospel has been preached, who consequently has it in his power to believe and yet will not* Exactly so : and so we say that baptism is obligatory upon those only to whom the gospel is preached and who have the power to obey it. Even the laws of God bind no one, when deprived against his will of the power of action; and, to whatever extent the salvation of a sinner depends on the will of another, to that extent precisely, if the other fails to act, the 'sinner is free. SECTION IV . . Objection Fourth. " " That salvation may be- entirely beyond the reach of the most humble, obedient, and faithful servants of Christ. Let me suppose a case. Eidelis, after a careful examination' of the subject, became a convert to Christianity. Deeply conscious of his guilt and unworthiness, he cordially embraced Christ, as his prophet, priest, and king, consecrating to him, in the unfeigned purpose of his heart, his body, soul, and spirit. Enraptured with the Savior's charms, he ?2* H •2£& REVIEW OP CAMPBELMSM EXAMINED. rejoiced in his word and.worshipfrom day to day. Hav- ing settled Ms views on the subject of baptism, he de- signed at "the earliest opportunity to take on him the badge of disoipleship in baptism. But, by order of Tyrannus, an inveterate enemy of Christ, he was ar- rested and cast into prison for his ardent zeal and daunt- less" testimony in the Eedeemer's cause. To him bap- tism is now impossible. And poor Fidelis cannot en]oy the remission of his sins*" * 1. " That salvation may be entirely beyond the reach of the most humble, obedient, and faithful, servants of Christ." i When Mr. Jeter produees a most obedient and faithful servant of Christ— a convert to Christianity — who has never been baptized, then his petitio principii will be entitled to notice; but. until then it is passed with the csntempt which it merits. 2. But whalrof the case of "poor- Fidelia"? ffirst. The case is purely imaginary, and is hence no ground of argument except with a -man who prefers the vagaries of his fancy to the word of God. Second. But did "poor Fidelis" enjoy, while evineing his "ardent zeal" and bearing his "dauntless testimony" 'and rejcieing in the Savior's worship "from day to day," no opportunity to be baptized. Rather let it be said of him^that, by neglecting his duty during this time, he proved himself, a disobedient wretch, who, if cast into prison, deserved to suffer the whole consequences of his folly. Clearly, he was not taught by a man who prac- tised after the apostle's example, else the same hour of the night in which he heard the Truth and believed it REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 259 he would have been baptized: what then would have signified his imprisonment ? Third. Or did he neglect his duty because taught, as Mr. Jeter teaches, that baptism is not essential to re- mission ? If so, let him be condemned for preferring the counsels of wicked men to the counsels of God, and hold the presumptuous preacher responsible for the lie which led him astray! But, if he had not the oppor- tunity to be baptized, then it was- not his duty. It is no more a man's duty to be baptized, where baptism is im- possible, than it is to believe where belief is impossible. It is not what men cannot do> but what they can do and have the opportunity of doing, that God requires at their hands. Where there is no ability there is no responsibility. - • * SECTION V. Objection Fifth. That the enlightened and tender conscience can never be fully satisfied*. Questions as to the validity tand sin-cleansing efficacy of baptism must arise. I can easily know when I have passed from Vir- ginia into Ohio> because they are separated by water. I may certainly know that I have been* immersed ; but whether I have recewed valid, regenerating baptism, *is another matter. Does its efficacy depend on the quali- fications of the administrator ? — on his piety ? — on his baptism? — on his church connection - ? — on his ordina- tion? — on his intention? , Is apostolicaj succession, either in the line of baptism or of ordination, essential to its validity? Is its sin-pardoning virtue connectod with the views entertained of it by the subject ? 260 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 1. " The enlightened and tender conscience can never be fully satisfied" ? Certainly not. The man of enlightened and tender conscience should " seek religion" a year or two, groan a few weeks over the " mourners' bench," see a few sights, hear a few sounds, obtain a hope, doubt a little, be "catechized," «relate a "Christian experience/' and then, "at the earliest opportunity," "take on him the bftdge of discipleship in baptism." A child can under- stand how this can satisfy 'the enlightened and tender conscience. €. "Questions as to the validity- and gin-cleansing efficacy of baptism must arise/'— -to wit: "Does its efficacy depend on the qualifications of the adminis- trator ?- — on his piety? — on his baptism? — -on bis churab. connection?" &c. To an upright man, who has been made acquainted with what the Savior and the apostles teach upon the subject of baptism* these questions never oeour. These are questions of a corrupt mind, which, having exerted all its powers to distort and pervert the truth, is seek- ing by dishonest' quibbles to Justify its deeds before, the world 5 or of a mind bewildered and confused by the teachings of men who hide the touth from honest hearts and seek to supply its place with myths and dreams. !No honest and intelligent man, who has been immersed in the fear of God and in obedience to the authority o£ Christ, ever yet doubted either the validity or value to him of his baptism. REVIEW OP CAMPBEiLISM EXAMINED. 