BX 7323 .JA5 L3 1858 Lard, Moses E. 1818-1880. A review of Rev. J.B. Jeter's book entitled r X f REVIEW REV. J. B. JETER'S BOOK ''CAMrBELLISM EXAMINED.'^ MOSES E. LARD, OP MISSOURI. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ALEXAJ^DER CAMPBELL, OF BETHANT, VA. J. B. PHILADELPHIA: LIPPINCOTT & CO. 1858. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by MOSES E. LARD, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States in and for the Fastern 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 reply 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- iii 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 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. 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 accruing. But the reader will doubtless feel curious to know why it is that Mr. Jeter's second book — '^Campbellism Re-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 passed. 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 Gillitc, 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 oj)erandi 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 both the word and the Spirit co-operating; and even here there are two schools of theological metaphysicians, — one assuming that the word is first in order, the other, that the Spirit is first in order, 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 sanctijication, 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 his own will hegat he us with the icord of Truth and that, too, ''that we should be first-fruits of his creatures." To the same effect Peter speaks, (1 E^. chap. i. 23 :) — "Being born (or begotten) again, not of cormptible seed, but of incorru2:)tible, by the word of God, which lives 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 J' 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. ix coming up to be prayed for," 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 for 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 xlssociation, 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. I 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, 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, espe<5ially in their zeal for primitive Chris- tianity, and in their more profound piety and consecration to the Bedeemer's cause and glory. X INTRODUCTION. "While, then, we cannot approve the equivocal and tempo- rizing course adopted by Mr. Jeter on the subject 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 mto 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 ''Campbellism.'' 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 Roman calendar. Bethany, Va., 1857. REYIEW OP "CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED." GHAPTEK I. eeasons for the present work — biography — title op mb. Jeter's book — sects, clergy, etc. ' SECTION 1. Mr. 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 of pronouncing upon its contents a more mature and dispassionate judgment. The views "examined" by ]\Ir. 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 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. the least, have nov\' 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 abundant. 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 plummet to them. The shrewd disputant has attacked them with whatever of skill practice can impart, and all the hoarded means which experience can collect. Even grave professors, with their subtle distinctions and rigorous logic, have tried them by all the laws analysis can sup2:)ly and every rule induction can suggest. Nor have they fared better from the press. From transient paragraphs in daily sheets to the careful strictures X)f 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 jDolished 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 jDliant credulous public is daily becoming less firm ; notwith- standing the great and general distrust with which the REVIEW or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 11 awakened world begins to view tliem ; in a word, not- withstanding " The jReformation," in ^Ir. Jeter's own language, "has proved a failure," there yet exists a necessity — an inexorable necessity — for 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 our own 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 t^ey pronounce good, its spirit excellent. And, as a refutation of the doc- trines it professes to review, they have, or at least per- suade themselves they have, a deep interest to consider it successful. !N'or 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 book subserves their cause. Xor has he ever allowed himself for a moment to overlook this circumstance. He has, it is most evident, intentionally 12 REVIE^Y OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. refrained iVom introducing into his book any matter, lias studiously avoided every expression, which could have given the slightest offence to the parties whose favor he hoped to secure. And the gentlest note that warbles through his book is the oft-recurring te deiun to orthodoxy. All of which has concuiTed to render the book acceptable, if not popular. But ought 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 does 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 Avhich 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 jDroper 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 which !Mr. Jeter attempts REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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 think 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 be attributed to the very immethodi- cal manner in which he has arranged the materials of his own work. For, although 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 11. 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 publislied views must stand or fall. These are to be tried by quite a different rule 14 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. But the case admits of a short solution. Jeter hates ]\ri\ 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 absorbing feeling of his heart. But he had, besides, an additional reason for this sketch. He feared to risk himself in a grapple with ]\Ir. 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 soiu-ce not wholly un- attended by suspicious and vitiating circumstances. If ^Ir. Campbell's views have strength, reasoned he, their author, it may be, is not 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 for his book without furnishing a verification of what has just been alleged. '^CampbeUism" 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 that it is an act of high discourtesy to attempt to designate the views of any 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 his factitious position in society, will stoop to the deed. The views associated in the j^ublic mind with the term ^^Campbellism" are not the views entertained by 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 thai of a willingness to become a trafficker in misrepre- sentations and ojoprobrious 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 became 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 not mean his slander to be slanderous. No 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 which he proposes gravely and decently to argue ; and 16 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. he is hence driven to the use of a term familiar to none but the charlatan, save ]Mr. Jeter. SECTION m. Of much that is said in ^tlr. 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 "CamjybeUism in its inceptioii' occur but two pas- sages to which we shall invite the attention of the reader. These we notice, because they acquaint us at the outset with that depth of penetration which we shall so fi^equently have occasion to admire in the volume before us. ^^It cannot be questioned,'^ remarks Jeter, ^'that circumstances exert a mighty influence in forming the tastes, opinions, and characters, and guiding the lives, of most men 3'^ and then on the next page adds, "Had ]Mi\ Campbell not passed his early years in Scotland, his religious views and career would have differed widely from what they have been." lN"ow, that IMr. Campbell's views inigJit have differed from what they are at present is certainly not impos- sible; but that they would have differed is what 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? ^'hat his views might have been, had the scene of his early hfe been different, has no- REYIEY/ or CAMPBELLISM 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 tiling, 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, because formed not in Scotland but in America, are right ! AYe admire his complacent logic I 'Mx. Jeter's classic education has not only had a fine effect on his fancy, but it has enriched his speech with the most choice selection of terms which language can afford. ^^Campbellism," 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 which 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, spelled, 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 "Camphellism in its chaos;" and the striking resemblance between its contents and the meaning of a terni in the heading ; B 18 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 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." Eut few persons, we suspect, acquainted with ^Iiv 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 ^ilr. Campbell. His leaniing, 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, "'})Lr. 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 ? "VTe shall see. "That a reformation was needed by the Christian sects of that time," says Mr. Jeter, "none, who pos- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 19 sess a tolerable acquaintance with their condition and the claims of the gospel, will deny. Indeed, what church, or member of a church, does not, in some respects and 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 doc- trine. They were then, as now, far too w^orldly, 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" 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 "CfJiristian sects'' as such. He proposed that all sincere 20 REVIE\\" OF CAMPBELLI.3M EXAMINED. and pious Christians sliould 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 church 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 church 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. 3Ir. 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, but has its consummation out of it. Hence Paul, in addressing the church at Corinth, says, There must be also heresies {sectarianism) among you, that they who are approved may be made mani- fest." But here is something which seems never to have struck the mind of Xr. Jeter. "With the apostle, sectarianism originated with the bad, and the good were excluded ; but with Hj'. 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 be admonished a first and second time; and then, if he repent not, to be rejected. ISTow, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 21 we request to be informed by Mr. Jeter bow, according to tbis rule, a " Christian sect" can exclude ber " secta- rians" and still remain a " sect" ? Heresy and secta- rianism are identical, being botb represented by tbe same term in tbe same sense in tbe original; and tbat wbicb tbey represent bas its origin in tbe flesb. Hence tbe same apostle, in enumerating tbe works of tbe flesb, mentions, among otber tbings, strife, sedition, heresy^ (sectarianism.) Heresy or sectarianism, we are taugbt by tbe Apostle Peter, is introduced into tbe cburcb by false teachers,'' and is damnable;" and yet Mr. Jeter, witb true foster-fatber tenderness, can talk of Cbris- tian sects." SECTION V. Anotber peculiarity of ^^Campbellism in its cbaos" was, it seems, a most virulent attack on tbe " kingdom of clergy." Mr. Jeter's defence is eminently cbarac- teristic, being affectionate, feeble, and sbort. Tbere is sometbing mournful and sad in its melancboly air. ISTor can we wonder at tbe circumstance. Few men were ever more feared or more bated by tbe clergy tban Mr. Campbell; and few men were ever more clerical tban Mr. Jeter. Young, sballow, and bigoted, tbe Attic wit and racy bumor of tbe ^^Cbristian Bap- tist" caused bim excruciating pain. He learned to sigh in time long gone, and witb increasing age and decreas- ing strength bis sigb bas grown to a dirge. Our sym- pathies are moved for tbe man. And in tbe length and painful nature of some of bis labors tbere is much to move even a harder heart tban ours. Grazing fo? thirty 22 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. years xntently into the ThircJ. Ei:)istle of Peter/' where his port and bearing and all the secret springs and mo- tions of his heart lie mirrored in lines so just and true, is an 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 Jeter himself, of the truth of which he, we pre- sume, is the best judge, answer the question. ^^They (the clergy) were by no means faultless,'^ he observes. ^^Some of them were ignorant, conceited, and vain; others were proud, haughty, and imperious; others, still, were hypocritical, mercenary, and base; and not a few were worldly, 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 and savagely described. While admitting that ]\Ir. Campbell attacked the clergy, and at times, too, severely, we still insist that his attack was just and discriminating. To that class of them described in 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, REVIEAV OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 23 Smithfield spirit with which his clerical hrethren of that day set on Mr. Campbell, he will find his stock of charity exhausted, and his time consumed, in pro- viding 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- tured to question the authority and doctrinal soundness of Creeds or Confessions of Faith. We admit he did, and maintain he was right. First, he proposed to examine creeds historically, for the purpose of ascertaining whence they 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 either of Christ or the apostles. On the contrary, he ascertained that they originated in an age when Christianity is admitted by all to have been greatly corrupted, and that they grew out of these corruptions and embody them, with a slight admixture of truth. And, as to their effects upon the church, he ascertained that these had been to ex- clude from the church in the days of her corruption, not 24 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. the corrupting party always, but the feebler one, and that too without the least regard to the soundness of its views. On inquiring into the doctrines of creeds, it was felt that so far as they embody the doctrines of a party as Buch, 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; and that hence their legitimate tendency is, if not to create, at least to perpetuate, di\dsions. And, in regard to the authority of creeds, it appeared that they are intended to be authoritative codes of laws by which the parties resj^ectively 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, 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. 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 little, but if it contains REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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 Eible contains then it is not a creed but a Bible.* And if, they reasoned further, our views of the Bible are correct, there is no necessity for publishing them to the world in the form of a creed. 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 ^Ir. Jeter's language: — "There is in Chris- tendom a great variety of creeds, from the so-called Apos- tles' Creed down to the ^Christian System' composed by Mr. Campbell as an exhibition of the principles of the [Reformation.'' 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 none: — "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. Louis, whose accurate learning, good sense, and talents, point him out as destined to be eminently useful to the cause of primitive Christianity. 8 26 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. otherwise it is difficult to account for its presence in his took. 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 Confession of Faith. In this sense and in this only does Mr. Campbell use the term when objecting to creeds. Of this fact ]VIr. Jeter 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 'r We shall only add that if a good cause requires its advocates to resort to expedients 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 styles 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 our breth- ren, we beg leave here to call their attention to it. The following is Mr. Jeter's language: — "They" (Mr. Camp- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 27 bell and his brethren) ^^do, it is true, insist that their members shall speak of Bible things in Bible tenns. To restore a pure or scriptural speech is one of the main objects of the Eeformation for which Mr. Campbell 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 not 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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. SECTION YIII. Another blundePj of a kind which ^Lr. Jeter is no less capable of committing than the preceding, occurs on p. 40 of his book, in some strictures he oifers on a discourse" he had somewhere heard Mr. Campbell de- liver, which, it seems, was eloquent, plausible, and sophistical." The subject of the discourse, it appears, was 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 "one body" is the church, the church is hence a unit. Eut 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 term in its largest sense, i.e. that they alone constitute the body of Christ. The following is Mr. Jeter's language: — "lie" (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 rcplj 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 he may have denied that the Methodist church, or the Presbyterian church, or even the Baptist church, as such, constitutes the church of Christ, either in whole or in part, is what we are ready to believe. The term '^church," as already 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 God'^ 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 all 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 Eoman Catholics. Yery far from it. a* 30 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. We speak of the denomination only, and of this so fur only as it is Baptist; but we do mean that thus far it has no more sanction from the Bible than the Eoman Catholic church. If the term Baptist denotes not something essential to a Chi'istian as a Christian, neither something essential to a church of Christ as such, then it denotes something which is not Christian. It then denotes an attribute, as far as it denotes any, not of a church as a church of Chi'ist, but of a church as distinguished from a church of Christ, and hence something not sanctioned by the Bible. In which case, both what the term denotes and the term itself should 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 "Baj^tist church of Christ" means either more or less, or any thing else, than the expres- sion " church of Christ," then the expression " church of Chi'ist" 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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 81 fore, should be disused. But, should it be alleged that ii denotes merely the difference- between one Christian and another, or between one church and another, then we rejDly that no such difference is sanctioned by the Bible, and hence we 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 brethi-en 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 abolish 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 of 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 of the phrase, ^^horn 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 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. a denomination, are Christian ; and that hence, so far as the body of Christ has on earth a denominational exist- ence, they are that body. And this is what he denies to any other and to all denominations in Christendom besides. This is the great distinction which he believes to exist between his brethren, as a body, and all other bodies. Again, he denies that the individual congregations of his brethren, such as are of good moral character, can, except 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 Eible, in the strictest sense of the term, a church of Christ; and that, consequently, so far as the church 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 every thing not essentially involved in the Bible view of a Christian ; and who maintain the absolute necessity and importance of all that is. As a 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, can either 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 at Corinth. We do not say he will not do it : indeed, we know he does; nor have we ground to exj)ect aught better from him. It is a peculiarity of the guilty that they always seek to cover their own crimes by im- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 33 puting the same to others. He will certainly call us sectarians. SECTION IX. But the sorest and most oifensive feature of " Camp- 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. Campbell ventured to attack the practice in question, but on what grounds? Has 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 its friend and IVIr. Campbell its enemy, then truly may it be said that it is not from its enemies, but from its friends, that Christianity suifers 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 34 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISIM EXAMINED. "We here use the plirase Christian experience'^ in the 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. 2. The main point in the experience is a fiction. 3. The practice fosters superstition. Upon each of these rea- sons it may not be amiss to dwell for a moment. 1. The practice is not sanctioned by the Bible. This, to a man scrupulously exact in matters of the highest moment, and who cherished a deep reverence for the word of God, would be enough. His conscience Would in- stantly spurn the practice. He could no longer consent to impeach the Divine wisdom by affirming that to be necessary upon which that wisdom has seen fit to be silent. He could not consent to cumber the hearts of his brethren with a sense of duty where the Master has left them free. He could never be induced to set aside the word of God to make room for a 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 of 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 maybe made, but they teach not REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 85 forgiveness. In most instances we may hope the un- fortunate victim of this delusion to be sincere. But this alters not the nature of the case. Whether he feigns the existence of feelings that have no existence, (which, 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 to be the evidence of remission is a fiction. JSTo -good man of strong mind, 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 farce 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. 8. The practice fosters superstition. Of the truth of this there is no more unmistakable evidence than the chary concessions of ^Ir. Jeter. That di-eams, visions, sounds, voices, 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. Hence, in seeking religion" these persons were naturally led to look for the same marvelous things which others had seen. 86 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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 ! Hence, if the father had heard a sound, 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 op2:>osed by all well-informed Chris- tians long before he" (ilr. Campbell) ^'commenced his reformation.'^ 'Not without many a qualification can this be accepted as true. One thing is 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 j)ropounded but one question to the candidate; or, at least, in the concise 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 : — "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 CAMPBELLISM 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 require/^ 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, for consistency's sake let the clamor of Chris- tians against infidel injustice be hushed forever. But, gentle reader, will you turn to the eighth chap- ter of the Acts, and read from the twenty-ninth verse to the close of the chapter ? You will observe that, on approaching the eunuch, Philip says to him, "Under- Btandest thou what thou readest V Eut this is not the " one question'' to which Mr. Jeter refers ; therefore read on. You are through. Now say whether you have found even one question put by Philip to the eunuch before he would baptize him. No. Such a question is not in the passage. Philip states the condition on which the eunuch might be baptized, but he propounds to him no question. But Mr. Jeter, in his blind zeal to find an example which would justify him in catechizing candi- dates for baptism, confounds a condition with a question; or, if he has not done this, then he is guilty of invent- ing for the Bible what it does not contain. 4 38 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. SECTION X. Eut Mr. Jeter is in labor to make it appear that !Mr. Campbell and his brethren are a ^^sect." As vre have already alluded to this subject, but little more need be added on it here. His language is, ''^h\ Cam23bell now found himself at the head of a sect, — yes, of a sect. The reformers were a sect, according to the definition of Xoah Webster : — ' Sect : A body or number of persons united in tenets, chiefly in philoso- phy and religion, but constitutiug a distinct party by holding sentiments different from those of other men; a denomination.^ " According, then, to ^Ir. Jeter and Mr. TTebster, we are a ^' sect.'^ Xow, we shall certainly not attempt to deny that there is a sense in which certain men can call us a " sect." Had we lived in the days of the Phari- sees, we doubt not they would have called us a " sect.'' Should we wonder at their doing it now ? But it is not ]\Ir. Webster who styles us a sect, but Mr. Jeter, who applies his language to us. Our defence is this : — after the way which some men call heresy, so worship we the God of our fathers, believing all things wl .ich are writ- ten in the law and in the prophets. But let us put the logic of 3Ir. Jeter to the proof. The following is Mr. Webster's definition of baj^tism : — ^'Hie application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible church of Christ. This is usually performed by sprinkling or immersion." Mr. Jeter, your witness is REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 39 an honorable man. Is the case made out ? If he tes- tify truly against your adversary, pray, sir, what is the effect of his testimony against yourself? But, again, says Mr. Jeter, "It must be added that the reformers were a sect in the sense in which ^Ir. Campbell so frequently employed the term. They had all the attributes, and, eminently the spirit, of a sect. Their claim to be considered the chwch, and, by emi- nence, the Christian church, was as baseless, and far more preposterous, than the same claim vauntingly set forth by some older and more venerable if not more worthy sects.'