261 SECTION, VI. Objection Sixth. "That repentance the most sin- cere and lasting, faith the most, vigorous, love the most self-sacrificing, the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit, the atoning blood of Christ, his interces- sion before the throne, and the abounding grace of the Father, are all, without baptism, unavailing for salvgfe tion. I do not affirm that all who adopt the sentiment which I am combating push it to this extent, but I fear- lessly aver that this is its plain, legitimate; and inevi- table consequence. This gives to baptism an unsorip- tural prominence in the Christian system.- It must tend, as the kindred dogma of transubstantiation has tended among Papists, to engender superstition. At first the water of baptism is deemed of equal moment in the scheme of salvation with the cleansing blood of the Bedeemer ; and by degrees the sign will come to be substituted for the thing signified, — the ceremonial to be preferred to the vital. What has occurred may occur again. Strange as it may appear; the error which I have been exposing is the root of infant baptism." Of this extract the first part, so false and , so con- fused;, merely revives the old ad captandum question, Can a man be saved without baptism ? We shall, how- ever, put the question to Mr. Jeter in a far more per- tinent form : — Are sins remitted without one of the condi- tions on which remission depends ? If .to. this he replies that the very question in debate is whether baptism is one of these conditions, then we ask why he did not 262 REYIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. confine himself to this question, which, if we collect his meaning, he has not done? If baptism jointly with faith and repentance is for the remission of sins, as we unwaveringly believe it is, then we still steadily affirm that no unbaptized person has in this Kfe the assurance that his sins are remitted. And if our heavenly Father, notwithstanding .the negligence of such persons, wilt still condescend to save the - a ultimately, we have only to say, we know not the passage in the Bible which teaGhes it. But it seems that our view of the' design of baptism is the "root of infant baptism." Our^view of the de- sign of baptism is concisely this : — that baptism when preceded by faith and eepentance, but never without them, and then oaly as a joint condition with them, is for the remission of sins. How, now, can this view lead to the baptism of infants, who can neither believe nor fBpent, and who have no sins to be remitted? Did Mr. Jeter not know the assertion to be false when he made it ? Infant baptism had its origin in a very different cause. It originated" in the supposed imputa- bility of Adam's first sin. "When men in their specula- tions had, as they supposed, discovered that Adam's first sin is not only imputable, but actually is imputed, to all his posterity, they at once started the inquiry, What provision, since infants are sinners, and since none can be saved in their sins, has the gospel made for their salvation ? In this extremity, fancying that bap- tism alone is for the remission of sins, (which is utterly false,) they baptized their infants. But this, beyond all doubt, was a perversion of the ordinance. Hence, the REVIEW OF OAMPBELUSM EXAMINED. 263 practice had its origin in a misconception bf the nature of sin, and consisted then, as now, in- an abuse of bap- tism. This is the true account . of the origin of the practice. But, even allowing it to be true, (whieh is not the Case,} that infant •baptism, which is in every possible view of it a scandalous, abuse of the ordinance, sprang from the same view of the design of baptism which we entertain, would this be any argument against that design ? Is the abuse of a thing in the -midst of the nineteenth century deemed a good argument against it ? It may not be unworthy of Mr. Jeter to think so ; but. school-children nowadays know better. And yet, if there is any point in what- he says- on the origin of infant baptism, this is the amount of it. SECTION VII. Objection Seventh.. "What will be the condition of a believer dying without baptism? I have already shown conclusively -that the believer is born of God,— - that he possesses everlasting life,-— and that he is a child *of God; and yet, agreeably to the theory under consideration, he is - unpardoned, unjustified, unsaved. In this condition he may, unquestionably, die. What would become of him 1" 1. If Mr. Jeter has proved what he says he has proved, of course the man will be saved. But this he has not done. That he is vain enough to believe he has done it, we are fully prepared to admit. But with us 264 REVIEW OF CAMPKELLISM EXAMINED. his egotistic assertions have long since assumed a value something less than demonstrative. 2. But why is the man supposed to be unbaptized? His being so must- result either &om uncriminal igno- rance, or from some restraint which renders it unavoid- able, or it is wilful. In the first case, his baptism is morally impossible, and hence not a duty ; in the second, it is physically impossible, and therefore none ; and in the thiol case, it is wilful, and hence a sin. A simple- ton can now answer Mr. Jeter's question. which it is applied and th© qualifications with which it is at- tended. It is certainly true that, at a period of tte^e . when no such thing as baptism existed, ^emission »f sins was enjoyed in innumerable instances without baptism; but even then it is not so certain that remission de- pended on faith alone, umless as an exception to the rule. For four thousand years of .the world's history — namely, from the creation of man to the commencement of John's ministry — remissionof. sins was ehjoyed with- out baptism, for the simple reason that there waja no such thing as baptism ; but it is far from being certain that even during that, time remission was enjoyed by faith alone. Indeed, it is very 'certain that ki most cases it was not. But Mrj Jeter attempts to sustain his proposition by three actual instances of its truth, two of which we shall now examine. The first of these instances is*that of the thief on the cross. The argument* based-on this ease against us (an argument which has been refuted a thousand times) is briefly this:— The thief on th» cross Was saved, and saved without baptism ; therefore baptism is not neces- 274 4 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. sary to salvation. We admit the premises, but deny the conclusion. During the eontinuance" of John's ministry*no Jew could be saved without baptism j for those who rejected to rejected the. counsel of God against themselves, and hence could not be saved. Moreover, his, baptism was", for the time-being, for, that is, the means of obtaining, the remission of sins, but, even then,- in the case of a Jew only, and not in that of a Gentile. But) when John died, baptism again ceased to be necessary to salvation even in the case of a Jew. John had no successor in office, — * left no one to continue his ministry. His baptism ceased with his life. Hence, from the -day of his death until the -day of Pentecost there was not a man on earth authorized to administer baptism. Indeed, during this period there existed by authority no baptism. Hence, the Savior neither authorized the seventy nor the twelve whom he s&nt-out during this time, to baptize. And, althaughnt is pretty certain that after John's death same of his ■■disciples continued to -practise his baptism, sfill, they did it without authority. Now, it' was during this time that the - salvation of the thief occurred. . It occurred at a time when baptism had by authority p®si- tively no existence whatever. Hence it was obligatory on no one. We are now prepared to>j30rrect the argument based on the case of the thief, thus : — The thief on the cross was saved, — saved without baptism ; therefore baptism "was not necessary to salvation.* This argument is cor- rect. But how illogical to infer that) because baptism was not necessary to. salvation at a time when it had no REVIEW Off CAMPBELLISM EXAJUJNEI*. 275 authorised existence,, it is mot now necessary I s And yet this is exactly what Mr. Jeter does. But, in speaking ©f this .and a like case, he says, "Possibly it may be objected (though the objection is, in my view,-o/ no vaUdity) that these cases occurred be- fore the giving of the apostolic commission.' 1 What the obj ecti on may be- in the view of Mr. Jeter we cannot say, but we venture to assert that, in the view of all candid men who can understand the nature of the connection between a premise and its conclusion, the' objection is perfectly overwhelming. To argue that baptism is not now necessary to salvation, because the thief was saved without it at a time when it was no man's duty to be baptized, is knowingly to argue falsely. It is as gross an outrage of reason and truth as to argue that faith in Christ is not now necessary to salvation, "beeause the tixde was, before Christ came, when it was not neces- sary. It is a poor reply to Ae» objection iu "question to say it is " of no vaUditg." But, wanting as it is in validity, Mr. Jeter would part from the nails are yet far from him in their hearts and in. them practice. ^ 284 REVIEW OF CAMPBBLIiISM EXAMINED. It is farther due the memory of Mr. Stone to say, that he did not himself consider his views to be Arian; that he held the Son to be divine as the Father, but not;* like the Father, eternal; and that only in his polemic dis- cussions,' or in an occasional fugitive piece, did he ever trduble the public witoh his sentiments on the subject. In all his other public and privateiieachiags he preached Christ Jesus and him crucified as an all-sufficient Savior of "sinners, free from all objectionable peculiarities. Nor w it less due to Mr. Campbell to state, that no sooner had Mr. Stone published his first illicit line ov given utterance to his first vagrant thought on this sub- ject, than he promptly opposed him; and" that he con- tinued to do so with a voice kind, but decided and ever dissentient,, until the latter was summoned to that bai where all human disputes must receive their ultimate adjustment. While Mr. Campbell is hot ashamed to avow his respect for the memory of Mr. Stone^ nor his affection for him as a man while living, he is not now willing, to be thought the apologist for his 'error, nor yet to be held responsible- for it. He profoundly disap- proves the Arian doctrine on the present subject, no matter in whom found. II. " One thing is certain : — the disciples are not igno- rant of the fact that they are generally believed to be Arians; and under this imputation they patiently lie." "We can inform Mr. Jeter that there is more than one thing certain in the premises. It is certain that we are not ignorant of the fact that we are charged with being Arian s, certain that the truth was never uttered when the charge was made, and certain that, it is wholly REVIEW OF OAMPBELIJ8M EXAMINED. 