^ "We understand !Mr. Jeter perfectly, and shall give his paltry insinuation the benefit of a second publication. His meaning is this : — that our claim to be considered the church, and, by eminence, the Cliristian church, — a claim which has now been explained, — ^is as baseless as, and far more preposterous than, the same claim vaunt- ingly set forth by the church of Borne, which is, with him, a more venerable if not more worthy sect than we. Within itself this insinuation is of no consequence whatever. Its sole value consists in this : — that it is the truest index to its author's feelings we have yet seen. Sectarianism, as defined by him, consists, among other things, to use his own language, in " the lack of tenderness and forbearance toward those who dissent from our views.'' Tried by his own rule, in the light of the foregoing insinuation, and how free from the stain of sectarianism is Mr. Jeter ? 40 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. CHAPTEE II. MR. Jeter's doctrine of the influence of the spirit in CONVERSION EXAMINED. SECTION 1. Passing over all else ]VIr. Jeter has to say on " Camp- bellism" in the first one hundred and thirteen pages of his book, as of no consequence whatever, we shall now proceed to examine what he has to say on the principles of the system. We indulge the hope that we are now entering upon a more pleasing as well as more profitable task. Our interest, consequently, in our future labor is much enhanced. The strength of our cause is now to be tried. Its principles are to be analyzed and their soundness thoroughly tested. Our only regret is that a greater master than Mr. Jeter is not to conduct the process. How long it took to elaborate these principles, or the precise period when they were digested into a system, are points upon which ^Mr. Jeter has not seen fit to en- lighten us. From what he says, however, we may infer .that they were in course of development for a long time, passing through various transitions from their in- ception in the fertile brain of Mr. Campbell up to the period of fall formation. However, at last they as- sumed, it seems, the form of a system. Into this sys- tem Mr. Jeter boldly dips, and on its capital items REVIEW OF CAMFBELLISM EXAMINED. 41 dwells at length, among the chief of which is the in- fluence of the Spirit in conversion. On this subject Mr. Jeter states his doctrine thus :■- — There is an influence of the Spirit, internal, mighty, and efficacious, differing from moral suasion, but ordinarily exerted through the inspired word, in the conversion of sinners.^' Of this proposition, and of the doctrine it enunciates, we have, before proceeding to notice the defence of it, several things to say. The proposition contains three superfluous terms, to wit : internal, mighty, and efficacious, l^o one contends for an influence of the Spirit which is merely external, neither for one which has no might, nor yet for one without efficacy. Hence, the terms are redundant. Omitting, then, these three superfluous terms, Mr. Jeter's proposition reads thus : — There is an influence of the Spirit, differing from moral suasion, tut ordinarily exerted through the inspired word, in the conversion of sinners. But this is, in reality, a compound proposition, and equivalent to two, of which the first may be expressed thus : — In conversion there is an influence of the Spirit dif- fering from moral suasion. The second, thus : — This in- fluence is exerted ordinarily through the Truth. The first of these propositions we may conceive in- tended to define the kind of influence exerted; the second, to state how it is exerted. But the first is not successfuL It does not define the kind of influence ex- erted, but merely says of it, it differs from moral suasion. But what it is that thus differs we are not informed. 4* 42 REVIEW or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Of course it is not moral suasion, since it and moral sua- sion differ : but what else it is we are not told ; we are 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 tell us ? Why merely tell us that it differs, and leave us to suspect that he knows not why he thus affirms ? But, conceding that it differs, what does it differ from ? 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. Let us suppose, then, that he means by suasion, not the act of persuading, but an influence which persuades. Joining to this the word moral, we have a moral in- fluence lohich persuades, i.e. the sinner in conversion. What, now, can this be, but the influence of the Truth as such ? If this is not his meaning, his proposition has none. In this sense, therefore, we shall, at all events, venture to understand him. When, then, Mr. Jeter speaks of an influence differing from moral suasion, he means an influence differing from the Truth as such. That we are correct in under- standing him thus will appear from the manner in which he defines this influence elsewhere. It is, he observes, ''an influence distinct from and above the Truth.' ^ Or still more clearly, perhaps, does he express himself in calling it "a supernatural agency in the conversion of sinners." Jointly, these expressions define with a good deal of precision both the kind of influence for which he contends and ivhat it differs from. It is a REVIEW or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED 43 supernatural influence^ and is distinct — i.e. differs — from the Truth. From this, and from the fact that Mr. Jeter believes in the influence also of the Truth as such, it is clear that he believes in a plurality of influences in conversion : — one, simply an influence of the Truth as such; the other, an influence distinct from and above the Truth. NoWj it is in regard to this latter influence that we join issue with him. AYe utterly deny that such an influence is ever, in any case, present in conversion. And here let us be understood. We do not, if it be made a ques- tion of' mere power, deny the possibility of such an influence. "We merely deny that it is exerted, not that it can be. 'Nor will we, even if it be made a question of fact, deny absolutely that it may be exerted. We deny that it is exerted, on the ground that we have not one particle of evidence that such is the case. This extent hath our denial, no more. We are the more careful to draw these distinctions because, notwith- standing the great clearness and precision with which Mr. Campbell has expressed himself on this subject, he seems still to be, by some, misunderstood. Hence much of the idle and irrelevant talk with which ^Mr. Jeter's chapter on spiritual influence abounds. The second of the preceding pro];)Ositions, as already remarked, is intended to state how this influence is exerted, — namely, ''ordinarily through the Truth." It is, then, always exerted, actually and invariably exerted, in every case of conversion. Only is it variable in the mode of its exertion, being exerted sometimes through the Truth and sometimes without it. 4-i REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Here now is another point on which we take issue with Mr. Jeter. We deny that in conversion any in- fluence is exerted by the Spirit except such as it exerts" through the Truth; in other words, such as belongs to divine Truth as such. An issue, therefore, is here fairly formed between him and us. He believes in an influence in conversion '^dis- tinct from and above the Truth:'' we deny it. He believes that this influence is exerted ordinarily through the Truth, but sometimes without it: we deny that any influence is ever exerted in conversion except through the Truth. This makes the difi'erence between us. Kow, in order to establish these positions what has Mr. Jeter to do ? First, he has to produce ft-om the Bible at least one passage, which either actually asserts or necessarily implies the existence of an influence dis- tinct from and above the Truth, as an influence in con- version. Second, he has to prove, since this influence is distinct from and above the Truth, that it is ever exerted through the Truth. Third, that it is ever exerted with- out the Truth. Xor is this requiring of him too much. For unless the existence of the influence, as an influence in conversion, be first shown, its exertion, either through the Truth or without it, is inconceivable. And even then, each mode in which it is said to be exerted must be separately proved. For proving that it is exerted through the Truth would never justify the inference that it is exerted without it, and the re- verse. iSTor to all this does !Mr. Jeter deem himself unequal Certainly he undertakes it, or at least what implies it; REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 45 and how well lie performs liis task, we shall now proceed to acquaint the reader. SECTION II. The testimony by which Mr. Jeter proposes to esta- blish the reality'^ of this influence, he denominates ^'direct and scriptural.'^ This is the best, certainly, that the nature of the case admits of; and, should he succeed in producing even any such, we shall consider him completely successful. Of this testimony we shall hardly be expected to notice every passage both quoted and referred to; still, we shall notice as much, though we may deem it wholly irrelevant, as our limits will allow, and certainly every passage on which any special em- phasis seems to be laid. But is it not a little strange that Mi\ Jeter, after assuring us that his testimony is direct," should not attempt to establish directly by it the truth of his propo- sition, but, 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 OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. New Testament as a birth of the Spirit. 'Now, we deny- that sucli a description is contained in the Bible; and, if our denial is 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 Eible in which conversion occurs, and then say whether he has found, even in one, such a description. "We repeat, it is not in the Bible. Had ]VIr. Jeter merely said conversion is equivalent to the new birth, or something to that effect, the assertion might have been allowed to pass as substantially correct or harmless; but he says conversion is described in the JSfew Testament as a birth of the 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: — ^'That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." But does this passage contain a description of any thing? especially, does it contain a description of one thing as another? plainly, does it contain a description of con- version as a birth of the Spirit? The most vulgar common sense perceives it does not. But perhaps Mr. Jeter will say he cited the passage merely to prove that there is such a thing as being born of the Spirit. If so, we shall only add, he cited it to prove what we at least have never denied. The second of these passages is the following: — "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 47 he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.'' Had this passage been adduced to ]orove the impeccability of human nature in certain conditions, or that Satan is denied the power to touch a Christian, many, perhaps, might have thought it relevant. Eut Mr. Jeter adduces it to prove that con- version is described in the New Testament as a birth of the Spirit; and full as well might he have adduced it to prove the imponderable nature of heat, 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 l^ew Testament teaches the doctrine of a new birth, but utterly denied that it teaches the figment which he calls the new birth. ISTor 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 by the peculiar spiritual influence for which he contends. This position made good, we shall frankly grant he has car- ried his point. Eut, 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 fleshy — 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 — impl^'ing a communication of the divine nature — is 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, — ^flrst, that in conversion tAe divine nature is communicated; second, that this communication is effected by a voluntary and effi- cient agency of the Holy Spirit, which, in ]\Ir. Jeter's dialect, means a "supernatural agency." But is the divine — is any nature communicated in con- version? To propound the ridiculous question is to obtain sentence 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. Candidly, does Mr. Jeter himself beheve 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 world if he has not reckoned too far on the pliancy of its credulity, if he so thinks I REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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 — of 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 ^L.'. Jeter ventures to ring the following changes : — " That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, — resembles the Spirit, partakes of his holiness, — is 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 P "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; 5 D 50 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. neither is this its meaning. It says, that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, positively and materially, if we may so speak, — spirit; not spiritual, nor yet spirituality, but spirit. That which is born of the Spirit, the Holy 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. The passage teaches that in that great, vital, and inconceivably im- portant renovation 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 to see a passage which, like this, contains a great truth, fall into the hands of a man who can transmute it into a prop for the tame fantasies of his own brain. 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 SjDirit, then we affirm that there is nothing analogous to it known to him in heaven or in earth. There is, we grant, an analogy be- tween the new birth, as defined in the ]S'ew Testament, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 51 and natural birth; 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 fi^undation either in revelation or 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 is a bii*th. Indeed, what is called the new birth is not a hirth. It is merely an event analogous to a birth, and is, fi)r that reason, called a birth. Hence, it does not belong to the same class of events with natural birth, and, consequently, wo 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 wer-e both events 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 class, and not where, as in the present instance, they are merely analogous. It is now easy to see hew Mr. Jeter has fallen into his error. He cannot know d priori that the divine nature is conveyed in conversion ; neither does the Bible teach it. On what ground, then, does he assert it ? Simply on the ground of a resemblance between the new birth and the natural, in the latter of which, natui'e is com- municated. But, unless Ihe 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 ILr. 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 Sjjirit distinct from and above the Truth, a gross non-sequitur. SECTION III. Jeter states his second proposition thus: — ^^Con- version is termed in tfie 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 sui-ely, 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 ^»Ir. Jeter contends, are the same. Xow, 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 power. But 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 CAMPBELLIS31 EXAMINED. 53 as usual, lie is not correct — that conversion is termed in the Scriptures a creation. Eut, conceding for tlie pre- sent that he is correct, is it termed a creation in the literal acceptation of the term? 3Ir. Jeter alone will say it is. In a meta^^horical 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 di'aw his conclusion, erroneously infers, since the term literally implies the exertion of almighty power, that almighty power is exerted in conversion. Eut 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, in the Eible, God created the heavens and the earth. Here 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. Eut, waiving any thing farther on this point, we shall not hesitate to admit that Mr. Jeter has established the conclusion he aims at, provided he succeeds in showing that the creation of which he speaks is effected by an influence of the Spirit distinct from and above the Truth j — 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- 6* 5-i REVIEW OE CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. plicable to the present time ? Second, is it applicable to the present question ? Third, in what acceptation is its language to be taken ? To the first question we reply, the passage 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 whatever to the present question, to which it was never 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 literally to take these hearts out of them ? Did he intend literally to re- place these hearts with hearts of flesh, and literally to put within the people other and new spirits 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 vrickedness to which it had led, the Jews- were carried away into captivity. The heart of flesh and the new spirit were simply the subdued spirit and pliant disposition which their hard- ships while in exile had the efi'ect, in the providence of God, to work out for them. And yet, of this change, so perfectly natural and so easily accounted for, ^Ir. 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, ^' Make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Is- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. OD rael'r"' And as to Tvliellier angels could have performed the work or not, we dare not say, and feel confident Mr. 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 by a supernatural agency'^ of the Spirit. Mr. Jeter's next and last proof that conversion is 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, ^^ow, 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 producing it must of course be moral. It must be the power which resides in light, when presented to the mind in sufiicient quan- tity, to influence the judgment, and in the power of mo- tives to determine the will. But in nothing 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 ]\Ir. Jeter's language would seem to warrant a different conclusion. The word employed in this text," 56 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. he remarks, ^'to denote this renovation, — created, (xtc^o/,) — is employed to express that exercise of power by which the universe was brought into existence. (Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 16.) No energy short of that which brought order out of chaos can renew 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." At times Mr. Jeter grows exceedingly orthodox; as, for example, in this extract. So straight, indeed, is he at times, that he even appears a little bent; and so very sound, that even the orthodox may well susiDCct him for a heretic. Clearly, the spirit was on him while vaulting the foregoing. Eut on what ground rests his broad conclusion? Obviously, on the ground 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 f\ilse. When applied to creation, the term has not the same meaning that it has in the passage in hand, or when applied to conversion. Creation is one thing, conversion quite another; hence, the same term in the same sense can never exj^ress them both. SECTION IV. 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 resurrection; and then, because almighty power was exerted in the resurrection of Christ, infers that the same is exerted in conversion. But this 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 ^^nalogous ; 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 said 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 ilr. Jeter assert that we are converted by the same " energy which raised Christ from the dead" ? His error lies in 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 metai)horically, — 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 • 58 REVIEW OF 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 aj^ostle 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 wrouo;ht 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, it is true, according to, or in conformity with, the working of God's mighty power. But on whom was that power exerted, and ivhen ? On ws when we believed? Certainly not; but on Christ when God raised him from the dead. By that fact was Christ '^declared to be the Son of God ;" and, when we believe that fact, we believe according to the power which produced it. To a discriminating mind this needs no further illustration. Mr. Jeter's next " direct, scriptural proof" that the Holy Spirit exerts an influence in conversion, " distinct from and above the Truth," is the following : — " I have planted, Apollos watered : but God gave the increase. So, then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth : but God that giveth the increase." The clause " God gave the increase" is that on which Mr. Jeter doubtless relies, as containing his "proof" But whatever a passage does not actually assert or neces- sarily imply, it does not teach. Now, does the passage actually assert that the Corinthians were converted by an "influence distinct from and above the Truth"? or REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 59 does it even necessarily imply it? Obviously, it does not assert it. Unless, then, it necessarily implies it, it does not teach it. "Will ^Lr. Jeter affirm that the passage necessarily implies it? If so, we demand on what ground? Is it because God cannot give the in- crease in any other way? Mr. Jeter is not ashamed to represent Mr. Campbell as ^^prescribing" a limit" to the power of the Spirit : is he now prepared to assume the odious position himself? If not, he will not think us unreasonable when we request him to dispose of the argumentum ad hominem. A passage of Scripture is to be taken not in the whole extent of its possible, but only in the whole extent of its actual and necessary, signification. Whatever falls not legitimately within these limits is not matter of faith, but matter of speculation. Doctrines taught only by possible implication are doctrines untaught, to which class clearly belongs the doctrine of an influence in conversion dis- tinct from and above the Truth." The most that can possibly be claimed for it in the present instance, if even this much can be claimed, is, that it is not impossible it may be implied. But are we to be called upon to believe a doctrine true, to believe it taught by the holy word of God, merely because it is not impossible some passage may imply it ? We cannot think so. And this is our sin. For this we must be proscribed as heretical by such men as Mr. Jeter. But, if mere possible implication is the rule which orthodoxy and her votaries prescribe, then we dissent from their canon, and proudly accept, as the chief distinction which they can bestow, the charge of being heretics. \ 60 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. But ^^the text teaches/' says ]\Ir. Jeter, "thai the success of gosj)el 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 the same princi2)le pervades the animal 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- bellite" should ever do so, is, we know, the event least likely to happen of any other in the three kingdoms of which ]\Ir. 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 does so in the mode contended for by Mr. Jeter. We * "Analogies prove nothing." — J. B. Jeter, p. 169: " Campbellism examined." REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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, w^e think it safest to venture none. But not so Mr. Jeter : he speaks, as if he were the embodiment of light, where angeis need be mute. SECTION V. Mr. Jeter's next proofs of ^Hhe doctrine of a super- natural agency in the conversion of sinners" is the follow- ing: — '^Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the Truth 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 the verse addresses had purified their souls in obeying the Truth. Of course, then, Mr. Jeter w^ill 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, but in disposing the heart to receive and be guided by the gospel.'' But no passage of Scripture is safely construed, when con- strued to mean more than its terms will fairly import. Now, 62 KEYIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. in the light of this golden rule, the truth of which is intuitively perceived, do we feel that Jeter's con- clusion is justified by the passage in hand? We cannot feel so. But, he will doubtless urge, they obeyed through the S2)irit, and this implies the conclusion. Does 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 conclusion follow ? Can the clause, "through the Spirit," mean oily, through an influence of the Spirit dis- tinct from and above the Truth? If not, how can Mr. Jeter know that another influence is not meant ? AVill he answer these questions? iS'ever, we predict. If he affirms that only an influence distinct from and above the Truth is meant, 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 OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 63 with the adverse side. But this as yet he has not done ; neither will he do it, unless -he produces other stronger and more pertinent evidence than is contained in 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 : — that 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 make wise to salvation, and the sufficient motives to induce their obedience to all commands of the gospel. This exposi- tion strikes our common sense as just and natural; it falls within a no strained construction of the clause, and accords with facts; and all beyond this lies far within a region of vague conjecture. SECTION 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 covenant that I will 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 he to me a peopled' In this passage the Lord declared by his prophet that during the reign of Christ he would put his laws into the mind and ivrite 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 CAMPEELLISM EXAMINED. only a fact, leaving the mode of its occurrence wholly unexplained. But a passage which asserts only a fact can never be used in proving modCy unless the mode to be proved is itself the fact asserted. And yet ^Ir 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 he 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,'^ to 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 cites 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 jpeople to REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 05 understand his laws, and these laics to be impressed on their hearts. In order to this, two things, 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." From 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 YII. We have now to notice the second part of Mr. Jeter's defence of a supernatural agency in the conversion of sm<- 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 sanctifi cation being ad- mitted, it follows, as a logical sequence, that the same influence is exerted in conversion, which is but the com- 66 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. mencement of the work of wMch sanctification 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 exerting it is by imme- diate contact of the Holy Spirit with the human. Mr. Jeter's first direct 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 powerfully assisting them in the mighty struggle for eternal life, 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 ''respecf 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 or 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 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 ^ 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. ''Regeneration means, in the Bethany dialect, horn of water, or immersion." Once for all, we wish to coiTect this stale falsehood, which has been repeated by every reviler of Mr. Camp- bell, from Greatrake down to ^Ir. 