285 false that we have laimi patiently Tinder the imputation Amd there is another thing of which we think we are not quite ignorant. We are not quite ignorant of what kind of spirit* and ©qmtjf it is that can circulate a slanderous charge against a whole hody of Christians without the- shadiow-of evidence oh which to base it, and then summon- them to the bar of publie- opinion to prove their innocence, before their guilt can even be pre- sumed, aad, because they do not choose to obey the summons, no matter when nor by what petty bigot served, set them down as guilty. "We think. we know something of this spirit, and also of those in whom it resides. But we will once more, for the thousandth time, condescend to contradict the slander, and shall leave Mr. Jeter to acquit himself for its appearance where we saw it last. Upon the divinity of the Savior, his rank and rela- tions,- though we deem them of infinite moment and transcendency sublime, we yet think it neither desirable nor necessary to speculate. We shall therefore be con- tent for the present with the following concise and plain statements: — • 1. That Christ, in the state in which he existed as the Word, was as uncreated as the God with whom he existed. 2. That in his uncreated nature he ■ is as perfectly divine, in the raest essential sense of the term, as the Father who sent him. 3. But that he had- no existence as the Son. of *God until born of Mary in Bethlehem of Judea; 4. That in his death he has made an expiation for the 286 REVIEW ©P CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. sins of the world so complete that all may be saved who will, and so full of merit that God can be peri©6tly just in justifying the sinner who believes ia Jesus. 5. That, in virtus of his glorious personal rank and dignity as God manifest in the flesh, and the efficacy of his death in the redemption of sinners, all men should honor him even as the Father himself deserves to he honored. III. "Of the extent to which the Arian nations of Mr. Stone did formerly, or do now, prevail among the *eft*m©*B, I have no means of 'ascertaining." "We shall be at pains, then, to enlighten Mr. Jeter, if he will consent not to slander us for the future, respecting a pdhrfr upon which, though he is not ashamed to write, he has still to confess his ignorance, by informing him that there is not one known Arian, or Arias, sentiment, in 'all our ranks, from Maine to the shores of the Pacific. IV. "In the town of Columbia, Missouri, and its vicinity, the Disciples, better known as Campbellites, are somewhat numerous. Tbey were formerly professedly Arians, but some years since they united with the followers of Mr. Alexander Campbell. I took much painB to learn whether their views of the divinity of Christ had undergone a satisfactory change. All with whom I conversed on the subject concurred in testify- ing that they reject the doctrine of Christ's divinity arid of his substitutional and piacular sufferings." Now, how extremely to be regretted it is that these brettiren did not- know that there, was a reverend in- quisitor among them, wh», in the genuine secret spirit of a Jesuit, was inquiring into their faith with a viow REVIEW OF 0AMPBEI4,ISM EXAMINED". 287 of pronouncing them all heretics, .that they might, low- bowed to the earth, haye presented him evidence that their "views had undergone a satisfactory change" ! But we are curious to know who and how many consti- tuted the "allV of whom Mr. Jeter was at so "much pains" to seek the information -tfhich was the object of his most Christian solicitude. «Did he- go to these brethren themselves to leam what .their views were, or what they had been,, or whether, in reality their views had ever needed a change?- Or did he go* to their bigoted religious enemies? CM* course a person of Mr. Jeter's, divine affection for the Truth would go to the only party from- whom in suph> oases the Truth can be learned. But the church at -Columbia was never Arian, pro- fessedly or otherwise, never denied the divinity of Christ, and never rejected his death as an expiation for the sins of the world. The charge cannot be .sustained except by the testimony of lying lips. Y. " One of the professors ©f the University of Mis- souri (situated at this place) informed me that in a con- versation which he held with Mr. A. t a distinguished preacher o£ the denomination in this State, he most disi tinctly repudiated these vital principles of the evangelic system." » If the professorhere alluded to.wa's at the time a mem- ber of the Baptist «hureh, and subsequently president of William Jewell