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. Eegeneration, in the Bethany dialect, is exactly equiva- lent to the new birth ; and the new birth, in the Bethany dialect, means to he hegotten hy the Spirit and to he horn 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 — 68 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. than to any act preceding it, includes also all the other acts ^^I'Gceding it, or the whole process of being bom again. In this sense and in this only, and for these reasons, has ^Ir. 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 hath, 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, therefore, 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, Begeneration means, in the Bethany dialect, born of icater, or immersion? 2. "All that is done in us before regeneration, God our Father, not the Holy Spirit, effects by the word." RETIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. G9 Mr. Campbell not only never penned this, but never any thing which implies it. This is what he has said after it has passed through the mind of !Mr. Jeter, the dissimilarity between which and a filter is striking. Fluids when passed through a 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. Not 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 OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. SECTION VIII. 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, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day Prov. iv. 18. Eegeneration is the commencement of holiness. Ee- 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 holiness begun; sanctification is holiness progressing: but in both cases the holiness is of the same nature, tendency, and origin.'' 1. Holiness and sanctification, in almost every case where they occur, are represented by one and the same word in the original; or, still more to the point, the original word which is rendered sanctification is in- differently rendered either holiness or sanctification. Since, then, the same original word means indifferently either sanctification or holiness, how can sanctification be ]3rogressive 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. Thus briefly, then, do we dispose of a part, and a chief 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," is an assump- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 71 tion. It is assumed that conversion is eifected 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 part 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 the Christian life, is also necessary to conversion. Xow, 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 on the sinner, because the word of God does not assert it, neither imj^ly it ; and since what we deny does not follow from what we admit, clearly, it should not have been assumed to follow, but proved. Admitting that the Spirit affects 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 such 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 in the second proof,'' which happens to be an assumption, turns out to be naught. SECTION IX. "My third proof," remarks Mr. Jeter, ^^is drawn from the direct testimony of revelation. 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 two 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; and if the Truth be divine so must be its influ- ence ; and to these in all cases do we ascribe conversion. But this is not the question. [N'either is it whether the Spirit that nourishes is the Sj^irit 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 this 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- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 73 ferred to in the passage was a contribution for the spread of the gospel which the Philippians were nobly engaged in raising, and not "the work of grace in the soul/' as 3tlr. Jeter asserts, which God, by some hidden influence^ had begun in them at their conversion, and was still carrying on. Eut, 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 what influences it does not say, and hence does not decide. But, if ^Ir. 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 [Philippians] 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 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 closing his ^'direct" proofs, "concerns the honor of the Holy Spirit. 7 74 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. The theory which I am 02:)posing 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 : — 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 imj^ression that there is a necessity for his peculiar spiritual influ- ence, or that he is profoundly ignorant of the character of the Christian life, 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, hut ordinarily exerted through the inspired word, in REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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 proj^er to state that we have found no little difficulty in collecting out 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 at 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. 7G REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. CHAPTER III. INFLUENCE OF THE SPIBIT IN CONVERSION — OUB, OWN DOCTEINE STATED AND DEFENDED. SECTION I. We Jiovf 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 a far 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 Soly 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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 77 it to l;e a mere influence or impersonal emanation from the Father, or the Son, or from both ; but, in the strict- est sense of the term, a 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- rect, no effort is here made to defend them. Second, the proposition to be discussed is not a ques- tion of power. It is not a question as to what the Spirit can do, but a question as to what it does, l^or is it even a question as to what the Spirit does, except in conversion. 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. AYe do, however, presume to think, without here stopping to assign the reasons for so thinking, that the Spirit does, 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 the 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 78 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. when he makes remarks to the effect that the Spirit cannot operate except thus and bo, 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 is hence inad- missible. All such remarks of ]\Ir. Campbell are limited; and necessarily so, 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 ^Ir. 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 classes : — 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 influence of 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 in the faithful and conscientious discharge of their duty, their influence REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 70 for good is great. They relieve, for example, the vrants of the poor, and thus gain over them an influence, gratefully acknowledged in most cases, 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 them become obedient to the Faith. Again, Christians, mingle in the world, and thus form friendships which make them the confidants of those with whom they associate. This confidence may often be availed of to imj^art 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 sufiiciently 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 thu^ 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 REYIET\ OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. now for the reception of the Truth ! And even the lighter and less noticeable, but still painful, incidents of life often have much the same effect. How, when away from the endearments of home and with the stran over's heart, does 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 human 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 Spirit, infinite in grace and power,'^ accomplishes the conver- sion of the sinner, is to affirm what he has no 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, 3Ir. 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 may 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 doctrine, but also as denying that of our oppo- nents. It says, in conversion the Spirit operates through REVIEW OP 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 so understood, 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 to 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 enemies affirm that it operates both through the Truth and without it. Let them now make the position good. We deny it, and here take our stand. Indeed, the very proposition which Mr. 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 close the j^yresent controversy, and demand judgment against the adverse F 82 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. party. For ilr. Jeter has not proved the existence in 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 controversy^ so far as he is concerned, is here fairly brought to a close, and in our favor. Indeed he con- cedes to us the veiy ground we claim, and the only ground which, in this controv^ersy, 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- fication of men.^' What then have we to do? Simply nothing. It would be impossible to close a controversy more completely in favor of one of the parties than the present controversy is here closed in our favor. AYe shall, however, waive all technical advantages and p)ro- 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 clearly 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 itate. We REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 83 employ it then throughout this chapter to denote strictlj a mental and therefore a moral change, and not as includ- ing any outward act of obedience. In other words, we employ it as exactly equivalent to the expressions horn of the Sjpirit, horn 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 author, denoted by the exj^ression horn of the Spirit, through what instrumentality does it operate? We respond. It operates through the Truth. But what do we mean when we say the Spirit operates through the Truth ? We mean that it operates hy the Truth; that is, that divine Truth is itself the vital power by which 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 Truth, and that hence no other is exerted. In the present controversy this argument must be conceived as having great weight. I^'othing 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 muet be first clearly shown, otherwise such denial stands 84 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. good against it. Xeither can we assume the existence of such necessity, unless we could 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- tinct 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. j\Ioreover, where a necessity exists for doing a thing, there exists a reason for doing it; but where no such necessity exists, the presumption is, that the thing, if done at all, is done without a reason, which in the case of conversion is not admissible. AYe 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 argument usually urged from depravity in defence of an influence above or not in the Truth. It is first assumed that man is totally, or, as ^Ir. Jeter has it, '^utterly,'' depraved. It is then urged that this utter depravity, or rather the resistance which is met with from it in con- version, cannot be overcome by any force of divine Truth, however great, and that there is hence a ne- cessity for another and greater influence. But, instead of assuming this., which is the main point in their argu- ment, let the advocates of this peculiar influence come forward and show us, either by indisputable and perti- nent facts, or by passages of Holy Writ clear and rele- vant, that man is thus depraved; then, and not tiU then, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 85 will their argument be qf any force or entitled to any respect. SECTrON III. Our second argument is, that any influence more intense than that of divine Truth and above it, such as Mr. Jeter contends for, would, of necessity, infringe the freedom of the human will, and hence cannot he admitted to he 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 leave him free as the unfettered wind to accept it or reject it. 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 is impossible to conceive the advantage to him of an influence de- signed to have only the efl'ect to make him willing. Eut 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 inclined not to do. Is this the act of a man 8 86 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. acting of his ovrn will, or is it not rather the act of a man acting against his will? Certainly, ^Lr. 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 3Ir. Jeter and his brethren, conversion is in no sense — not even in part — in the power of the sinner himself, but depends absolutely on the power and will of another. IS'ow, we request him to acquaint the world whether the sinner, so circumstanced, is resj)onsible 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 feel 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 indwellii^g of the Spirit within him, under an influence aff'ecting the freedom of his will ? AYe reply, that no such thing is done. The Christian has the will, but lacks the power; 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, Cod works in the Christian, as we conceive, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 87 both will and deed; but then 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 Truth 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 conscious he has the power to perform " 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 the work whereunto I have called them." And again, "Kow, 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 CAMPBELLISM 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 canying on the work of conviction, the Spirit wrought only through the apostles 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 chief control of them; od, that the Spirit breathed, or made known the Truth, not unconditionally every- where, but only where it saw fit to make it known, — vrhere, 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 this is what is meant 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 it 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 conviction in nothing distinguishable from belief Xor can this be thought incorrect if 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 vei*sion. Indeed, when we say we firmly be- lieve a thing to be true, — say that Christ arose from the REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 119 dead, — and we are convinced that it is true, it is impoa 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 conviction 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 Avit : 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 kind 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, the 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 arc 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. For, although within itself an absolute truth, still, to us it is a truth only as it is proved to be such. For this evidence again we are indebted solely to the Spirit. Here, now, the Spirit has furnished us not only the thing of which we are to be convinced, but the evi- 120 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. dence in quantity and in kind on which it rests. ISow, on our part, this thing and this evidence must be Tolun- tuarily attended to ; and, if so, conviction will as inevi- tably follow, unless deliberately resisted, as pain follows vice, or pleasure follows virtue. If conviction is not thus produced, then it is a dream. We care not what the thing may be of which we are to be convinced : convic- tion is the same. It may be the sublime truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; or the fact that he died for our sins ; or that he arose for our justification ; or that man by his sins has deeply grieved the Lord before whom he stands all guilty ; or it may be some duty, or some relation : in a word, it may be any truth, fact, relation, or duty, and, we repeat, conviction remains the same, and, in all cases, takes place in precisely the same way. Since, therefore, conviction depends on the Truth, proved to be such, and, as far as the human mind can see, on nothing else, and since conviction (in the view we are now taking of it,) and conversion are the same, it follows that conversion depends on the Truth, and on the Truth alone. SECTION XII. Our eleventh argument is, that there is no cause knoiun to have contributed to the conversion of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, except the Truth which they heard; and that it is hence unjust and unfair to infer the presence of any other. As a ground for this argument, we shall now proceed to submit a brief analysis of the case of conversion re- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 121 ferred to. The Savior had said to the disciples, in speak- ing of the Comforter, I depart I will send him to you; and when he is come he will reprove {convince) the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." We are now, therefore, to see how the Spirit did, when come, convince the world, hy what means it did it, and, thus, how conversion is effected. The disciples, to the number of a hundred and twenty, the apostles included, had met in an upper room in the city of Jerusalem. The day was important, being one on which a great national festival was celebrated. The city was crowded with strangers. The Savior had taken his seat at the right hand of the Father, as Lord of all. He had received the Spirit, and on that day sent it forth. It entered the room where the disciples were met, accompanied by a sound as of a rushing mighty wind. It sat upon each of them in the form of separate tongues of flame. The symbol was appropriate. Upon a former occasion, when descending upon the Savior, 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 abroi*d, 11 122 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. the people ran together and were greatly pei-jDlexed. Some ventured solutions, others wondered, others mocked. At this juncture the Apostle Peter arose and com- menced his speech, speaking as the Spirit moved him. 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- tinency of its proofs, its regularity and grand conclu- sion. The apostle closes thus: — "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ." The effect is thus described: — "Xow, 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 was present in the apostles, and through them s^^eak- ing into the hearts of the people, and thus touching them into life. Hence, when the people heard, they RETIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 123 were pierced to the heart, or convinced. To what, now, is this conviction attributable ? To what the audience heard simply? or to what thej heard and to an "in- fluence distinct from and above the Truth" ? The latter is Jtlr. Jeter's position ; the former, ours. The case may be stated thus : — Vfe have an effect — conviction — to account for : and how shall we do it ? Shall we ascribe it to the one cause, t?te 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 luere 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 OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. SECTION XIII. Our twelfth argument is, that the conversion of the eunuch justifies belief in no other influence as the cause of his conversion except the Truth which he heard. It is important to observe, that a case of conversion may be examined for two distinct objects, each of which has 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; though even corroboration may be of a nature to be decisive. If the correspondence is exact and minute, the conclu- sion may become irresistible ; 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 presum]3tion 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 boftk of 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 had spoken but to Philip, and not to the eunuch. Xow, however, it was speaking to the eunuch, but speaking only through Philip ; and so it continued till conviction was eifected. 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 case 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. 11* 126 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. But where is the evidence that the Spirit exerted oli the eunuch 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 having begotten or converted the Corinthians by the gospel; and that, since the gospel in its ordinary ac- ceptation does not include an influence distinct from and above itself, therefore the gospel is the sole influence of con- version. The ground on which Ihis argument rests is the following: — Though you have 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 be their sub- stantial agreement amidst different circumstances. Ac- cordingly, it is curious to note that in every case of con- version, 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 — p.ot even a REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 127 Lint — that the Spirit was ever at 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 ease? The circumstance is more than suspicious. Xow, 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, and hence of the effect 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, so is it now present where it has written; and as what it then said was quick and power- ful, — 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 it now; but where is the evidence — in reason we ask where — ^that any soul either then or now has ever resisted the 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 1-8 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. by many influences, yet have you not many flithers, 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 knoivn or determinate cause of Lydia's conversion was the Truth which she heard; and that this is hence the real cause of conversion. The case may be resolved into the question. How did the Lord open Lydia's heaH ? This question answered, all else is simple. Xow, as a physical opening is not contended for, 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. Xow, 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 certain is it that he influenced the Corinthians to obey, and the eunuch to obey; but the question is, hy what means? Mr. Jeter REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 129 thinks he influenced Lydia to obey by a "gracious, inward, efficacious influence of his Spirit." Doubtless f;he 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 ft-om the Truth, or was any thing more than the Truth. Eut on what ground does ]\Ir. 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 to Lydia, — 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 that the Lord 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 work 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- I 130 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. tainly better to ascribe the fact to tlie 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 facts, 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 conclusion 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 AVrit, corroborated by the simplest and most transparent reasonings, can it yet he 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 no word has been overtaxed, no clause forced to bear a reluctant testi- mony, no sentence unnaturally construed, nor any verse interpreted otherwise than in harmony with the long- established and simj^lest 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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 131 CHAPTEE ly. OBJECTIONS OF MR. JETER TO fHE PRECEDING DOCTRINE CONSIDI lED. SECTION I. We now proceed to consider the objections to the doc- trine of the preceding chapter. But before doing this 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. To this limitation ^Ir. 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, hut in reality to what we do not teach. For, so far as we do teach, he agrees with us; but he objects to our teaching only so far. In other 132 REVIEW or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. words, when we deny that the Spirit 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 this 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. Campbeirs 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 Islx. Jeter's whole system of spiritual influence, and, as we conceive, the sole argu- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 133 ment which he can urge in its defence, he should have been at great pains to estabhsh 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 for by him. The veiy 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. Wliy, now, did he not attempt to establish this intense form or peculiar degree of depravity? To such a task he knew himself unequal. Eut a difficulty of this nature never strands Mr. Jeter. What he felt a conscious inability to prove, he felt a conscious ability to assume and, accordingly, having assumed the existence of a form 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 : — that 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. forms 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 been perverted, and that he no longer reflects 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 to be his subjection to mortality, his loss of the moral imago of a kind Creator, and his greater exposedness to temp- tation and sin. In some of these respects, certainly, his misfortunes may be, in great part, even in this life, re- paired by the Eemedial System; but the consummation will not be until he is quickened 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. I^'either in reason nor in revelation is there one trace of evidence that an infant was ever yet, from conception up, the subject of one ray of spiritual influ- * ence. The whole conception is a pure delusion. "VYe 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 OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 135 that resistance becomes nearly, if not quite, impossible. True, we all inherit that frail nature which renders us BO 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 fbrce of divine Truth. But this frailty or weakness is not sin : it is only a condition without which there had been no sin. 'Nov is it a consequence of Adam's sin. Adam possessed it before he sinned, else he had not sinned; hence, it is not a consequence of his sin. It is, however, a condition of sin, since without it Adam could not have sinned; but it is only 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 displayed 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 depravity 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 is without 136 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. spiritual life, without holiness, without moral worth, — ^ dead in trespasses and sins Eph. 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 Eom. viii. 7. 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 corruj^tion of human nature is universal. ^For 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 overcoloring, 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." I^'ow, 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 CAMPBELLISM 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." Kow, 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? 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 such 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 used to prove the 12* I loS REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. presence of another, unless the one cannot he ahsent 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. Kor would it be sufficient, to establish IMr. Jeter's conclusion, to show that the ab- sence of spiritual life implies the presence of depravity. It must be shown that it implies utter depravity, or a form of it so inveterate that conversion is impossible without a "supernatural agency." For, as before re- marked, we adm i 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 ]^Ir. 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 6ms, — that is, the sins which they were actually committing every day. Indeed, the very power to sin involves a virtual re- futation of one of ^Ir. 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 mere physical power to sin, but the moral ^^ower. It is the power to sin or not just as we choose. He who cannot choose between sinning and not sinning cannot sin. And the power to choose implies the power to choose REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 139 for reasons, and thisf, of course, that he who chooses is susceptible of being determined by motives. This is all we contend for; but, 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 Eom. viii. 7." The carnal mind — or, emphatically, Me mind of the flesh, which is here said to be enmity to God — is something 140 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. which, in this life, is never subject to the will of God; indeed, it cannot be. Xo 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, ^Ir. Jeter will say, does not this prove that there is a work to be done in man which cannot be accom- plished by the Truth ? Certainly not. Indeed, it proves nothing about a work to he 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 bo subdued at all, cannot be subjected to 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, even after his conversion, this principle 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." Xow, all must admit that the chief difficalty in con- version is a serious one, and that any theory which REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 141 overlooks it must be extremely defective. But m 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 'under- stood,' in order to exert their influence on the human mind. (Christianity Eestored, 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 defep-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 sj^irit; 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 w^e 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 OP CAMPBELLISM EXAmXED. What, then, lack we vet? '^Attention, candor, and spi- ritual discernment," it would seem. First, then, it re- quires attention. Granted. Second, it requires candor. This is not tme. K an argument be intelligible within itself, and a man possess the ability to understand it, and give it the requisite attention, understand it he will though he possess not one particle of candor. Without candor he may not acknowledge ih2ii he understands it; or, acknowledging it, he may not yield to it : but these are different matters altogether. Thii'd, it requires ^'spiritual discernment.^' It requires common senses and nothing more. What Jeter means by " spii'itual dis- cernment" he has not informed us; 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 ^VTr. Jeter, this is the chief difficulty in the way of his understanding the Truth ; and, indeed, according to our scheme," if we are to beheve 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 the human family. We mention the following classes : — 1. Such as will not come to Christ that they might have life. 2. Such as hate the light and will not come to it. 3. Such as reject the coun- sel of God against themselves. 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 Soly SpArit. For securing the attention of these classes, we are free to confess^ our REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 143 ^^Bcheme" makes little provision; and we shall only add, the gospel makes none. aSo, gentle reader; it is Mr Jeter's "scheme" that makes provision for securing the 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 and 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. ]S^either reason nor revelation sanctions any other mode of securing the sinner's attention. SECTION III. Objection 3. "Suppose this great difficulty obviated, the sinner's attention arrested, and Truth brought clearly before his mind : would knowledge of divine Truth, without the special influence of the Spirit, secure his conversion^" To which, of course, the answer is, it would not. Xow, we reply, if divine Truth, when known or understood, effects not the conversion of the sinner, then his 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 CAMPBELLISM 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, 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 corruj^t disposi- tion which blinds the understanding. ' This is the con- demnation, that light is come into 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 implies 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 veiy 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 world. These are certainly fear- ful results. But are they results of man's depravity? "We shall concede for thf present that they are, and of that inveterate form of it for which Mr. Jeter contends. Xow, 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 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 145 for his love of darkness^ his aversion to light, truth, 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, still it follows. JSTor, 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. ]^ay, more: we admit that 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 or 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 tne Cbristian religion^ we ask, con- template the removal of all obstacles to conversion, and bence the conversion of all ? But we do maintain that every removable obstacle in the way of conversion not only may be made to yield, but tbat it actually does yield, when it yields at all, to tbe Truth, and to the Truth alone. The inherent, bril- liant light of the Truth, its searching heat and power, no obstacle can w^ithstand, save the voluntary and deliberate resistance of man. And against this resist- ance no pro\Hsion can be made. SECTION IV. Objection 4. "The theory under discussion is contradicted by numerous icell-authenticated facts." In proof of which ]\Ir. Jeter presents first this ^^fact:" — ^^If all the converting power of the Spirit is in the arguments addressed by him in words to the mind, then it follows that every minister of the word must be suc- cessful in converting souls to Christ in proportion to the distinctness with which he presents the arguments of the Spirit to the minds of his hearers. The same measure of power must, under similar circumstances, produce similar results. But does this conclusion agree with the experience and observation of Christian minis- ters We reply, if the power be uniform, and the circum- REVIEW OF CA3IPBELLISM EXAMINED. 147 stances precisely similar, then tlie results will be so too. Kow, we maintain that tho converting power is in the Truth^ and, hence, that the power is uniform. But are the circumstances precise??/ similar? Xr. Jeter knew that they are not, and yet he has the front to put the case as against us. Eut are the circumstances so far similar as to justify the expectation of even nearly-similar results? They are not. But, on the contrary, they are so very dissimilar as to justify the 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 which are almost infinite; each one of which will serve to prevent a uniform result from preaching. Xo two can be found commanding precisely the same amount of intellect; and then in point of cultivation they differ most 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. Eut, in farther proof of his objection, Mr. Jeter pre- sents, second, this ^^fact:'' — '^Eut I need not appeal in this argument to questionable evidence. Christ was an unrivalled preacher of the gosj)el. [Mark i . 1 : ^ Xever 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 OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. cations might have been expected; no great moral 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. ^o. 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. ISTow, to what causes did he attribute it? Among others, we mention the following : — 1. ^^This people's heart is waxed 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, and 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 ye 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 life." But, among all the causes assigned by the Savior, did he ever once rnention 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 or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 149 of success? ^^The converti?^g power of the Spirit," is liis own language, "was not present, — was withheld in wisdom and righteous judgment." We blush for tlie pen that drew this libel upon the di'^dne character. In charity let us hope its author penned it in haste, under the in- fluence of some dreadful pressure, without stopping to reflect on 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, but because they could not! The converting power of the Spirit was withheld, hence conversion could not be ; and yet the unconverted were, by the high decree of heaven, doomed to perdition for refusing to be what they could not he! What is this but to 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 V. Objection 5. "Mr. Campbell's theory of the Spirit's in- fluence is incompatible with prayer for the conversion of sinners." 1. Has God but one way in which he can answer prayer for the conversion of sinners, — to wit, through an in- fluence of the Spirit distinct from and above the Truth? If not, then the objection is void. Mr. Campbell's theory is certainly incompatible with prayer for the conversion of sinners through a "supernatural agency," but not with 13* 150 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLIS3I EXAMINED. prayer for their conversion in any Avay in wliicli con- version ever happens. 2. 3Ir. Jeter is profoundly ignorant of the manner in which our heavenly Father answers, where he does so at all, the prayers of his children. We know not what we should j)ray for as we ought, and surely much less the manner in which these prayers are replied to. It is enough for us to know that 'Sprayer for all men'' has been made our duty. Hence we pray for them, not because it happens to be compatible with some theory, however wise, but because God has made it our duty to do so. All beyond a conscientious discharge of our duty we leave with Him who works all things after the coun- sel of his will. That he does, in the way which to him seems best, answer or not these prayers as they happen to accord or not with his gracious plans and to be for the good of his erring children, we profoundly believe. When, now, 2tlr. Jeter undertakes to set Mr. Campbell's theory of the Spirit's influence" aside, after having so signally failed to do so in other ways, by an objection based on his profound ignorance of the manner in which God answers prayer, he compliments neither his head nor his heart. 3. There is no duty upon the propriety and necessity of which Christian men are more cordially agreed, than that of frequent fervent prayer for the conversion of sinners. Any system of religion which should ignore it would be justly exposed to the derision of all good men. 3Ir. Jeter knew, and admits, (reluctantly, we fear,) that 3Ir. Campbell and his brethren believe in and practise this duty. And yet he wished to expose REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 151 US as a denomination to the odium wliicli lie knew could attach to a people only who repudiate the duty; and this he sought to do by an effort to make it appear that our 'Hheory" of spiritual influence is ^'incompatU ble" with prayer for the conversion of sinners. There is not a more unmanly thing in his book, numerous as such things are, than the preceding objection. But, in a work written to insult and not to refute, we could ex- pect nothing better. • SECTION VI. Objection 6. ''3fr. CamphelVs theory of conversion is in- consistent with the introduction of the millennium.'' In support of this objection, Mr. Jeter has written some seven pages ; and yet in not one line of the seven has he furnished a particle of evidence that his objection states the truth. It is an objection of a piece with the one immediately preceding it, — strictly, an objection based on his ignorance. It amounts to this : — Mr. Camp- bell's theory of conversion is inconsistent with some- thing of which little or nothing is known ! Mr. Jeter does not know in what the millennium will consist, and certainly not how it is to be introduced. In regard to the former point, the Scriptures merely state the fact that there will be a millennium, with no full description certainly of 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 will not be thought disrespect- ful in us to dissent from Mr. Campbell in regard to a matter touching which he does not claim to be exempt 152 REVIEW or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. from liability to err. Vre cannot therefore agree that Mr. Jeter has furnished the true view of the millennium in the short extract which he makes from Mr. Camp- bell's writings to define what he means'' bj the term. And still less can we concede to him the right to base an objection to our theory of conversion on a piece of information which he does not happen to possess. But it is proper to hear Mr. Jeter's account of the manner in which the millennium is to be introduced. ^^It is/' he obseiweS; ^^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 revelations for our instruction, no new powers to be imparted to the human mind, and- no new means of spreading the gospel and enlisting attention to it. How then is the millennium to be introduced ? By an increased efficiency of the divine icord." The millennium, then, is to shed its blessings on the world by an increased efficiency of the divine word, is'ow, a more perfect conceit never haunted the brain of a Chaldean astrologer. But still, conceit as it is, it serves the purpose of a point on which to poise an objection ao-ainst our view of conversion. Had Mr. Jeter stated o 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. Wlien 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 thia bases an objection to our theory of conversion, because REVIEW OF 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 hy conversion. Eut this 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 Eible that the millennium is to be introduced hy conversion, and then, from any source, that our theory rnakes 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 VII. Objection 7. " The assumption under consideration^* (that the Spirit operates in conversion through the Truth only) ^Hs incompatible with the salvation of infants. They enter into the world, as Mr. Camjobell 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 be 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 conceive; or they must be lost. I do not charge him with admitting 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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED.. As a general rule, there is about as much connection betTveen IMr. Jeter's premises and his conclusions as between a cubic inch and the milky way; but in the present instance he seems to have stumbled upon some- thing a little better. We do not hesitate to pronounce this the best argument, bad as it is, in his book. For that reason we have transcribed it entire. How, now, must not all mothers be scandalized by the naughty doctrine which leads to such a conclusion ! And Mr. Campbell, it seems, with all his ingenuity, is unable to escape it. Alas, poor man ! "What now must be done? If we admit Mr. Jeter's premises, and if his argument is all valid, then are we forced to accept his conclusion. But — alas for his argument I — a single pass at it proves fatal. Mr. Campbell does not admit that in- fants are depraved in any sense ichich makes it necessary to regenerate them, either with or without the word, in order to their salvation. We regret to be compelled thus to spoil the best argument in Mi\ Jeter's book; but we are not permitted to spare it. When he puts his own false posi- tion in ^Ir. Camj^bell's mouth, he must not expect to deduce from it conclusions which will render any one ridiculous but himself. SECTION viir. Objection 8. "Jlfr. Campbell's assumption" (the Spirit's operating through the Truth only) wholly at war with the Scripture doctrine of Satanic influence. Satan and other evil spirits are represented in the Bible as exert- ing a mighty moral influence for the destruction of men. They temj)t, deceive, enslave, and degrade mankind. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 155 Satan is a mighty prince, and at the head of a great, spreading empire. But ho^Y do the evil spirits exert an influence over the minds of men? By arguments oi motives addressed to them by words oral or written ? Certainly not : but by a direct, internal, and efficient influence'^ 1. We deny utterly that Satan exerts any direct in- fluence on the human mind. AVe do not say he cannot do it, for we know not the limit of his awful power. We deny that he does it. The question is a question of fact, 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. 2. But, conceding that Satan does exert a direct in- fluence on the mind, what then ? Why, that Mr. Camp- bell concedes to him and his angels a power which he denies to the Holy Spirit. But ^klr. Campbell sets no limits to the power of the Spirit. He denies that it does act thus and so, not that it can. More than this he has never denied. But, even granting, as already stated, that Satan does exert a direct influence on the mind, is it possible that Mr. Jeter can make this the ground 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 thing ? This is the pith of his argument; and yet he affects to be jealous for the "honor of the Holy Spirit.^' How dare he assert, conceding his position to be correct, that the enormity of Satan's sin consists not in this very thing, — that he 150 REVIEW OF CAMPEELLISM EXAMINED. does, because he can, exert a direct influence on the mind. ? For aught he kno^YS, this may make the great trenching difference between the Spirit's intercourse with man and Satan' s, — a difference Avhich makes the intercourse of the latter 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 century this argument has been kept on hand by none but the lowest class of 3Ir. Campbell's opponents, until now it turns up in the tidy manual of the Eev. !Mr. Jeter. SECTION IX. Objection 9. ^^The assumption that the Spirit can'' {does) "operate on the soul of man in conversion only by arguments or words, is not only unphilosophical, but contrary to divinely-recorded facts. It is not true that physical power cannot produce 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 Eedeemer a moral quality? And was not this effect produced, not by arguments, persuasion, or words, 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 hence, se, of no more value than the color of a gooso. REVIEW OF CAMPEBLLISM EXAMINED. 157 JSTow, in all the ranks of our brethren, where, we ask, is the man ^Yho 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 withal — can cant of IVIr. Campbell's views of the divinity of Christ ! AYe 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 be so false should impel him to extremes so strange. SECTION X. Objection 10. "l^o writer has so bitterly denounced metaphysical speculations and mystic theology as Mr. Campbell. One great object of his reformation was to rescue the Scriptures from the glosses of sectarian theorizers. I must say, that I have met with no writer on the agenc}^ of the Spirit in conversion, w^io 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, w^hile 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. K'o 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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. When ^Ir. Campbell neither eats nor drinks, they say he has a devil; but when he both eats and drinks, they say he is a glutton and a Avine-bibber, a friend of pub- licans and sinners. When ^Mr. Campbell, refuses to speculate on the ageucy 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 work of the Spirit, and here would pause. But he is soon hurried from this position. 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. If there is any one singular trait in the teachings of Mr. Campbell, — and the same is true of the teach- ings of his brethren, — it is their simplicity and freeness 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 always speak the truth. Here, now, we close our examination of what ]VIr. REVIEW or CAMPBELLISM 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. We commend it, therefore, to the confidence of all good men, and commit it to the safe-keeping of Grod. 160 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. CHAPTEE Y. "THE IDENTITY OF REGENERATION, CONVERSION, AND BAPTISM." SECTION 1. Such is Mr. Jeter's caption to some twenty-five pages of matter curious and emj^irical indeed. Here his pecu- liar genius displays itself to admiration. He sports like a giant with phantoms of his own creating, and plays with the freedom of a boy 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 etFect. Truth and false- hood, vice and virtue, is and is not, are not more con- tradictory than the views of ]Mr. 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 Mi\ 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 best 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 OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 161 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 correct 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 change preparatory to baptism. He has written equivocally — ^perhaps it would be better to say obscurely — on the subject. His love of novelty, the immaturity 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 difiicult 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 sake, 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 that 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 before baptism." Candidly, we are grieved at this. We are willing to u* L 162 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. review Mr. Jeter severely, — nay, even bitterly, jf^hen he merits it, as he not seldom does, — hut 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 miracle had Mr. Campbell never penned an obscure or equivocal sentence. JBut is an equivocal or obscure sentence here and there only, a just ground on which to prefer a charge of writing equivocally or obscurely on a point which lies nearest the writer's heart? Are all Mr. Campbell's writings equivocal or obscure on the necessity of 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 j^eculiar eloquence, it is the neces- sity — the absolute necessity — of a change, a moral change, a spiritual change, a deep, vital, pervading change of the whole inner man, preparatory to baptism. Of all the sub- jects on which he has ever 'svritten, 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, and 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 CAMPBELLISM 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 ns as a people; but Mr. Jeter must learn that this subject is not one of them. II. ''Mr. Campbell has been frequently, but, 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 it by quoting its advocates in support of his peculiar views : but certainly he has never formally proclaimed it ; he earnestly advocates principles at war with it. What he certainly maintains is, not that we are regenerated by baptism, but that baptism is itself regenera- tion, and the only personal regeneration." 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, a moral change — i.e. a change of the inner man — effected by baptism. This doc- trine Mr. Campbell eschews from his whole heart. He has never penned even one sentence which, except by the most dishonest artifice, can be shown even to look towards the doctrine. He ascribes to baptism no value 164 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. whatever except as a condition 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, bat solely in its being appointed, jointly with other conditions, for remission. But, while acquitting Mr. Campbell of holding, 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 suspicious 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 his peculiar views.^' This is not manly. Why, if Mr. Jeter really wished to acquit Islr. Campbell 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, and yet in such a way as to leave the impression that after all he may not bo . quite innocent. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 165 But ''what he pir. Campbell] dearly maintains is, not that we are regenerated by baptism, but that baptism is itself regeneration, and the only personal regeneration.'' What Mr. Campbell clearly maintains is, — 1st, that regeneration and the new birth are identical; 2d, that the new birth consists 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, howevei, 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. Jeter 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 believefs heart. Did not his conscience smite him while penning this ? If not, he ne^d never fear it in time to come while sin- 166 REVIEW OF CxVMPBELLISM EXAMINED. ning. 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 ^Ir. Campbell 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 obe- dience of the gospel. He has put on Christ.^' Sprink- ling the babe does it no good, but not so the immersion of «ne believer. By it he puts on Christ. This is the dis- tinction, and the only one, which Mr. Campbell even seems to teach, except by a construction which converts truth into falsehood, and against which the imperfections of human speech afford no protection. SECTION II. 