College in this State, we have only to say that we do not go about to contradict the fable* of an old wife whose feeble mind and small bitter enmity eminently fit him to be the author of the truthless tale 288 REVIEW Or CAMPBMMiISM examined. ' here attributed to h»m, and which has owed to him its currency* wherever his slow nature has enabled him to circulate it. - i *" Bat if* the professor was any person else, and if the Mr. A. alluded to was Mr. T. M. Alle% of this State, who then was, and* -still is, living near the University, we have then f being accounted orthodox," but in qne of his recent debates '^nothing so much annoyed Aim as the- quotation of • heterodox sentiments from his early writings." Perhaps so. True, Mr- Campbell has not, at times, hesitated to state thathis views (where such was the case} were, in unison with those held by the self-styled orthodox parties. But-whjf ? Was it because he desired to be "accounted orthodox" ? or because he conceived t£at these parties added aught of weight to his views? or that his views REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 291- were either 'the better or the nearer right because held by these parties ? He knows not Mr. Campbell who so- reasons. No. The»e are certain very vOeqk-mirtded men who are ready to be Mussulman, Jew, or Christian,- just as it happens to be the vogue to dub Mussulman, Jew, or Christian orthodox : for their sake Mr.»Gampbell haa at times consented to sound the magic note that on certain points he is orthodox. • , But who is it (we have a desire to know) who has constituted Mr. J®ter, and- the "Christian sects"* with whom he agrees on one thing and dissents on three, the'only orthodox people in the w6rld? Or when and w-herep since Christ ascended, has it been determined what orthodoxy is? In what Council of Nice, Constant^ nople, or Trent, have these questions been "decided? But in what does orthodoxy consist ? Doxa means an opinion; and ortho means correct. Hence orthodoxy must mean a correct' opinion. But whose business is it to determine whose opinions are correct.? Has Mr. Jeter the right "to pronounce on the opinions of the Catholic? If so, who invested him with it? Has not the Catholic an equal right to pronounce on the opinions of Mr. Jeter? Or are the opinions of Mr Jeter- correct merely because he himself pronounces them so ? Must we not by the same rule* admit the opinions of the Catholic to be correct likewise ? Shall the voice" of the majority settle the question ? Then, alas for "Christian sects" I But Mr. Jeter will doubtless say orthodoxy consists in- correct views »f the •fundamental principles of Christianity. T Granted. But whose business is it to determine whose views of these principles are correct 292 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. and whose not? Who has constituted the Baptist church judge to determine the correctness of our views? on who Has been constituted judge to determine the cor- rectness of the views of the Baptist church ? The truth iB,*this whole, question of orthodoxy among "Christian sects" resolves itself into the following . ridiculous posi- tion: — that the baptists figree to call the Methodists orthodox, and the Methodists consent to return the compliment] they two agree to call the Presbyterians orthodox, and the Presbyterians consent to return' the compliment ; and what they three agree to call ortho- dox, that is orthodox. In other words, I will agree to glorify you if you will consent to glorify me - } "and we two will agree to glorify some .one else if some ©ne else will consent to-glorify us; and whafawe three agree to glorify, that let all men glorify, for that is gTforious! It can hardly fee^wondered at that Mr. Campbell should have felt more of contempt than veneration for a coali- tion for such self-exalting and anti-Christian ends. But of the fact that "there is manifestly a growing desire among the reformers to be accounted evangelical, orthodox, and regular, a striking proof was furnished, not long since, in the city of St. Louis, Missouri.". The transaction here alluded to was purely a local matter, the work of a few* individuals on their own re- sponsibility, and, as such, passed at the time with little notice, and without exciting the slightest interest in our ranks. We confess we never suspected it as being wrong until we saw it smutted with the approbation of Mr. Jeter. Certainly these brethren are far too honorable and high-mirxled not to feel mortified at the circum- REVIEW OF OAMPBELLISM "EXAMINED. 