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 the case seems here to require aad as can with propriety be now introduced. REVIEW OF 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 noAv commence by inquiring what is the only true and proper rendering of the original word rendered "born" in the phrase " born of God.'' Cei-tainly 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 of 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." [N'ow, 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 168 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. can exist. Hence, in every case where this same origi- nal word occurs, it is to be rendered by begat or begotten, unless the sense forbids it. Let us now, using this term, render, according to the rule, the entire verse from which these clauses are taken. Whosoever believeth 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 rule, we produce a rendering which is not only correct but uniform, — a circumstance constantly aimed at in every good translation. It may now be pro2:)er 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 foith, Moses when he was born 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 of water and of the Sj^irit, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God." Here again the sense requires bor7i; 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 way 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 born, as in the two last instances, the basis ol oui- criti- EE VIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 169 cism, and compel the other passages to conform to it? TVe 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 have its wider. It is hardly necessary to add that horn is a term of wider Bignification than hegat. 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 — express 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 part ? Mr. Jeter affirms that it does : we deny it. This constitutes the difference between us. The new birth consists in being born of water and of the Spijit. At least, so taught the Savior: — ''Except a man be born of icater 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 ,bom 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 Sp'.it 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 I 170 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. So far, then, as regeneration consists in being born of water, so far it and baptism are identical; no further. So 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: — 1. ''Wherefore my sentence is, that ye trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are 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 Gentile 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 part? of the process of which baptism is a part, or is there not evidence that it applied more particularly to one part than to any other, and, if so, to which part ? In order to answer this question, we shall now present the second passage, to wit: — ''Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Now, we shall assume that the persons here addressed were believers, — a thing which need not be done, since Mr. Jeter concedes it. The following is his language, or, rather, view of the passage: — "'Eepent,' said he, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 171 (Peter,) change your minds, ^and be converted, reform your lives, (and these exercises clearly imply faith,) Hhat 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 this 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 on it as a matter of half the moment his enemies represent it as being. 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 EEVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. CHAPTER YI. "PKAYER SOT A DUTY OF THE UXBAPTIZED." SECTION I. Under this head Mr. Jeter devotes some five j)ages of his book to what he conceives a "serious error'' of ALr. Campbell and his brethren; and, although not a "chief" nor yet a "prominent" item, 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 ]\Ir. 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 follacy." Not only in regard to the item now in hand, but in regard to our views generally, Mr. Jeter labors through- out his book to make it appear that, if we have 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 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 173 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 w^e have taken our later, lessons from the Bible, and as yet have seen no reason either to alter or 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, during the reign of Christ, makes it the duty of an unbaptized person to 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. We do say, with 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 j^reachers — blind guides in this case, certainly — to pray for the remission of his sins; nay, more, that God will give him a feeling 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* 1:4 REVIEW OF 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: tht2 Lord will yet have mercy on your soul,'' 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 can 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 still"— 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. AVhy 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 ? AYe 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 rehgion. The obligation to this service springs from the relation between the infinitely-merciful God, and fallen, guilt}^, 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. Ko 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. Some thino-s which it contains are true; but more than half is false. But we shall be confined to a few particulars : — 1. ''Prayer has been the duty of man under every dispensation of religion.'' 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 the very thing which we deny, and which Mr. Jeter, finding himself 176 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. unable to prove^ quietly assumes. It has certainly always been the duty of 7ne)i to pray; but then comes the question, AVhat men ? When he says all, this is a petitio, and not a meeting of the point in dispute. 2. "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 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 laws which enact them. Eelation creates obli- gation, but law defines it. Hence, although our relation to our heavenly Father ma}^ oblige us, as it certainly and justly does, jei 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 same relation which 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 Father, and which obliges him, but from the law which defines in what resj^ect he is obliged, or to what duty. Consequently, since there is 7io law (yre 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, 17? tian baptism who had not been taught to pray sincerely and fervently.'' This is merely the bald assertion of Mr. Jete7. That he has a strong persuasion of its truth we shall not 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 not divine; hen^-e the boldness with which Mr. Jeter asserts the truth of his. SECTION II. But it is now proper to present Mr. Jeter's delenv^e 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 teaches that men ought to pray; but the question is, What men ? Does it teach that all men ought to pray, or only the disciples, or persons named b}^ the Savior in the conclusion he draws from the parable ? The former is Mr. Jeter's position, the latter ours. The whole parable and the conclusion are as follows : — M 178 REN'IEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. ^^And he [Christ] spake a parable unto them, [the disciples,] to this end, that men ought always to joray and not to faint; saying, There was in a city a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man. And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary : and he would not for 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 contixi'-ial coming, she weary me. And the Lord said, 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 vrill avenge them speedily." uSow, 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 spoken, 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 to 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 oppose nothing but error should yet so often do so with those artifices with which dishonest men alone stoop to oppose the truth. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 179 The next case alluded to by Mr. Jeter is that of the publican who went up to the temple to praj. But this is not a case in point. We have not denied that it was the duty of a Jew, living under the laAv, to pray. What we deny is that it is the dut}^ of the ungodly, during the reign of Christ, to pray. But even the case of tlie publican does not determine who — i.e. whether saint or sinner — is to pray, but only that whoever pra^'s must, if he pray acceptably, 'pray with deep, heartfelt humility. This is what the case determines, — no more. The third case referred to is that of the thief on the cross. But this case, again, has no reference whatever to the question in dispute. Besides being a case which can never ha23pen again, and intended to teach no gene- ral duty, it occurred at a time when baptism was obli- gatory on no one. We shall, therefore, dismiss it with- out further notice. The fourth and last case adduced by 3Ir. Jeter is that of Saul of Tarsus, of which he thus speaks: — '^When Saul of Tarsus was converted, the Lord directed Ananias to go to him, for, behold, said the Lord, he jprayeth. (Acts ix. 11.) It is clear from this Scripture, beyond a question, not only that Saul prayed before his baptism, but that his prayer was acceptable to the Lord, and that Ananias was sent to instruct and baptize him in conse- quence of its acceptableness ; and this example of ac- ceptable prayer has all the weight, authority, and effi- cacy of an explicit command to the unbaptized to pray.'' 1. We readily grant that Saul prayed, but deny that he prayed because Christ made it his duty to pray. He 180 REVIEW OF CAMrBELLISM EXAMINED. prayed precisely as any other Jew, in deep sorrow, would have prayed, and for no other reason. 2. That his prayer was acceptable to the Lord is not known. It may or it may not have been, for aiight that appears in the narrative. The Lord merely stated the fact that he prayed, not that he accepted his prayer. To state a fact, as a fact, is one thing; to accept it as an act of worship, another. We must first show that the Lord has made it the duty of the sinner to pray, before wc can infer that his prayer is acceptable. And as to Ananias being sent to instruct and baptize Saul in consequence of the acceptahleness of his prayer, it is a sheer fiction. There exists no evidence that it is true. The most that can be said of the case of Saul (and this much certainly can be said) is, that, when Ananias commanded him to be baptized and wash away his sins, he commanded him to do so calling on the name of the Lord. And so we say. Command the sinner, not to pray for the remission of his sins, (for the Lord has not enjoined it on him,) but to be bajDtized and wash them away calling on the name of the Lord. This form of prayer, and under these circumstances, we approve from our heart. And are these cases all that Mr. Jeter could urge in defence of his doctrine ? and does he ask us to accept it as true on no better grounds ? "VVe shall only add, wo wonder that even he did not become ashamed of his feeble defence, and abandon the cause he was so in- effectually seeking to establish. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 181 CHAPTEE VII. KEMISSION OF SINS. SECTION I. The subjects heretofore treated of are important cer- tainly, but the present one is peculiarly so. Indeed, those subjects derive their value from this. Hence, no effort should be spared to understand it, nor any method be left untried which is likely to aid us in form- ing accurate scriptural conceptions of it. The absorb- ing interest of the subject, and the conflicting opinions which exist respecting it, should make us patient in the collection of such facts as seem most likely to lead to sound decisions concerning it, as well as careful in com- bining those facts and just in deducing from them no conclusion which they do not warrant. From the mind and from the heart every preference for any view of the subject, which it is not clearly the intention of our heavenly Father we should entertain, should be banished completely and forever. Upon this subject, at least, let the sincere love of the truth direct our thoughts. In the discussion of this subject Mr. Jeter consumes Bome sixty-nine pages of his book. Perhaps we should suppose him sincere. It is not impossible he may be so. But, candidly, this part of his book affords no feeble evidence that the love of the truth dwells not in his heart. If, throughout the whole chapter, he was not lo 182 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. struggling against the clear convictions of Ms con- science, he has at least shown that he was struggling against the almost ovei'i:)Owering light of the Trutli. We stoop not to do him injustice, but Ave knoAV not the book, making the slightest pretension to truth, from which can be extracted a more shameful perversion of it than is contained in this inflated performance. Throughout the whole piece he labors to make it appear that he is sa3'ing something important; hence its re- dundancy of silly epithets. It teems with trickery and special pleading, and perks its commonplace sayings in our face on every page. There is something about it so false, haggled, and paltry, as to leave the mind im- pressed with no feelings but mingled pity and disgust. Upon the ground of merit, whether consisting in defen- sive arguments or refutatory strength, we should never have lifted a pen over this wretched chapter. But we shall be expected to notice it, and, accordingly, shall do so. We make it the occasion of restating our own views, which will exhaust its value to the world. In the present chapter we shall assume that sins during the reign of Christ are remitted according to a uniform plan ; or, in other words, that the conditions on which they are remitted are precisely the same in every case. Xow, the question is, what is that plan, or what those conditions ? When we assume that these conditions are the same in every case, let us be under- stood. We speak not of the innocent babe, the iiTe- sponsible idiot, or untaught heathen. We speak of those only who have attained to years of accountability, and to whom the redemption which is in Christ Jesus REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMIxXED. 183 has been tendered. We are now, in other words, to discuss the law of remission, not the question, Are there exceptions to it? to determine the grounds on which God w^ll forgive the responsible, not those on which ho saves the irresponsible ; to ascertain the plan according to which he will save the enlightened, not that accord- ing to which he saves the unenlightened. Mr. Jeter maintains that a person's sins are remitted the instant in tvhich he becomes a penitent beliecer, and, consequently, before and without baptism. From this w^e dissent. We maintain that the sinner, though a believer, is still required to repent and be baptized in order to the remission of his sins, and, consequently, that they are not remitted before and vjithout baptism. "We shall now proceed to the defence of this position; after which, we shall notice such of Mr. Jeter's objec- tions to it as may be deemed, on any ground, worthy of notice. We shall then notice his defence of his own position. The passage on w^hich we base our first argument is the following: — '^Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." That the salvation here spoken of is that primary salvation which consists in the remission of sins, we hold to be simply certain. The Savior directs the apostles to go and preach the gospel to every creature. This is the salvation which occurs first and immediately after the preaching; hence, there is no salvation which precedes this, nor any sense in which, previous to it, 184 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. the term salvation vrill apply. This is the first, and is 80 called hecause it consists in the remission of sin?. If any one doubts this, let him attempt to form to him self the conception of some preceding salvation; let him state in what it consists, then in what this consists, if not in the remission of sins; then let him make the effort to establish by the word of God the reality of such preceding salvation, and he will not be long in discovering — if honest — his error. Xor can it fail to strike any one that this salvation is conditional, and that the conditions are named in the passage. These conditions are not to be regarded in the light of causes, but as conditions strictly. Still, let no one suppose, because they are conditions, that they are not essential to whatever is made dependent on them. A condition may be as absolutely essential to whatever is dependent on it as though it were a cause in the highest sense of the Avord. There is this distinction: — the connection between a cause and its effect is necessary; that is, it exists in the very nature of things; but the connection between a condition and whatever depends on it is not necessary, but arbitrary. It exists at the will, or by the appointment, of him who prescribes the condition. Ilenco, conditions have no power to produce, or merit to procure, that which de- pends on them. It is in all cases conferred as a gratuity or favor. Compliance with conditions, on the ground that there is merit in it, can oblige the Savior to confer no blessing. Though he has prescribed the conditions, and they are complied with, still, the blessing conferred is a matter of grace or mercy. But, where he has REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXA:MINED. 185 promised to confer such blessing, it will as certainl}^ be conferred, where the prescribed conditions are complied with, as though the conditions were absolute causes and the blessing an effect certain to follow. What is here said presents us with the true view and suggests the real value of the conditions named in the passage. Two questions here present themselves, — both easily answered, to-be-sure, — the first respecting the nuraher of these conditions, the second, ichat they are. The first of these questions may be deemed by some a matter of no moment. From such a view we differ. ISIot that we think any thing of moment depends on the mere circumstance of these conditions being many or few. There exists a far higher reason than this for de- termining their number. That reason we shall embody in the form of a rule, thus: — Where salvation is promised to a person, or affirmed of Mm, on certaiji named conditions, though it may depend on more conditions than those named, it can never depend on less. To this rule there is not, we affirm, an exception in the Bible. We boldly challenge Mr. Jeter to produce even one, or to show that the rule in any case affirms falsely and is hence unsound. Unless he can do this, the controversy between him and us in regard to the value of baptism is at an end. ]S[ow, that the passage in hand contains two, and but two, conditions, is obvious even to the eye. These con- ditions are belief and baptism. The Savior promises salvation to, or affirms it of, him who complies w^ith these conditions. This is absolutely certain. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Hence, unless the foregoing rule can be shown to be unsound, (which 186 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. we predict will not be showily) it folloAvs that, although salvation — or, which is the same thing, remission of sins — may depend on more than belief and baptism, the two named conditions, it can never depend on less. And, when we say it can never depend on less, we beg that our previous limitation will be borne in mind. "We speak of the responsible to whom the gospel is preached, and of them alone. Here now is an argument, which we believe to be true in its premises and correct in its con- struction, with its conclusion regularly drawn, to which we invite the special attention of Mr. Jeter. AYe re- quest of him that he will come manfully and fairly for- ward and join issue with us over this argument; that he will show that its premises are false, its construction de- fective, or its conclusion not fairly drawn. This much we have a right to demand, and we do demand it in the name of truth and reason. Should he fail to comply, he confesses his incompetenc}" to the task, and abandons the question at issue in our favor. Nor can we admit, much as Mr. Jeter is inclined to cavil at it, that salvation depends on one of these con- ditions more than on the other. The very form of ex- pression which creates the dependence makes salvation depend on the two conditions jointly and on each equally. The present, moreover, is the passage which creates this joint dependence. Hence, no passage spoken previously to it can have the least effect in weakening it, certainly none in showing that it does not exist; and, since none spoken subsequently in the least affects it, it follows that the dependence once established must be considered as established forever. REVIEAY OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 1S7 Lender what circumstances, if any, the Savior will void these conditions, or in what cases, if at all, he will void one but not the other, are questions we shall leave the curious to decide. Eut, for the sake of those whose convictions rest not so much on argument as on simple, transparent state- ments, it may be proper to somewhat amplify the pas- sage. Of whom, then, does it say, he shall be saved? Clearly, of him who believes and is baptized. Of him who believes but is not baptized, it says nothing ; neither of him who is baptized but does not believe, does it say any thing. Of him alone who believes and is baptized does it say any thing; but of him it does say he shall be saved. The instant he believes and is baptized, all the passage says is true of him, but not an instant before. The psssage directs the apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Out of the whole number preached to, it selects a particular class, of each of whom it says, he shall be saved, reject- ing all the rest. AVhat now makes the difference be- tween the class selected and the class rejected? For what especial reason is a preference shown ? Each one of the class selected believes and is baptized. This makes the difference. Xo matter how inuch, or how little, or what, short of this, the class rejected may do, of it sal- vation is not afSrmed. The class selected believes and is baptized; therefore it is saved. We shall now subjoin, and briefly examine, a passage which is thought to justify a very different conclusion from that now arrived at i to wit : — ^'He that believeth on 183 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLTSM EXAMINED. the Son hath everlasting life.'' On this passage Mr. Jeter and all that class of soj^hists to which he belongs lay great stress. Their argument on it is briefly this : — He that believes on the Son has in him^ the instant in which he does so, the princij^le or germ of eternal life, and is therefore to be considered forgiven. If by this it is meant that belief is the princi^^le or germ of eternal life, we shall grant it to be correct, but still deny that he who simply believes is, on that ground alone, forgiven. But if it is meant that the principle or germ of eternal life is something else besides belief, — which imphes re- mission, — we utterly deny that the jp'issage teaches the doctrine. But, without being more specific, let us grant that the passage affirms remission, or what implies it, of him who believes ; and more than this it certainly does not affirm. Eemission of sins, then, according to the rule previously stated, can never depend on less than belief, — the named condition, — though it may depend on more. ISTow, it will readily be conceded that it can never de- pend on less ; but may it depend on more ? Even Mr. Jeter concedes not only that it may depend on more, hut that it actually does, — namely, on repentance. And, in so doing, he concedes what proves the utter annihilation of the sole ground on which his doctrine of remission rests. For, if remission may depend on more than be- lief, — the only condition named in the passage, — the question arises. On how much more ? When Mr. Jeter says, on repentance only, this is an arbitrary limitation. We cannot admit this to be the answer to the question, How much more ? But, according to the rule, remission REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 180 cannot depend on less than both belief and baptism, — the conditions named in the previous passage; whereas, both according to the rule and Mr. Jeter's concession, it may depend on more than belief, — the only condition named in the present passage. Now, one thing will be granted, — that the passages are reconcilable. When, then, we concede that remission of sins may depend on more than belief, — the sole condition named in the pre- sent passage, — must we not concede at least as much as is contained within the narrowest limits of the previous pas- sage? If not, the passages are not reconcilable, since they teach that remission of sins depends not on one and the same set of conditions, but on two different sets; which, again, is contrary to the hypothesis that the conditions are the sarnie in all cases. Hence, since bap- tism is the only condition contained within these limits which is not named in the present passage, it follows that we are bound to concede baptism to be necessary to salvation or remission. In order to sustain Mr. Jeter's position that remission of sins depends on belief and rej^entance alone, one of these passages must be so construed as to imply a con- dition which it does not name; but, in order to oppose our position, the other must be so construed as either to exclude, or render null, a condition which it does name. How amiable must that complacency be which blinds a man to nothing so much as his folly, and forbids no blush but that which inconsistency prompts ! But, granting that he who believes is, in the instant in which he does so, saved : what follows ? He that believes and is baptized shall be — what? Not saved, 190 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED, surely; for he is already saved in the exact sense in Tvliieh the passage says, he si tail he saved. Can we say of an event which is past, and which can never happen hut once, that it shall he? Is this the Language of truth? "We see not tlie distinction hetween avowed infidehty and that system of religion which compels the Bihle to falsify itself But Mr. Jeter's exposition of the passage on which our first argument is hased is worthy to be repeated. It is contained in the following extract: — ^'The assurance that he that helieveth and is haptized shall he saved does by no means warrant the conclusion that remission of sins docs not precede baptism. There is perfect accord- ance between this promise and the plain, literal declara- tion of Jesus that ^ he that believeth on the Son is not condemned.' Certainly, if he that believes on the Son is not condemned, he who not only beheves in the Son, but, in submission to his authority, is baptized, is not condemned." If he that believes on the Son is not condemned, certainly he that believes and is baptized is not con- demned; or, plainly, he that is not condemned is not condemned! Such is the logic of Mr. Jeter. It may comport with his sense of propriety to trifle thus with solemn things, but in the act he confesses his inability to meet the issue between him and us. ISTo one is de- ceived into the belief that this is either