293 stance. Neither would they ha^e pressed their claim to be admitted into the association. referred £o in*the man- ner in which they did, had they not witnessed efforts to exclude them from it in order to expose to public con- tempt the eause which lay near their hearts, headed by a man. whose passionless nature, Jesuitism, and sour heart, strangely fit him to act the chie$part in all trans- actions where trickery and perfidy are to be enacted. We h®nor these brethren, but, most of all, the lamented one now- de*d, for not suffering themselves' to be dis- graced when the object was that their disgrace should terminate on their holy religion. But he knows thenv not who cites this act to prove that either they, or we as a people, have a growing desire to be accounted orthodox; and, as for the. whim, that -their doctrinal summary is a creed', it excites not even our smile. SUCTION III. The effect Mr. Jeter's book has had. Whatever may be the intentions of an author, or the . merits of his book in other respects, if its effects have been bad the book itself cannot be good. Tried by this rule., and -too severe a judgment cannot be pro- nounced' on Mr. Jeter's book. Its effects have been bad,— bad to the full extent of its influence, bad with- out one compensating trait. If such -was the result intended by its author, we shall certainly admit that he has, with a skill nothing less than matchless, adapted his work to its end; but, if such was not the result in- tended, then sureiy he is the most unfortunate of blun*- 25» 294 REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. derers. When we say we are mortified at the appear- ance of this book at this particular crisis and grieved at the, effect it has had, we but feebly express our feel- ings. In repelling the attacks of the Baptists in time past, our brethren may not always have been either as wise as serpents or as harmless as doves. But, if for this there is not a justification to be pleatled, there is at least this apology, — that they were feeble and felt it; and the attacks made on them came from a party which was strong, and were made in a manner -so unjust and so unkind as almost of necessity to provoke the spirit in which they were met. But what most, of all made these attacks painful to usp was the fact that, in making them, the Baptists sought and accepted abetment from their old Itereditary foes, — the infant-sprinkling sects, — from whom, in time gone, they had suffered the grossest injuries, and from whom they were- still receiving daily insults and contemptuous jeers. We" thought it mean in the Baptists to join these' half Eoman Catholic sects — who -had filled the church (so called) with flesh and blood, and, indeed, had wellnigh completed its corrup- tion — in a crusade against a body of people who were conscientiously contending for the" supremacy of the Holy Scriptures, and the purity of the ordinances of Jesus Christ as defined by him and delivered to the world. But it happened that these sects and ,the Bap- tists agreed in three things :^lst, in the use of a cabal- istic Trinity, — something, of which the Bible knows nothing; 2d, in a supernatural agency in conversion, — REVIEW OF OAMPBELEISM EXAMINED. 295 another thing about which the Bible is silent; and 3d, in relating an experience (except in the case of infants) before baptism or sprinkling, — a third thing of < which the Bible says nothing. "And, agreeing in these three things, they agreed also in a fourth ; to wit, in perse- cuting us, — a matter about which the Bible is not silent ; foY it is still, as it was in time past, peculiar to those who are born after the flesh to persecute those who are born after the Spirit. But as our brethren grew stronger they became more patient of injuries; and as they grew more able to -re- pel attacks th*e Baptists grew less inclined "to repeat them. Consequently, the parties had, to a very great extent at least, both' ceased' to attack and to be at- tacked. Both were tranquil; and, clearly, a more friendly spirit was beginning to prevail among them. At this juncture the noble purpose to give to the world a corrected version of the Holy Scriptures began to find emphatic utterance at many a lip and to meet with a grand response in many a heart. The Baptists and our brethren, in the providence of God, were called together to consider of and do the work. The most amiable feelings swayed them both. They had met, not now for war, but for counsel, and, if not in the spirit of brethren, at least in that of friends. ,, The work of conciliation went finely on. We were not willing to affirm that w« were so good that we .might not grow better, nor the Baptists that they were so wise that they might not grow wiser, by the inter- course. Indeed, many went so far (we confess we were 296 REVIEW OF CAllPBELLIBlS" EXAMINED. not of!" the number) as to contemplate a prospect, distant though and dim they deemed it, when an understanding might be come to on' the poiats of difference between the parties, and when the gospel should be pleaded by the 1 united strength- and wisdom of both. The view was enchanting But at thfs qrisis Mr. Jeter's book appears, — one of the meanest of all the attacks that have been made on ufi. It was at once indorsed by the great men and the small, the upstarts and doctors, of the denomination, and its merits heralded all over the -land. , Their spirits rose high/ their old bigotry revived, their subsiding ill feelings flowed back, they again chuckled at their ima- ginary superiority, and thanked God, in true Pharisaic style, that they 'were not as other men. These are a few of the effects the, work has had. It is due, how- ever, to many a noble man in the Baptist ranks, £for there are many there,) to express the belief that -the contents of this book do not enjoy the sanction, of all who are even Baptists, nor its appearance at. this par- ticular time their approbation. • On the other side, the insulting spirit of the 'book, its paltry contents, but especially the indorsement of the denomination it has received, have only served to excita