argument or criticism, or any thing more than a shallow artifice adopted to evade the force of an unanswerable position. But 'Hhe assurance that he that believes and is bap- tized shall he saved does by no means warrant the con- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 191 elusion tliat remission of sins does not precede baptism." In other words, a divine ^promise that a person, on compliance with certain named conditions, shall receive a stipulated blessing, by no means warrants the conclu- sion that the reception of the blessing does not precede the compliance! Thus foolishly argues our opponent. Eut Mr. Jeter, after all, compliments the position he so vainly seeks to refute, by the very disposition he makes of this passage. Ilis evasive and quibbling treat- ment of it is a virtual acknowledgment that the argu- ment which we, as a people, base ujoon it, is, by him at least, wholly unanswerable. He shrunk from a manful encounter of that argument, and in the deed confessed it to be invincible. To omit all notice of the passage he knew w^ould be highly impolitic, and yet in treating it he touched it with a delicacy which nothing save his sense of utter incompetency could create. Had Mr. Jeter felt himself able to wrest the passage from our hands, or to show that the use we make of it is illegiti- mate, he is not the man to let the occasion slip. In that event nothing short of a score of pages could have ex- hausted his revelry or afforded vent for his exultant feelings. His array of exclamation-points would have exhausted the printer's stock on hand, his ordinals would have mounted rapidly up to tenthly, and the te deum to Orthodoxy would have been repeated in tones unusually sweet ; but, alas, eleven lines scant is all the space Mr. Jeter could afford to devote to the passage ! But what of the passage "he that believeth on the Son is not condemned" P 1st. It is to be explained precisely as we have already 192 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. explained the passage^ "he that believeth on the Son hath everhasting Ufc." 2d. Since the passage was spoken long before baptism was instituted, and without any reference to it; it can hence have no power to invalidate the design of an in- stitution then future. But, even granting that, when the passage was spoken, remission of sins depended strictly on belief alone, it would only follow that in subsequently prescribing the conditions of remission the Savior determined that it sliould depend no longer on belief alone, but on belief and something more. 3d. "Where two statutes exist, — a former and a latter, both on the same subject, — the latter is always held to be the law ; and, if any difference exists between them, the latter stands, setting aside the former precisely to the extent of the difference. And the rule holds true of the divine no less than of the civil law. Supjoose, then, ''he that believeth on the Son is not condemned" to be the former statute, (which is strictly true,) and "he that be- lieveth and is baptized shall be saved" to be the latter: which stands as the law of the Savior upon the subject of salvation ? X one can mistake the correct reply. SECTIOX II. The passage on which we found our second argument is the following : — '^Then Peter said to them, Bepent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Without some qualification it is not correct to say of REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 19^^ one passage of Scripture that it is more imj^ortant than another. But it is certainly true of some passages that they are more important than others in the decision of certain questions, their importance in such cases depend- ing on their pertinency to the question in hand and their force in deciding it. Accordingly, in deciding the terms upon which the remission of sins is to be enjoyed, no more important passage can be adduced than the one now in hand. It speaks to the question of remis- sion intentionally, clearly, decisively. Had we not an- other passage in the Bible upon the subject, we should still insist that this passage alone forever fixes the value of baptism by the establishment of an inseparable con- nection between it and remission of sins. We fear not to go before the world and stake the entire issue between Mr. Jeter and us, respecting the design of baptism, upon this single passage. We emphasize its value in the present controversy and solicit for it especial attention. Now, we affirm that this passage teaches that baptism with repentance is for — that is, is necessary to — remission of sins; that it makes remission depend on baptism in precisely the same sense in which it makes it depend on repentance; and that a connection is thus established between them of a nature so permanent that remission is in all cases (previous exceptions aside) consequent on baptism and never precedes it. It will not be denied that the connection here con- tended for is possible. It is certainly competent for our heavenly Father to make remission depend on baptism in the^most absolute sense. Since, then, the connection is not impossible, the question, Does it exist ? is fairly 17 N 194 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. open for discussion; and, since it is a question of fact, it is susceptible of proof precisely as is any other ques- tion of fact in the Bible. But iet it be determined, — 1st, whether the form of speech employed to express this connection, supposing it to exist, is, in the judgment of critics, adequate to that purpose ; 2d, whether it is a form of speech well established or of frequent occurrence in the New Testa- ment. The form of speech to which we refer is the use of the Greek particle ek; (ise) to express that an act or acts is performed /or — i.e. in order to — some end or object; and the presence of an accusative case to express what that end or object is. But is this form of speech ade- quate to this purpose? That it is so, we shall consider established by the following testimonies : — 1. ^'-£7.'?, followed by an accusative, in almost innume- rable instances designates the object or end for which any thing is, or is done." — Prof. M. Stuart. 2. Etq, the design intended and the event produced are also expressed by this preposition." — W. Trollope, of Pembroke College, Cambridge. The literal, or, rather, primary, meaning of tiq, it is proper to state, is into, a meaning confined chiefly to verbs of motion, — the motion being directed into some- thing or som 3 place. But the sense of the passage now in hand forbids this meaning. For, first, if the particle be taken litei ally, the passage is not intelligible, or, at best, has a V3ry uncertain meaning. Second, it belongs to a class of passages in which the particle signifies not into, but in order to, expressing the end or object for which something is done. Evidence for what is here REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 195 said will be furnished in the course of the present argument. But is this form of speech of frequent occurrence or well established in the ISTew Testament? That it is so, we shall now proceed to exemplify by actual instances. Of each of these we shall quote no more than will be necessary; and, in order to indicate the exact mean- ing of the particle, we shall, in each case, translate it, together with a few of the words which immediately follow it. Let the reader bear in mind that what we are noAV at is, to show that is employed to express the design of an act or that for ichich it is performed. 1. And, behold, the whole city came out (sjg) in order to a meeting with Jesus. 2. Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told (er?) in order to her being remembered. 3. And they took counsel and bought with them the potters' field, (sr?) in order to [have] a burying-place for strangers. 4. This is my body which is given for you : this do (e:?) in order to my being remembered. 5. By w^hom we have received grace and apostleship (eiq) in order to [induce] the obedience of faith among all nations. 6. I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift (es?) in order to your being established. 7. Submit yourselves to governors as to them that are sent by the Lord (st?) in order to punish evil-doers. 8. This is my blood which is shed (e:?) in order ta remission of sins. 196 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 9. A 'lid John came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of re^^entance (ei^) in order to remission of sins. 10. Eepent ye, therefore, and be converted (£: stands alone in this respect, the gentlemen excepted who cites and indorses his lanojuao;e. To be born of water and of the Spirit imports to be born of spiritual water! Kow, let not the reader conclude from this that 3Ir. Jeter is impious enough to ridicule the passage or daring enough to assert outright that it is a lie. Such is not the case. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 239 All lie means is, that, when the Savior says, '^Except a man be born of vater and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," neither icater nor Spirit is meant. True, the Savior says icater and Spirit; but then Mr. Jeter knows perfectly that he meant neither. Hence, all the passage means is. Except a man be born of spiritual water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! SECTION VII. Our seventh argument is suggested by the follow- ing: — "Christ also loved the church, 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 so 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." But what signifies the ex^^ression cleansed it by the washing of water? This question can be best answered^ 2i0 EEVIEW OF CAjMPBELLISM EXAMINED. perhaps, by determining separately the signification of the clauses washing of water, and cleansed. First, then, what signifies the clause washing of water? If, as was urged in the preceding section, there is any confidence to be reposed in the learning and discrimina- tion of the first class of critics, and that, too, in a case in which no interested motives can be presumed to have swayed their judgment, this question is settled. The clause signifies baptism. True, Mr. Jeter feigns to think its import doubtful, but wh}", none can mistake. He is pledged to oppose, right or wrong, whatever favors us; hence, the more irrefragable our proof, the more vehe- ment his denial. That the term water, or, more correctly, the water, as it is in the original, has here its hard Saxon meaning, is not a disputable point. Joining to this the word wash- ing, or, better still, the washing, thereby making wash- ing of or in the water, or the water in which the church (the members of it) has been washed, can any one whose soul is not steeped in error be in doubt as to Avhat the apostle means? There is but one rite under Christ to which water is absolutely in all cases essential, and to which all who 5 re members of his church have submitted. That rite is baptism. Here, however, water is present, — water in . which the church is washed; hence, since the church comes in contact with water in no rite but baptism, baptism is, or, rather, of necessity must be, what the apostle refers to when he says the icashing of water. Second. But what signifies the term cleansed? "We can readily understand why the expression washing of REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 241 •water should have suggested it; but the question is, "What does it mean? — a question which we think it not difficult to answer. In the original, both the verb and its derivatives signify to cleanse or purify generally. But the present is not a general but a special cleansing, — a cleansing limited to persons, and effected in the wash- ing of water. IN'ow, in what special sense are persons cleansed in the washing of water? Clearly, they are not therein cleansed from the leprosy; neither therein is any error corrected or vice reformed. Tliey are therein, cleansed from sin. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. Eepent, and be baptized, in order to the remis- sion of sins. These passages determine most conclusively in what sense a person is cleansed in the washing of water. Three times certainly, in the New Testament, is the term cleansing, either as a verb or noun, employed to express a cleansing from sin. A cleansing from sin, then, is, we conclude, precisely what is effected in the washing of 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. 270,) he says, "In one place, the word probably refers to the removal of guilt from the conscience by the blood of Christ. (Heb. ix. 14.) In every other passage where it relates to the redemption of man it denotes a moral renovation.'^ The object of this assertion is to create the impression that the word cleansed is nowhere in the Xew Testament employed to signify a cleansing from sin, and, conse- quently, not in the passage in hand. But the following 21 Q 242 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. passages, in one of which the word occurs in the form of a noun, in the other in that of a verb, (a circumstance not 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 cleanseth us from all sin." 1 John i. 7. ^'But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see far off, and hath forgotten that he ■wsi8 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.'' First. 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 to something which he with characteristic grace styles "fAe Bethany dialect." Second. But suppose the passage does teach the doc- trine of baptismal regeneration : what then ? Shall tho passage be rejected because it teaches the doctrine? Or shall we attempt to 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 of what the divine woid ought to teach, and then, because it does not teach to his liking, compel it to teach differ- ently? This is not the first instance in which this im- plication has escaped his pen. He too clearly reveals, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 243 on more occasions than one, that 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 the Bible and his whims 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 affects to think so "exceedingly plausible." Even a child can be made to understand that whatever is ascribed to the washing of water or baptism is ascribed to it merely as a condition, on compliance with which, whatever is 60 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 : — "jPor as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have jput 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 Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise.'^ Certainly, the expression " in Chrisf 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. ISTow, 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 REYIEtV or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. That the instant in which a person becomes an "heir according to jpromise,'' he becomes a Christian, or is for- given, can hardly be suj^posed to admit of argument. To suppose a person an "?teif' and yet not forgiven, or forgiven and yet not an heir, involves a contradiction, if not in words, at least in fact. But when do we be- come heirs? 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 become Christ's when in him, 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 you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise. Kow, what persons alone are in Christ ? As many, is the reply, as have been baptized into Christ, and not one more. If, now, none out of 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. jSTow, 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 which we are forgiven. ZSiOw, that the instant in which these dis- tinctions cease to exist is tho instant in which we nre REVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 245 baptized into Christ, is positively certain. Hence, hardly less certain is it that in that instant we are forgiven. But doubtless j\Ir. Jeter will say, are we not all the children of God hj 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 be said that we become the children of God before we become Christ's. SECTION IX. As the basis of our ninth and last argument we cite the following : — ^^And he said, Sirs, what must I do to he saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus 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 from the preceding arguments. The question then to be considered is. Docs the pas- sage teach 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 does not 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 ten as well as one ? To assert that it implies but one is the language of arbitrariness and not of criticism. Mr. Jeter concedes that it implies repent- ance ; but why ? If on the ground that repentance is taught elsewhere, so is baptism ; but if on the ground 21* 246 REVIEW OF CAMrBELLISM EXAMINED. that faith and repentance are necessarily united, wo deny the position, and assert that they are necessarily not united. If belief cannot exist without repentance, why does the word of God ever enjoin rej)entance ? In that case belief alone need be enjoined, since, if a man believe, he must of necessity repent. The very fact that the word of God enjoins belief in one command, repent- ance in a second, and baptism in a third, proves that belief 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 Iloly Writ, who affirms to the contrary. The truth is, that belief not only precedes repentance, but is the very ground of it. From repentance we may certainly infer belief, but from belief not certainly repentance. Mr. Jeter's position that belief implies repentance, but not baptism, rests on no foundation worthy of the name. It is an insult to reason no less 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, being ignorant of his duty, needed to be taught the whole of it, which, in all cases, begins with belief But, being properly taught in this respect, every other duty would be, by a person in his state of mind, promptly complied 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 simply that it was not necessary to command it; or, rather, that when com- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 247 manding the first duty it was not necessary, in the same sentence, to command every other. ISTeither 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 Solo- mon's porch, did not command his audience to believe j not because belief is not necessary, but simply because, under the circumstances, it was not necessary to com- mand it. ^N'either did Paul, when enjoining upon the jailer his first duty, command 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, its value would not have been in the least affected by that cir- cumstance. One command, never repeated a second time, 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 and baptism, and, though neither had ever been mentioned again, this would still be their value. But, waiving all more exact inquiries, upon what broad basis can we place the salvation of the jailer 248 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. which, as a precedent, will leave no douht in any mind ? The facts in his case are these : — he heard the Truth, believed it, and was baptized the same hour of the night. The law in his case was this : — Tie that be- lieves and is baptized shall be saved. Upon this view of the case not a doubt can possibly arise. TThy, then, stop 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 remission of sins. And, while we regret that 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 matters which have been omitted alto- gether might, joerhaps, have been introduce-d 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 produce. A few points touched upon might have been treated, and with ad- vantage, as we conceive, with greater fullness of detail ; but even here we have felt that something of import- ance might, with propriety, be sacrificed to brevity. Upon the whole, the subject is submitted to the con- siderate judgment of the reader, in the firm persuasion that if examined in the light of the preceding 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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 249 CHAPTER Yin. OBJECTIONS TO THE PRECEDING DOCTRINE OF EEMTSSION CONSIDERED. SECTION I. Objection First. "Baptism, according to the ^an- cient gospel/ is not the fignre or formal acknowledg- ment of the remission of sins, but the indispensable, and, it would seem, the only, condition of obtaining it. Is this scheme of forgiveness scriptural ? Is baptism, like repentance and faith, an indispensable con- dition of the remission of si)isP Let the reader notice, — first, that this scheme of remission flatly contradicts plain and numerous Scripture testimonies. These testi- monies, or specimens of them, I have already adduced. Xow, 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 by 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, that God has suspended the forgiveness of sins on the exercise of faith. Take, for an illustration, the words of Christ to the Jewish Eabbi : — 'He that believeth on him (the Son) is not condemned,' and is, consequently, pardoned or justified. Xow, baptism for the remission of sins — a phrase susceptible of different interpretations — must be 250 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. construed in harmony with tliis unambiguous language of the great Teacher. And the remark is true of all the texts under consideration." In this extract, which contains !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 assertions without transcending the limits which courtesy imposes. To call this assertion a downright falsehood would be too harsh, and to call it the truth would be a falsehood. ]S"ameless, then, we let it stand. Mr. Campbell main- tains (and Mr. Jeter is perfectly acquainted with the fact) that 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 con- dition to which he has required all to whom the gos- pel is preached to submit, is a question the decision of which we are not bold enough to undertake. The Savior himself has not decided it, neither have the apostles. We should tremble to enter eternity in the gloom of their silence. 3. "This scheme of remission flatly contradicts plain and numerous Scripture testimonies." REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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. ^'It is impossible for words to express more clearly, 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, perhaps, there might be some foundation for his remark. But such is not the case. 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 for, repentance is for. Conse- quently, since repentance is for — that is, is necessary to — 252 REVIEW OF CAMI»BELLISM EXAMINED. the remission of sins, remission of sins is what baptism is for, or the thing to which it is necessary. AYhy, now, we ask, unless to conceal this, was Mr. Jeter guilty of the preceding mutilation of a portion of God's holy word ? Alas for a man when he can be moved to render such service as this at the shrine of Orthodoxy, for no higher end than merely to be considered a votary there ! 3. '^He that believeth on him (the Son) is not con- demned, and is, consequently, pardoned or justified." The passage from which this conclusion does not follow was spoken by the Savior previously to his prescribing the grounds on which justification, during his reign, is to be enjoyed, and, hence, previously to baptism. Con- sequently, to infer from it that we are now justified by faith alone without baptism is to confound times which are wholly distinct, and to render null an existing in- stitution by a passage which applied before it had an existence. But in all such passages faith is to be viewed not so much as a condition of remission (though it certainly is one) as the great princij)le of action which leads to compliance with all our other duties; and, where it is the faith of a sinner, as standing for — ^because it leads to compliance with them — the other conditions of re- mission, precisely as one of a class frequently represents the whole class. There is no passage in the word of God which represents faith as the sole condition of remission during Christ's reign, and hence none which our "scheme" of remission contradicts. 4. But, says Mr. Jeter, the phrase, baptism for the remission of sins, must be construed in harmony with REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 253 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 Ian- 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 Savior 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 precise moment w^hen 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 for — i.e. necessary to — remis- 22 254 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMrNED. sion. Here now is an irreconcilable contradiction, and that too between 3Ir. Jeter's own scheme" of remis- sion and the word of God. Will he, therefore, relieve his own "scheme" of the odium of contradiction before he again attempts to charge it upon the '^scheme" of ]Mr. Campbell ? 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 found: — 'He that believeth not shall be damned.'' 'Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.' 'If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let 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, that if a man is not immersed he is condemned, — doomed to perish and to be anathematized at the coming of our Lord. But if Christ has made, as Xr. 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 depends; 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 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. Jeter's 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 Bay 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 God must anathe- matize the unbaptized before his negligence can be con- sidered a crime for which he may be condemned? SECTION III. 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 salvation of 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 25G REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. wliicli I am opposing may not have examined its bearing and consequences. I speak not of them, but of their doctrine. It is, however, as clear as that two and two make four, that the remission of the beUever'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 without pardon, or be lost. ^STo 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, neither can they hear with- out a preacher. And yet the Savior says, "He that believeth not 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 OF 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 w^ithout 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 wht9m 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 w^hora 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 maybe entirely beyond the reach of the most humble, obedient, and faithful servants of Christ. Let me suppose a case. Fidelis, after a careful examination of the subject, became a convert to Christianity. Deeply conscious of his guilt and un worthiness, he cordially embraced Christ, as his prophet, priest, and king, consecrating to him, in the unfeigned pm-pose of his heart, his body, soul, and spirit Enraptured with the Savior's charms, he 22* ^ R 258 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. rejoiced in his word and worship from day to day. Hav- ing settled his views on the subject of baptism, he de- signed at the earliest opportunity to take on him the badge of discipleship 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 enjoy the remission of his sins." 1. " That salvation may be entirely beyond the reach of the most humble, obedient, and faithful servants of Christ." When Mr. Jeter produces 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 contempt which it merits. 2. But what of the case of ^^poor Fidelis"? First. 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 evincing his ardent zeal" and bearing his '^dauntless testimony" and rejoicing in the Savior's worship) "from day to day," no opportunity to be baptized. Eather 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 niirht in which he heard the Truth and believed ifc REVIEW OF 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 and 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 received 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 apostolical succession, cither in the line of baptism or of ordination, essential to its validity? Is its sin-pardoning virtue connected 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 badge of discipleship in bajDtism." A child can under- stand how this can satisfy the enlightened and tender conscience. 2. "Questions as to the validity and sin-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 his church 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 occur. 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; or of a mind bewildered and confused by the teachings of men who hide the truth from honest hearts and seek to supply its place with myths and dreams. 1^0 honest and intelligent man, who has been immersed in the fear of God and in obedience to the authority of Christ, ever yet doubted either jthe validity or value to him of his baptism. EEVIEW OP CAMPBELLISM 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 salva- 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 unscrip- 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 Eedeemer; 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 ^Ir. Jeter in a far more per- tinent form : — Are sins remitted ivithout one of the condi- tions on ivhich 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 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. confine himself to this question, which, if we collect his meaning, he has not done? K 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 life the assurance that his sins are remitted. And if our heavenly Father, notwithstanding the negligence of such persons, will still condescend to save the^n ultimately, we liave only to say, we know not the passage in the Eible which teaches 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 repentance, but never without them, and then only 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 repent, and who have no sins to be remitted? Did ^Ir. 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 baj)- 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 OP CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 263 practice had its origin in a misconception of 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, (which 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 w^ould become of him 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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. Lis 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 from 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 third case, it is wilful, and hence a sin. A simple- ton can now answer Mr. Jeter's question. Last of all, "'Mr. Campbell recoils from the conse- quences of his own doctrine.'' JMr. Campbell's doctrine is precisely that of the Apostle Peter; but from no con- sequence legitimately deducible from it has he ever yet recoiled. 'Mr. Jeter's assertion is wholly false. That not only Mr. Campbell, but all common sense and com- mon honesty, might recoil from many consequences feigned by Mr. Jeter to be deducible from this doctrine, full well we can believe. A man who can tax all his powers of cunning, who blushes at no trick, is ashamed of no quibble, to make an apostle falsify the mind of the Spirit which moved him to speak, is capable of deducing from what that apostle says any consequence, no matter how monstrous, if it should chance to serve a turn. From such consequences it would be Mr. Campbell's shame not to shrink. REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 2G5 CHAPTEE IX. MB. Jeter's doctrine op remission examined. SECTION I. We shall now proceed to examine M.v. Jeter's defence of his own doctrine of remission of sins. He develops his views on this subject in some ten propositions, — four leading, and six subordinate. Several of these may be disposed of with little more than a single remark. Whether he was ashamed to say more of his doctrine, or whether he knew it to be inherently so weak that the less is said of it the better, w^e shall not say; but cer- tainly he has treated it with a brevity not a little signifi- cant. True, there is not one of these propositions which, if we understand them, is not in itself true; and yet, in the sense in which it was intended they should be under- stood, there is not one truth in the ten. They were all constructed with a view to deception. Without an addi- tional qualification not one of them has the least ten- dency to establish the doctrine they were intended to establish; and yet with that qualification any one of them becomes instantly false. We expect to take the ambiguity out of these propositions, and to exhibit in them a deformity which it was hoped the reader would not detect. The first of them reads thus : — Frop. 1. "That throughout the New Testament the re- mission of sins, or justification, is unequivocally and uncon- 23 266 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. ditionally connected icith faith or with exercises which imply its existence." The terms ^-unequivocally'^ and ^^unconditionally" are inserted in this proposition for no purj)ose but to confuse and deceive. As the proposition is now worded they add nothing to it either of force or meaning. It was hoped the reader would infer from them what they have no power to express. Decej)tion was the thing intended when they were inserted and the only effect they can have. Omit them altogether and the sense of the propo- sition remains the same^ thus : — Throughout the 'New Testament the remission of sins, or justification, is con- nected with faith or with exercises which imply its existence. This is exactly what the proposition asserts, and all it asserts, and in this sense it is true; but this is not what ]\Ir. Jeter intended the reader to infer from it. We shall now insert the word alone after faith, when the proposition will convey his meaning exactly; or, if it does not, it will convey the only meaning which in the slightest degree differs from our doctrine, thus: — Throughout the Xew Testament the remission of sins is connected with faith alone or with exercises which imj)ly its existence. Xow the word unconditionally" may be inserted with effect, thus: — Throughout the New Testament the remission of sins is unconditionally con- nected with faith alone or with exercises which imply its existence. With one more improvement the precise meaning of the proposition stands revealed and false. The word connected" should give place to the word '^depends," thus: — Throughout the Xew Testament tho remission of sins depends unconditionally on faith alone REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 267 or on exercises which im^oly its existence. But this is far too clear for ]\Ir. Jeter, s^o deception could lurk in it. Its falsity becomes apparent at sight. In this form the proposition makes remission dej)end On faith to the exclusion not only of baptism but of repentance like- wise. But this proves a little too much for ]Mr. Jeter. His intention was to construct a proposition from which his readers would infer that remission depends on faith to the exclusion of baptism only; but this he could not do without at the same time making it appear that re- mission depends on faith to the exclusion of repentance likewise; hence the intentional ambiguity of his propo- sition. Bat we are not yet done with the proposition. Did Mr. Jeter not perceive that the supplemental clause ^^or exercises which imply its existence" either rendered his proposition false or virtually asserted the truth of our doctrine? For, if its meaning is that throughout the New Testament the remission of sins depends uncon- ditionally on faith alone, then clearly it cannot depend on "exercises'' of faith, since, by the very terms of the proposition, exercises are excluded. Or, if its meaning is that remission depends unconditionally either on faith but not on faith alone, or on exercises" which imply its existence, then it may depend unconditionally on bap- tism, for baptism is an ^'exercise" which implies faith. But, the truth is, ^^unconditionally" does not convey Mr. Jeter's meaning at all. It qualifies the wrong word altogether. As his proposition now stands, all it afiirms is, that remission of sins is unconditionally connected, — i.e. with faith or with exercises which imply it. And 268 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. this is certainly true. Unconditionally qualifies connected. But connected is not the word which ]\Ir. Jeter wishes to qualify. He does not mean to qualify the connection between faith and remission, but the condition on which remission depends. He does not mean to assert that remission is unconditionally connected with faith, but that faith is the sole condition with which it is connected. Eut the instant his proj^osition is made to assert this, the supplemental clause falsifies it. K all Mr. Jeter meant is, that the remission of sins is certainly or unconditionally connected with faith, but not with faith alone, his proposition is true; but if this is not his meaning, his projoosition is not only false, but falsifies itself With these remarks we dismiss it. "We shall not stop to dwell on any of the Scriptures adduced by Mr. Jeter in support of his proposition. Some of these have already been noticed, and others may hereafter be. As they neither assert nor neces- sarily imply — not even one of them — that faith is the sole condition of remission, nor any thing akin to it, they may with propriety be passed -with this brief allusion to them. SECTION II. Prop. 2. '^That in many places in the JVew Testament spiritual blessings, which imply the remission of sins, are positively promised to faith." Is it not strange that any man should entertain, as Mr. Jeter does, a doctrine which he clearly fears to state in a simple perspicuous proposition ? He parleys around the word alone, would have it understood, shrinks from REVIEW OF CAMrBELLISM EXAMINED. 2G9 using it, and yet knows that no other terai half so well and briefly conveys his meaning. That he believes with his whole heart that faith is the sole condition of remis- sion is certain; and yet he fears to assert it. How easy to have expressed his doctrine thus: — the remission of sins depends on faith alone. All men and even children could have understood him then. But his cunning taught him that no such proposition as this could hang together an instant in the hands of Mr. Campbell. Besides, this would have been too clear for even the common people. Even they could have pronounced it false. Hence some- thing far more involved and intricate is preferred ; and yet, by this very mode of stating his doctrine, Mr. Jeter furnishes no mean evidence of its falsity. However, we shall grant his proposition to be true, with the single qualification that in the 'New Testament there is not even one blessing promised to faith alone. Faith alone is never in the New Testament treated of as the condition of any thing. Wherever spoken of by itself it is always to be conceived either as a principle of action leading immediately to obedience to Christ, or as a condition jointly with other conditions of whatever blessing depends on it. But in confirmation of his second, as a leading pro- position, Mr. Jeter subjoins and discusses three minor propositions, of which it is proper we should now take notice, — the first of which is thus expressed: — 1. " That salvation is promised to faith." True, but not to faith alone. Salvation is promised to faith, pre- cisely as baptism is said to save us, — i.e. not as the sole 23* tlO REYIETV OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. condition of salvation, but as a joint condition witn others, the others being understood. 2. ^'Adoption into the family of God is the privilege of believers." It is the privilege of believers, just as the re- mission of sins is the privilege of a penitent. As re- pentance is not the sole condition of remission, so neither is faith the sole condition of adoption. Should a man believe simply, but do nothing else, he would never be received into the family of God. l!^either does Mr. Jeter believe it, though he intended the reader to infer it from his proposition. His proposition is true in the proj^er view of it, but he wished a false inference to be drawn from it. 3. "Eternal life is distinctly promised to faith." Does Mr. Jeter mean that eternal life is promised to faith as the sole condition on which it is bestowed? If so, we shall not attempt to discuss with him a proposition which he knew to be false when he penned it. But in what lies his argument? Certainly in this, if in any thing : — that eternal life is distinctly promised to faith alone, and, since eternal life includes the remission of sins, there- fore the remission of sins depends on faith alone. But we deny, first, that eternal life is promised to faith alone; and, second, that eternal life and the remission of sins depend on the same conditions, except in part or accidentally. TThen Mr. Jeter makes good these positions he carries his point, but not before. It is worthy of note that Mr. Jeter seems to be dis- cussing all the time a proposition which is not in dis- pute. He seems to be discussing the proposition that the sinner is saved by faith. But this we have neyev REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 271 denied. AYhat we deny is that the sinner is saved by faith alone, — a very different proposition. Hence, all the Scriptures cited by him are irrelevant, since they establish only the former proposition, but have no tendency to establish the latter. SECTION III. Prop. 3. ''Tliat privileges which are inseparable from the remission of sins are frequently promised, in the New Testa- ment, to exercises or graces that imply the existence of faith." This is a mere rej)etition of the second proposition with a slight change of verbiage. That relates to bless- ings, this to privileges; and yet, under that, Mr. Jeter says, adoption into the family of God is the privilege of believers, and under this, the first passage he quotes re- lates to blessings! But this, like that, rests on three minor propositions, namely : — 1. " The kingdom of heaven is promised to humility." The line of argument which this and the leading pro- position together indicate is this: — the kingdom of heaven is a privilege; this privilege implies the remission of sins. Humility is an exercise or a grace; this exercise or grace implies faith. Now, that privilege is promised to this exercise or grace; therefore the remission of sins depends on faith alone, without or to the exclusion of baptism. — q.e.d. To enjoy the kingdom of heaven is certainly a privi- lege, but a privilege enjoyed by those alone who are in it. 'Now, however commendable and necessary a thing 272 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. humility may be, (and we are far from wishing to underrate it) men do not enter into the kingdom of heaven by it. They enter into the kingdom of heaven hy being horn of water and of ttte Spirit: at least, so taught the Savior; but, when in the kingdom, without humility they will not be allowed to enjoy it. This presents us with the correct view. 2. '^Salvation is promised to prayer." Salvation, in the case of a Christian, certainly depends on prayer, but not on prayer alone. It depends on prayer jointly with the discharge of other duties. But nowhere does the Xew Testament teach that during the reign of Christ the re- mission of the sinner's sins — that is, a person who has never been a Christian — depends on prayer. If, there- fore, Mr. Jeter's proposition includes Christians only, it is true; but, if it includes aliens with Christians, it is false. 3. Adoption is declared to he tJie privilege of such persons follow the guidance of the Spirit." This proposition presents us with no new matter. Indeed, it is the mere repetition for the sixth time of the sole argument with which, so far, Mr. Jeter has attempted to sustain his cause. But his proof of the proposition should be re- peated, — namely, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God (and if those who repent and believe the gospel are not led by the Spirit of God, by what Spirit are they led?) they are the sons of God." This is too bad. Such pueriHty we cannot stoop to notice. But, as an offset to the nonsense, we subjoin the following: — ^^For as many as are led by the Spirit of God (and, if those who believe, repent, and are baptized are not led by the REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 273 Spiiit of God, by what Spirit are they led ?) they are the sons of God." SECTION IV. Prop, 4. ^^That the remission of sins was, in various cases, possessed and enjoyed by faith without or before baptism." Whether this proposition is to be considered true or false depends altogether on the period of time to which it is applied and the qualifications with which it is at- tended. It is certainly true that, at a period of time when no such thing as baptism existed, remission of sins was enjoyed in innumerable instances without baptism ; but even then it is not so certain that remission de- pended on faith alone, unless 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 — remission of sins was enjoyed with- out baptism, for the simple reason that there was 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 in most cases it was not. But ^Ir. 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 case against us (an argument which has been refated a thousand times) is briefly this: — The thief on the cross was saved, and saved without baptism ; therefore baptism is not neces- s 274 REYJEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. sary to salvation. We admit the premises, but deny the conclusion. During the continuance of John's ministry no Jew could be saved without baptism; for those who rejected it rejected the counsel of God against themselves, and hence could not be saved. Moreover, his baptism was, for the time-being, /or, that is, the means of obtaining, tho 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 sent out during this time, to baptize. And, although it is pretty certain that after John's death some of his discij)les continued to practise his baptism, still, they did it without authority. Kow, it was during this time that the salvation of the thief occurred. It occurred at a time when baptism had by authority posi- tively no existence whatever. Hence it was obligatory on no one. AYe are now prej)ared to correct 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 OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 275 authorized existence, it is not now necessary ! And yet this is exactly what !Mr. Jeter does. But, in speaking of this and a like case, he says, Possibly it may be objected (though the objection is, in my view, of no validity) that these cases occurred be- fore the giving of the apostolic commission.'^ AYhat the objection 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, because the time was, before Christ came, when it was not neces- sary. It is a poor reply to the objection in question to say it is "of no validity." But, wanting as it is in validity, Mr. Jeter would part from the nails on his fingers, could he successfully repel it ; and well might he do so, for to repel it would be the triumph of his cause. But he cites also the case of Cornelius, and thinks it a ^^fair inference" that his sins were remitted before bap- tism. This inference appears to rest on the supposition that the miraculous outpouring of the Spirit in the case necessarily implied the remission of his sins. But this, in the absence of all evidence, we cannot admit, and, hence, think the inference any thing else than fair. When once the design of an ordinance has been esta- 276 REVIEW or campbellism examined. blished by divine authority, of wKat avail is human inference against it ? Whatever baptism was for to the three thousand at Pentecost, it was for in the case of Cornelius. To him it had all the meaning it has to any one else, and no more. The ordinance has not two designs, but one. We hence conclude that, when Peter commanded Cornelius to be baptized, it was for the remis- sion of sins. True, the Spirit was poured out on him before his baptism, but why ? 'Not as an evidence that his sins were remitted, but as an evidence that the Gentiles as well as the Jews were to be admitted to the privileges of the gospel. This much we can affirm in the light of revelation, but beyond this all is myth. To infer that Cornelius was pardoned before his baptism on no other ground than that of the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit — un- less we knew that such outpouring necessarily implied the remission of his sins, (a thing which we can never know,) — is not to reason, but to speculate. It is here that Mr. Jeter's argument reveals its weakness. He assumes that an extraordinary fact sustaining to remis- sion — he can never say what relation — is to be taken as evidence thereof, and then on this fact bases his in- ference as to when Cornelius was pardoned. But his argument is clearly defective. When it is once esta- blished that baptism is, even in one case, for the remis- sion of sins, the presumption is that this is what it is for in every case; and so strong is this presumption, that nothing save an actual assertion of the Bible to the contrary, or some fact wholly irreconcilable therewith, can set it aside. For this reason, we must still insist REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 277 that baptism even in the case of Cornelius was for the remission of sins. SECTION V. Having now examined such arguments as ^Ir. Jeter has to offer in defence of his view of remission, we shall next present, in his own language, his strange theory of baptism. "If," he remarks, (p. 258,) baptism, as I have en- deavored to show, is not a condition or means of obtain- ing the remission of sin, then it follows that it is a symbolic declaration of the remission of sins already ob- tained through faith in Christ. In support of this con- clusion, I remark, — First. That it is in perfect harmony with the teach- ing of the Scriptures. This point has been sufficiently elucidated, and the reader must judge of it for himself " Secondly. That it is according to analogy.* There are two Xew Testament institutions, — baptism and the Lord's Supper. The latter is unquestionably a symbolic ordinance. Bread and wine are used to symbolize the broken body and sin-atoning blood of Jesus. May we not reasonably infer that both ordinances are of the same general nature, — that as one is symbolic so is the other? If we do not literally, but only in a figure, eat the Lord's body and drink his blood in the supper, does it not seem probable that our sins are not literally, but only in a figure, washed away in baptism ?" Such is Mr. Jeter's theory of baptism; and greater * ''Analogies prore nothing." — J. B. Jeter. 24 278 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. confusion of thought than it indicates, it would be diffi- cult to imagine. Xo one not as blind as its author can be mistaken as to the motive which produced it. It is a monstrous effort to evade the plainest teachings of Holy "Writ. Pliant, truly, and morbid must be that credulity which staggers not at this and yet rejects baptism for the remission of sins. But we must par- ticularize. 1. ^^May we not reasonably infer that both ordi- nances [baptism and the Lord's Supper] are of the same general nature, — that as one is symbolic so is the other?" Is this humble petition all the evidence Mr. Jeter has to present that the two institutions are of the same symbolic nature ? Alas for a cause when it has to beg its way to the confidence of mankind ! But let us, in reply to the feeble prayer, grant, for the sake of argu- ment, that both institutions are of the same general nature : what then ? What has this to do with the design of either? Literally nothing. But the Lord's Supper is symbolic : granted; and baptism is symbolic : granted. In the Lord's Supper we literally eat the loaf and drink the wine, and these respectively represent the body and blood of Christ. And in baptism we are literally immersed; hut what does this represent f Ee- mission of sins, says Mr. Jeter. But where is the proof? We know that the loaf represents the Savior's body, and the wine his blood, for he has told us so. But where has he told us that baptism represents the remis- sion of sins ? AYe repeat, where ? 