in our ranks feelings of mingled pity and deep disgust at the whole thing, and to make us wish that in all time to come we may grow less like the Baptists, who have sanctioned the work, -than we now are; and to pray that the disastrous event may never happen when we shall be one people, provided its spirit and KEVIEW OF OAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 297 contents shall be made the basis of the union. These are a few of the effects to be ascribed to. Mr. Jeter's book; and with the simple statement of them we now take leave of both him and it, .feeling that in the one we part from a misguided man, in the other from a graceless thing. THE END. J. B, LIPPINCOTT & OO.'S PUBLICATIONS. .LIPPINCOTT'S PRONOUNCING GAZETTEER OF THE WORLD, OR, * GEOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY, Comprising nearly 2200 Pages, including a greater amount of mat- ter than any other single volume in the English Language; giving a description of nearly One Hundred Thousand Places, with the correct Pronunciation of their Names, being above 20,000 more Oeographical Notices than are found in any other Gazetteer of the World, EDITED BY J. THOMAS, M.D., and T. BALDWIN, Assisted by several other Gentlemen. TESTIMONIALS. From the Hon. Edward Everett, " This work has been evidently prepared with great labor, and as far as I can judge, from the best materials and sources of information, . . . The principles adopted in ascertaining' the pronunciation nf proper names (as stated in the Introduction) appear to me correct. This is a matter attended with some difficulty and uncer- tainty, but it is treated with great ability, and /in a very satisfactory manner, in your Introduction. I have no doubt your Gazetteer will be found an extremely useful work, well calculated to supply a want which' must have been severely felt by almost every class of readers." From, J. E. Worcester, LJj.D., Author of Worcester's Critical Dictionary. "Having made dome examination • of' LippmcotFs Pronouncing; Gazetteer,' more particularly in relation to Pronunciation, 1 take pleasure in expressingacuncurrence, generally, in what is said by the Hon. Edward Everett, of the value and excellence of the work. The difficult subject of the pronunciation of geographical names ap- pears to me to have been attended to with great care, good taste, and sound judg- ment; and this feature of the Gazetteer must add greatly to its value." From the Hon. Robert G. Winthrop. " I know of no Gazetteer so complete and comprehensive. ... 1 entirely con - cur with Mr. Everett in the opinion he has pronounced of the work, and sincerely hope that it may receive an amount of public patronage in some degree commensu- rate with the magnitude and costliness of the undertaking," From Washington Irving. '* I fully concur with the opinions given by Mr. Everett and Mr, Wintbrop of its merits, and with their wishes for its wide circulation." From Prof. C. A. Goodrich, of Tale College, Editor of * Revised Edition* of Web- ster's Dictionary. " Your Pronouncing Gazetteer of the world appears, from the examination I have given it, to he a work of immense labor, very wisely directed. I consider it as of great importance to Teachers." From the Hon. George Bancroft. " I have formed a very high opinion of the merits of your Complete Pronouncing Gazetteer ; especially for its comprehensiveness, compactness, and general accuracy. i wish you the bucccss which yeu so richly deserve.*' J. B. LIPPINCOTT S. CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. LIPPINCOTT'S CABINET HISTORIES OF TlfE STATES, BT. T. S. ARTHUR* and WM. ^(J. OARPEMTER. FIKST SERIES OF TWELVE VOLUMES ALREADY COMPLETE, COMPRISING THE BISTORT OP Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, N. York, N. Jersey, Penn- sylvania, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois. Each History complete in one 12mo vol. of from 230 to 350 pages. EXTRACTS FROM NOTICES OP THE PRESS. "For School Libraries, and indeed for all Libraries, the Series will be found of great value."— Buffalo Daily Courier. "They are eminently adapted both to interest and instruct, and should have a place in the Family Library of every American ."—New York Courier and Enquirer. ** They contain the very pith and marrow of the record from the earliest periods 1 down to the present time." — Albany Express. 'As a work for the young we know of none more suitable to put into their hands." ■"■Detroit Daily Advertiser. * They should be read by all who would know the annals of our country, and the wild legends on which our future epics and histories are to be built." — Louisiana Courier. * Thousands of persons, old as well as youn?, will be tempted to read such volumes as these, and thus get a general knowledge of the history of the several States.*'— Boston Traveller. "The value of such a Series cannot he too highly estimated." — American "Courier. " VKB predict great popularity jforJhe Series."-— Philadelphia Evening Bulletin. " This will be of great practical value in extending a history of the individual States."— Boston Journal. Price per volume, 42 cents. New Themes for the Protestant Clergy; GREEDS WITHOUT CHARITY, THEOLOGY WITHOUT HUMANITY, AND PROTESTANTISM WITHOUT CHRISTIANITY i With Notes by the Editor on the Literature of Charity, Population, Pauper- ism, Political Economy, and Protestantism. PRICE; OWE DOLLAR. SIMPSON'S MILITARY JOURNAL. JOURNAL OF A MILITARY RECONNOISSANCE FROM SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO, TO THE NAVAJO COUNTRY, BY JAMES H. SIMPSON, A. M., i'lRSr LIEUTENANT CORPS OF TOPOGRAPHICAL ENGINEERS. WITH 75 OOLOUBED ILLUSTRATIONS. Onu Tolume, octavo. Price, Three Dollars. >, B. UPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS, In one super-royal volume. DESIGNED TO ACCOMPANY THE FAMILY BIBLE; 0*1 HENRY'S, SCOTT'S, CLARKE'S, GILL'S, OR OTHER COMMENTARIES. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, la one super-royal volume. DERIVED PRINCIPALLY FROM THE MANNERS. CUSTOMS, ANTIQUITIES TRADITIONS, AND FORMS OF SPEECH, RTTES. CLIMATE, WORKS OF ART, AND LITERATURE OF THE EASTERN NATIONS: -EMBODYING ALL THAT 18 VALUABLE IN THE WORKS OF ROBERTS, HARMER, BURDER, PAXTON, CHANDLER, And the most celebrated Oriental travellers. Embracing also the subject of the Fulfilment of Prophecy, as exhibited by Keith and others; with descriptions of the present state of countries and places mentioned in the Sacred Writings. . ILLUSTRATED BV NUMEROUS LANDSCAPE ENGRAVINGS, FROM SKETCHES TAKES ON THE SPOT. <■' EDITED BT RET. GEORGE BUSH, ' ' Prof, of Hebrew and Oriental Literature in the N. Y. City University. - " THE ILLUSTRATED CONCORDANCE, In one volume, royal 8t>o. A new, full, and complete* Concordance; Illustrated with monumental traditional, and oriental engravings, founded on Butterworth'e, with Cru- deri's definitions; forming, it is believed, on many accounts, a more valu- able work, than either Butterworth, Oruden, or any other similar book Id the language. LIPPINCOTT'S STANDARD EDITIONS OP THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER j IN SIX DIFFERENT SIZES. ILLUSTRATED WITH A NUMBER OF STEEL PLATES AND ILLUMINATIONS. COMPREHENDING THE HOST VARIED ADD 8PLENDID ASSORT- MENT IN THE UNITED STATES. I. B, UPPINOOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. LIPPINCOTT'S EDITIONS QP THE HOLY- BIBLE, SIX DIFFERENT SIZES. Printed in the best manner, with beautiful type, on the finest sized paper, and bound in the most splendid and substantial styles. Warranted to be cor- rect, and equal to the best English editions, at a much lower price To be had with or without plates : the publishers having supplied themselves with over fifty steel engravings, by the first artists. Baxter's Comprehensive Bible, Royal quarto, containing the various readings and marginal notes, disquj- sttions on the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of the Holy Scrip- tures; Introductory and concluding remarks to each book; phuologiuaLand explanatory notes; tables of contents, arranged in historical order; a chro- nological index, and various other matter ; forming a suitable book for the rtudy of clergymen, Sabbath-school teachers and students. The Oxford Quarto Bible, Without note or comment, universally admitted to be the most beautiful family Bible extant. * Crown Octavo Bible, Printed with large clear type, making a most convenient Bible for family use. Polyglot Bible. The. Sunday-School Teacher's Polyglot Bible, with Maps, Ac. The Oxford 18mo. Bible* This is an extremely handsome and convenient Pew Bible. Agate 33mo. Bible, Printed with larger type than any other small pocket edition extant. 3 -2 mo. Diamond Pocket Bible) The neatest,' smallest, and cheapest edition of the Bible 'published. CONSTANTLY ON HAND, A large assortment of BIBLES, bound in the most splendid and ooatly styles, with gold and silver ornaments, suitable for presentation; ranging In price from $10 DO tc $100 00. •.,.««... A liberal discount made to Booksellers and Agents by the Publishers. ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE; DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE THEOLOGY, RELIGIOUS BIOGRAPHY ALL RELIGIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. AND MISSIONS. In one volume, royal 8«o * J. B. UPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. JOSEPHUS'S (FLAVIUS) WORKS, FAMILY EDITION. BY THE LATE WM, WHISTON, A.M. FROM THE LAST LONDON EDITION, COMPLETE. One volume, beautifully illustrated with Steel Plates, and the only readable edition published in this country. FAMILY PRAYERS AND HYMNS, ADAPTED TO FAMILY WORSHIP, un TABLES FOR THE REGULAR READING OF THE SCRIPTURES. BY REV. S. C. WINCHESTER, A.M. Law Pastor of the Sixth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia; and the Presbyterian Church at Natchez, Miss. One volume, I2mo. €$i Clirgtj nf Imnitn: consisting or ANFCOOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE CHARACTER OF MINISTERS OF RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES. BT JOSEPH BELCHER, D. D., Editor of " The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller," " Kobert Hall," - IK TWO VOLUMES, OCTAVO. - 1 BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED WITH 385 PLATES. CONTAINING A HISTORY OF THE EARTH, ANIMALS, BIRDS ASP FISHES; FORMING THE MOST COMPLETE NATURAL HISTORY EVER PUBLISHED. A SYNOPSIS OF THE THEOLOGY OF PETER DENS AS PREPARED FOR THE USE OP ROMISH SEMINARIES AND STUDENTS OF THEOLOGY. Translated from the Latin of the Mechlin Edition, 1638, BT JOSEPH BERG, Formerly Professor of Latin and Greek in Marshall College. ONE YOLU1TE. 12lfO. $1.