2. ^'If we do not literally, but only in a figure, eat the REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 279 Lord's body and drink his blood in the supper, does it not seem probable that our sins are not literally, but only in a figure, washed away in baptism V To talk of eating the Lord's body and drinking his blood in a figure, of washing away sins in a figure, is supremely ridiculous. The truth is, we neither eat the Lord's body nor drink his blood in any sense. We lite- rally eat the loaf and drink the wine, and these represent, or stand for, his body and blood. In like manner, in bap- tism we are literally immersed, but there is nothing for which our immersion stands, as the loaf stands for the body of Christ. It is just here that Mr. Jeter's far- fetched theory betrays its truthlessness. Indeed, the whole thing is a mere figment, unnaturally forced out of his brain to avoid admitting what is as clearly taught in the word of God as the divinity of the Savior: — that baptism, jointly with belief and repentance, is for the remissi^ q of sins. 280 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. CHAPTER X. THREE MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. SECTION I. Our Arianism. Upon this subject of course Mr. Jeter is all himself, and so extremely orthodox that he is wellnigh a heretic. That some traits of his character singularly fit him for writing on it, we at least shall not deny. It is peculiar to small minds that they would always appear to be great by seeming perfectly to comprehend those sub- jects which even the greatest minds are unable to grasp. "Nor is it a less frequent case that those whose sound- ness in the faith there is the best reason to suspect are most clamorous about the heresies of others. But the following is the manner in which Mr. Jeter discourses of our heresy on this subject : — Unitarianism, in all its phases, from high Arianism to low Socinianism, is, in the judgment of the Christian world, a far more serious error than Universalism. It divests the gospel of its distinctive glory, and converts it into a lifeless, cold, and inefficient code of ethics. The atonement of Christ, deriving its efficacy from the essen- tial and infinite dignity of his person, is the only founda- tion of a sinner's hope and consolation. The reformers received Unitarians into their fellowship, and sanctioned REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 281 their ministrations with a full knowledge of their errors. In the early part of the present century, a party of Kew Lights, headed by the Eev. Barton W. Stone, in the State of Kentucky, became Arians. In a letter to the Chris- tian Baptist, published in the year 1827, he used this language: — 'If these observations be true, will it not follow, undeniably, that the word {di^ hoii) by whom all things were made, was not the only true God, but a person that existed with the only true God before crea- tion began, — not from eternity, (else he must be the only true God,) but long before the reign of Augustus Caesar?' ^'Of the extent to which the Arian notions of 3Ir. Stone did formerly, or do now, prevail among the re- formers, I have no means of ascertaining In the year 1844, I made a tour in the West, of which notes were published, on my return, in the Eeligious Herald. From the notes I extract substantially the following para- graph, the statements in which, so far as I have seen, have never been called in question, and which, I pre- sume, cannot be successfully contradicted. ''In the town of Columbia, Missouri, and its vicinity, the Disciples, better known as Campbellites, are some- what numerous. They were formerly professedly Arians, but some years since they united with the followers of Mr. Alexander Campbell. I took much pains to learn whether their views of the divinity of Christ had under- gone a satisfactory change. All with whom I conversed on the subject concurred in testifying that they reject the doctrine of Christ's divinity, and of his substitu- tional and piacular sufferings. One of the pr<^>fessorp of 24* 282 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. the University of Missouri (situated at this place) in- formed me that in a conversation which he held with Mr. A., a distinguished preacher of the denomination in this State, he most distinctly repudiated these vital principles of the evangelic system. One thing is cer- tain : — the Disciples are not ignorant of the fact that they are generally believed to be Arians; and under this imputation they patiently lie. Unless there is a strange and prevalent misconception in the community, these Disciples stand in most urgent need of a thorough doctrinal reformation.'^ Several things in these extracts we believe it neces- sary to notice. I. " The reformers received Unitarians into their fel- lowship, and F auctioned their ministrations with a full knowledge of their errors.'' It is true that Mr. Stone and his brethren did, in the State of Kentucky, in the early part of the present effort at reformation, unite with Mr. Campbell and his breth- ren, neither party claiming superiority over the other in union : but it is not true that Mr. Stone and his brethren were united with as Arians ; nor is it true that we, as a people, have ever sanctioned the ministrations of any man or set of men as Arians, or the preaching of Arian senti- ments. The charge is an arrant slander. In the union between Mr. Stone and Mr. Campbell, the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, in the full and proper sense of its terms, upon all 7natters both of faith and practice, was the sole basis of the union. Upon no other basis, nor in any other sense, did Mr. Campbell ever consent to the union ; and it is due the memory of Mr. Stone to say, REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 288 that on no other basis nor in any other sense did he ever demand the union. But we owe it to ourselves as a people to say, that, on more subsequent occasions than one, 'Mr. Stone did hold language which we do not indorse, and gave utterance to sentiments (as, for example, that in the extract cited by 3Ir. Jeter) which we distinctly disavow and repudi- ate. But in saying this we are merely to be understood as giving utterance to our own real convictions in the case, and not as intending a compliment to the cap- tious spirit of sectarianism, nor yet an unkind reflection on the memory of Mr. Stone. We have long since, we trust, learned to distinguish between the error, though even a grave one, of a good man's head when specu- lating, and those traits of his heart which mark him as a man of lofty faith and genuine piety. While trying to comprehend those incomprehensible and mysterious re- lations which subsist between the Father and the Son, to which his finite powers did not fit him, (and of whom can less be said?) ]\Ir. Stone did at times, as we conceive, fall below the merits of the subject; but he never forgot to honor that Son with a veneration and service which should put to the blush the thousand bigots who are still willing to cavil at his error. He never breathed a prayer to the Father of mercies nor uttered the name of the Savior that he poured not forth a depth and warmth of devotion w^iich finds no place in the lip- service of those who can still enact their revels over his grave, and who, while they affect to honor the Savior by words and names, are yet far from him in their hearts and in their practice. 284 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. It is further due the memory of ]\Ir. Stone to say, that he did not himself consider his views to be Arian; that he held the Son to he 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 trouble the public with his sentiments on the subject. In all his other public and private teachings he preached Christ Jesus and him crucified as an all-sufiicient Savior of sinners, free from all objectionable peculiarities. Xor is it less due to Mr. Campbell to state, that no sooner had Mr. Stone published his first illicit line or 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 not 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. 11. ^^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 CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 285 false that we have lain patiently under the imputation And there is another thing of which we think we are not quite ignorant. "\Ye are not quite ignorant of what kind of spirit and equity it is that can circulate a slanderous charge against a whole body of Christians without the shadow of evidence on which to base it, and then summon them to the bar of public opinion to prove their innocence, before their guilt can even be pre- sumed, and, 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 transcendently 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 most 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 or CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. sins of the world so complete that all may be saved who will^ and so full of merit that God can be perfectly just in justifying the sinner who believes in Jesus. 5. That, in virtue 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 be honored. III. '^Of the extent to which the Arian notions of Mr. Stone did formerly, or do now, prevail among the reformers, 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, resjDCCting a point 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 Arian sentiment, in all our ranks, from Maine to the shores of the Pacific. lY. ^^In the town of Columbia, Missouri, and its vicinity, the Disciples, better known as Campbellites, are somewhat numerous. They were formerly professedly Arians, but some years since they united with the followers of Mr. Alexander Campbell. I took much pains 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 and of his substitutional and piacular sufferings.'' 'Now, how extremely to be regretted it is that these brethren did not know that there was a reverend in- quisitor among them, who, in the genuine secret S2:)ir]t of a Jesuit, was inquiring into their faith with a view REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 287 of pronouncing them all heretics, that they might, low- bowed to the earth, have presented him evidence that their views had undergone a satisfactory change" ! But we are curious to know who and how many consti- tuted the ^^all" of whom Mr. Jeter was at so ^^much pains" to seek the information which was the object of his most Christian solicitude. Did he go to these brethren themselves to learn 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? Of course a person of Mr. Jeter's divine aifection for the Truth would go to the only party from whom in such cases 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 of the University of Mis- souri (situated at this place) informed me that in a con- versation which he held with Mr. A., a distinguished preacher of the denomination in this State, he most dis- tinctly repudiated these vital principles of the evangelic system." If the professor here alluded to was at the time a mem- ber of the Baptist church, and subsequently president of William Jewell College in this State, we have only to say that we do not go about to contradict the fables of an old wife whose feeble mind and small bitter enmity eminently fit him to be the author of the truthless tale 2S8 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. here attributed to liim, and which has owed to him its currency wherever his slow nature has enabled him to circulate it. But if the professor was any person else, and if the A. alluded to was Mr. T. M. Allen, of this State, who then was, and still is, living near the University, we have then to state, — 1. That Mr. Allen never did, either in conversation with the professor aforesaid or with any one else, deny the divinity of Christ; but that, on the contrary, he then was, and now is, a profound believer in that doc- trine. 2. That IMr. Allen never did, either expressly or by imj)lication, deny that Christ died to expiate the sins of the world; but that, on the other hand, he cordially believes in and distinctly affirms the doctrine, in the most unequivocal sense of the terms. While Mr. Jeter saw fit to confine himself to general issues, we thought it proper to join issue with him gene- rally; but, since he has thought it necessary to descend to special cases and particular persons and to implicate honorable men in what he says, we also deem it ne- cessary to descend to particular rejoinders. And we imagine he will find it something easier to quibble over general issues than to acquit himself before the public for making specific charges against good men and inno- cent churches which he cannot sustain* REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 289 SECTION II. Our growing desire to be accounted orthodox.^' Upon this subject Mr. Jeter delivers himself thus : — ''He has been a careless observer of Campbellism who has not perceived its effort to get rid of the odium theologicum by conforming its teachings more and more to the popular views.'' And again : — " There is manifestly a growing desire among the reformers to he accounted evan- gelical j orthodox, and regular. A striking proof of this remark was furnished, not long since, in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. There was a Christian association formed in that city. The members of the association were required to be members of some ^evangelical church.' Applicants for admission from the Christian or Eeformed church were rejected, on the ground that they furnished no evidence of being 'evangelical.' To obviate the difficulty, a prominent member of the church, with, it is stated, the concurrence of the pastor and other leading members, drew up and presented a state- ment of the doctrines held by the church. Here follows the creed." To be able to appreciate the cool impudence with which the author of these excerpts can falsify our posi- tion in a given case, any one must carefully read his book. There is no assertion which he is not ready to make, provided only it can have the effect, in his judg- ment, to depreciate us in the eyes of the public and to make it appear that we are inconsistent and contra- dictory. He is not ignorant of the just indifference with 25 T 290 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. which Mr. Campbell has hitherto borne himself towards every doctrine which had no higher claims on his confi- dence than its being merely orthodox; and yet he now has the hardihood to accuse Mr. Campbell of a desire to be the thing he hates. Had Mr. Campbell ever written a line against polytheism, Mr. Jeter could with as much truth have called him a polytheist as he now accuses him of a desire to be accounted orthodox, and for precisely the same reason. If there is any one thing on account of which Mr. Campbell has reason to feel a just and an honorable pride, and for which he deserves to be crowned with the plaudits of his brethren and the grrititude of the present and future ages, it is the noble independence of mind and firmness with which he has dissented from that dogmatic and t^-rannical thing called orthodoxy, and the confidence and success with which he has taken his appeal to the God of truth, the Bible, and to a free and enlightened people. And to ac-cuse him now of a desire to kiss again the fetters which bound him once is to falsify every feeling of his heart and the best acts of his life But not only is 3Ir. Campbell desirous," it seems, of being accounted orthodox," but in one of his recent debates nothing so much annoyed him as the quotation of heterodox sentiments from his early writings." Perhaps so. True, Mr. Campbell has not, at times, hesitated to state that his views (where such was the case) were in unison with those held by the self-styled orthodox parties. But why ? Was it because he desired to be " accounted orthodox" ? or because he conceived, that thc^e 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. Ko. There are certain very weak-minded men who are ready to be Mussulman, Jew, or Christian, justi as it happens to be the vogue to dub Mussulman, Jew, or Christian orthodox : for their sake !Mr. Campbell has at times consented to sound the magic note that on certain points he is orthodox. Eut who is it (we have a desire to know) who has constituted Mr. Jeter, and the ''Christian sects" with whom he agrees on one thing and dissents on three, the only orthodox people in the world? Or when and where, since Christ ascended, has it been determined what orthodoxy is? In what Council of Kice, Constanti- 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? K 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 ^Ir. 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 eects" ! But Mr. Jeter will doubtless say orthodoxy eonsists in correct views of the fundamental principlcvg of Christianity. Granted. But whose business is it to dete7*mi^€ whose views of those principles are correct 292 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. and Tvhose not? Who has constituted the Baptist church judge to determine the correctness of our views? or who has been constituted judge to determine the cor- rectness of the views of the Baptist church? The truth is, this whole question of orthodoxy among Christian sects" resolves itself into the following ridiculous posi- tion: — that the Baptists agree 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 one else will consent to glorify us ; and what we three agree to glorify that let all men glorify, for that is glorious I It can hardly be wondered at that ]\Ir. 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 ^Hhere 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, j^assed 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-mir.ded not to feel mortified at the circum- REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. 293 stance. Neither would they have pressed their claim to be admitted into the association referred to 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 cause which lay near their hearts, headed by a man whose passionless nature, Jesuitism, and sour heart, strangely fit him to act the chief part in all trans- actions w^here trickery and perfidy are to be enacted. We honor these brethren, but, most of all, the lamented one nov/ dead, for not suffering themselves to be dis- graced when the object was that their disgrace should terminate on their holy religion. But he knows them 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. SECTION III. The effect Mr. Jetefs 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 be has, with a skill nothing less than matchless, adapted his work to its end ; but, if such was not the result in- tended, then surely he is the most unfortunate of blun- 2S* 294 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. derers. When Tve 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 pleaded, 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 us, was the fact that, in making them, the Baptists sought and accepted abetment from their old hereditar^^ 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 cmsade 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 : — 1st, in the use of a cabal- istic Trinity, — something of which the Bible knows nothing; 2d, in a supernatural agency in conversion, — REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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 ; for it is still, as it was in time past, peculiar to those who are born after the flesh to persecute those who are bom 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 the 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 weie 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 nco 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 we 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 29G REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM EXAMINED. not of the number) as to contemplate a prospect, distant ttiougli and dim they deemed it, when an understanding might be come to on the points of difference between the parties, and when the gospel should be pleaded by the united strength and wisdom of both. The view was enchanting. But at this crisis 'Mi\ Jeter's book appears, — one of the meanest of all the attacks that have been made on us. 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 excite 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 REVIEW OF CAMPBELLISM 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. TH£ END. C ATALOaUE OP VALUABLE BOOKS, PUBLISHED BT J B. LIPPINCOTT & CO., (LATE LirPINCOTT, GRAMBO & CO.) No. 20 NORTH FOURTH STREET, PHILADELPHIA; C05SISTIXG OF a'large assort:*ext Of BIBLES, PRAYER-BOOKS, COMMENTARIES, STANDARD POETS, MEDICAL. THEOLOGICAL, AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. ETC.. PAETICULARLT 3C1TABLE FOB PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIBRARIES; Por Sale by Booksellers and Conntry Merchants generally throughout the United States. THE BEST AND MOST COMPLETE FAMILY COMMENTARY. The Compreliensive Commentary on the Holy Bible; COVTAIXINO THE TEXT ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORIZED VERSION, SCOTT'S MARGINAL K EFKRENCES ; MATIHKW HKNKV'S fOMMEN- TARY, CONDENSED. BUT CONTAINING EVERY USEFUL THOUGHT; THE PRACTICAL OBSERVATIONS OF REV. THOMAS SCOTT, D.D.; WITH EXTEXSITB EXPLANATORY, CRITICAL, AND PHILOLOGICAL NOTES, 8elerted from Scott, Doddridee, Gill, Adam Clarke, Patrick, Poole, liOwth, r.cnler, Harmer, Calmet, Rosenraueller, Bloomfield, Stuart, Bush, Dwigbt^ •nd many other writer* on the Scrijitiire?. Tlie whole de,sijrned to be a di^'est and combination of the adTantaee* of MM best Bible Commeutaries, and embraciog nearly all that is valuable in HENRY, SCOTT, AND DODDRIGE. EDITED BY REV. WILLIAM JENKS, D. D., PASTOR OP GREEN STREET CHUBCH, BOSTO.V. Embellished with five portraits, and other eleprant engravings, from steel ilate^; with pe'^erid maps and many wood-cuts, illustrative of Scriptura lanners. Customs. Antiquities, Ac. In 6 vols, super-royal 8vo. Including Supplement, bound in cloth, sheep, calf, 4c, varying in Price from $10 to $15. The whole forming the most valuable aa well as the cheapest Commeiv ary In the world. (1> ). B. IIPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. In one super-royal volume. DESIGNED TO ACCOMPAXT THE FAMILY BIBLE; OR, HENRY'S, SCOTT'S, CLARICE'S, GILL'S, OR OTHER COMMENTARIES ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, In one super-royal volume. DKRIVED PRINCIPALLY FROM THE MANNERS. CUSTOMS. ANTIQUmES TRADI I IONS. ANU FORMS OF SPEECH, K'TES, CLLMATE. WOiJCS OF ART. AND LITERATURE OF THE EASrFRN NATIONS: EMBODYING A^L THAT IS VALUABLE IN THE WORKS OF ROBERTS, HARMER, BURDER, PAXTON, CHANDLER, ind the most celebrated Oriental trarellers. Embracing also the sul^ect of the Fulfilment of Pri.pheey, as exiiibi'^i by Keith and others; with descriptionp ot the present state of countries and places mentioned in the Sacred Writings. ILLUSTRATED bV NUMEROUS LANDSCAPE ENGRAVINGS, FROM SKETCHES TAKEN ON THE SPOT. EDI'iED BY REV. GEORGE BUSH, Prof, of Hebrew and Onenlai Literature in the N. Y. City Unirersitj. THE ILLUSTRATED CONCORDANCE, In one volume, royal 8vo. A new, full, and complete Concordance; illustrated with monumental, traditional, and oriental engravings, founded on Butterworth'.s, with Cru- den's definitions: form'ng, it is believed, on many accounts, a more ralu- able work than either Butterworth, Cruden, or any other similar book is ILe language. LTPPINCCTT'S STANDARD EDITIONS OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER; IN SIX DIFFERENT SIZES LLLUSTRATED WTTH A NUMBER OF STEEL PLATES AND ILLUMINATIONS. COMPEBH ENDING "^HB MOST VARIED AND SPLENDID ASSOET- MKNT IN THB UNITED STATES. ). B. LIPPINCOTT 8c CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. 8 LIPPIXCOTT'S EDITIONS OF THE HOLY BIBLE, SIX DIFFERENT SIZES. Printed in the best manner, with beautiful type, oij the finest sired pap«r, and bouud in tlie most splendid and substauiiid styles. M'arranted to be oot- rect, and e tlfal and cheap editions of the English Poets; and persons ordering all oi any of them, will please say, Lippincott, Grambo & Co.'s illustrated edition. A COMPLETE BirtinHnrii nf l^^htllul diiintatinns : COMPRISING THE MOST EXCELLENT AND APPROPRIATE PASSAGES IN THE OLD BRITISH POETS ; WITH CHOICE AN D COPIOUS SEl ECTIONS FROM THE BEST MODERN BRITISH AND AMERICAN POETS EDITED BY SARAH JOSEPHA HALE. As nightinirales do upon glow-worms feed, So poets live upon tiie Iivuig light Of Nature auJ uf Beauty. Bailey'3 Festua. BMUtifUlly illustrated with Engravings. In one super-royal oct»TO volume, in various bindings. THE DIAMOND EDITION OF BYRON. THE POETICAL W0"RKS OF LORD BYRON. WITH A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE. COMPLETE IS OXE NEAT DUODECIMO VOLUME, WITH STEEL PLATES. THE POETICAL WORKS OF THOMAS MOORE, COLLECTED BY HIMSELF. COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME. This work is published uniform with Byron, from the last London edition, and is the most complete printed in the country. B. IIPPINCOTT 86 CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. THE DIAMOND EDITION OF SHAKSPEARE. (COMPLETB IN ONE VOLUME.) INCLUDING A COPIOUS GLOSSARY. UNIFORM WITH BYRON AND MOORE. Tin rOKEOOIKS WOBKB CAN B2 HAD Vi gZYSBAL YAJUSTXBS 07 BIKDIK6. ICHOOLCRAFT'S GREAT NATIONAL WORK ON THE INDIAN TRIBES Of THE UNITED STATES. WITH BSAUTirVI. AND ACCUKATS COLOUKED lUUSTKAnOirS. HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION R£8PBCTINa TU fflSTORY, COKDITION AND PROSPECTS OP THB COLLECTED AND PREPARED CINDER THE DIRECTION ( * HE BUREAC OF LNDIAN AKFAIRS, PER ACT OF MARCH 3. IS B7 SZlira? R. SCHOOI.CR^JE*T, Zi .ZK ILLUSTRATED BY S. EASTMAN, Cam, U. S. A. PUBLISHED BT AUTHOKITT OP 00NQRZS8. €lit Crnctllrr's nni Cnnrist's §n\h THROUGH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CANADA. ETC OONTAINING THE ROUTES OF TRAVEL BY STEAMBOAT. STAGE, \ND CANAL; TOGETHER WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF. AND ROUTES TO, THE PRINCIPAL PLACES OF FASHIO.V ABLE AND H^JALTHFUL RESORT; WITH OTHER VALUABLE INFORMAllON. ACCOMPA.VtED BT AN ENTIRELY NEW AND AUTHENTIC MAP OF THE UNITED STATES, DfCLUDINQ CALLFORN^A, OREGON, Ac, AND A MAP 01 THl ISLAND OF CUBA. BY W. WILLIAMS. 8 J. B. LIPPiNCCTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. THE POWER A;\D PRJGRESS_OF THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES; l[s Power and Progresa BY GUILLAOME TELL POUSSIN, LlTl MINISTER OF Tn£ RXPCBUC OP FRANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE THIRD PARIS EDITION. TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH BY EDMOND L. DU BARRY, M.D. SURGEON, CNITLD STATED NAVT^. !>' ONE LARGE OCTAVO VOLCM*. BIGLAND'S NATURAL HISTORY. 0? ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISU ES, REPTILES, AND IN8ECT& ILLUSTRATED WITH NUMEROUS AND BEAUTIFUL ENGRAVINGS. BY JOHN BIOLAND, Anther of & " View of the World," " Letters on Universal History," *e. Complete in one volume, \2mo . GOLDSMITH'S ANIMATED NATURE, IN TWO VOLUMES, OCTAVO. BEAUTIFULLY ILLUSTRATED WITH 385 PLATES. (X)>TA1MNG A HISTORY OF THE EARTH. ANIMALS, BiRDS AND FISHES; FORMING THE MOST COMPLETE NATURAL HISTORY EVER PUBUSHZD. A SYNOPSIS OF THE THEOLOGY OF PETER DENS AS PREPARED FOR THE USE OF ROMISH SEMINARIES AND STUDENTS OF THEOLOGY. Translated from the Latin of the Mechlin Edition. 1833, BY JOSEPH BEEG, Formerly H-ofessor of Latin and Greek in Marshal' Colleg*. ONE VOLUME. 12uO. $1. J. B. IPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS, 9 THE AMERICAN GARDENER'S CALENDAR, ADAI*TED TO THE CLIMATK AND SEASONS OF TUE UNITED STATES. CoutAiningj a porapleto account of all the work neoe^sa^y to be done in the Kitchen Uiinlcu, FruitGardeu. Orchard, Vineyard, Nursery, I'lcjisure-G round, Flower Garden, Green-house. Hot-house, and Forcing Frames, for erery noutb La the year; with ample Practical Directions for performing thesam* BY BERNARD M'MAHON. Tenth Edition, greatly improved. In one volume, octavo. MASON'S FARRIER AND STUD BOOK-NEW EDITION. Price, $1. THE GENTLEMAN'S NEW POCKET FARRIER: OOMPaiSINO A OENXR.VL DESCRIPTION OF THE MOBLS AND USEFUL AMMAL, THE HORSE; WITH MODES OF MANAGEMENT IN ALL CASES, AND TREATMENT IN DISEASE. BIT niCHARD lyiASOir, Iff.D., Formerly of Surry Ooiiuiy, Virifima. TO WHICH IS ADDED, A PRIZE ESSAY ON MULES; AND AN APPENDIX, Oontaining Recipes for Disi-aes of Ilorf-es, Oxen, Cows, Calves, Sheep, D«gj^ Swiub, &c., &c.; with Annals of tlie Tnrf, Anierica.n Stud> Book, Rules for Training, Racing, Ac, &a WITH A SUPPLEMENT, BY J. S. SKINNER, Editor of the Farmers' Library, New York, Ac., Sic MASON'S FARRIER-FARMERS' EDITION, Price, 63 Ceuts. THE PRACTICAL FaIrIER, FOR FARMERS: COMPRISINQ A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OP THE NOBLB AND USEFUL ANUIAL, THE HORSE; WIT4 MODES OF MANAGEMENT IN ALL CASES, AND TREATMENT IN DISEASE. TO WHICH IS ADDED, A PRIZE ESSAY ON MULES) AND AN APPENDIX, Oooiaiiung Recipes for Diseases of Horses. Oxen. Cows. Calves, Sheep, Ihjgs, Swinc-. Mo BY RICHARD MASON, M.D. FORMERLY OF SURRY COUNTY, VIKdISIA. In ont volume, 12mo.; bound in cloth^ gilt- 10 J. B. IIPPINCOTT & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. HINDS'S FARRIERY AND_SnJD-EOOK-NEW EDITION. FARRIERY, TAUGHT ON A NEW AND EASY PLAN: BEI.VO A CrBatisr nn tljp Bisrasrs anil ilrriknts of tjir Inm; With Instructions to the Shoeing Smith, Farrier, and Groom; preceded bj a Popular description of the Animal Functions in Lleiilth, and how tliese are to be restored when disordered. BY JOHN HINDS, VETERINARY SURGEON. With considerable Additions and Iniprovements, particularly adapted to this country, BY THOMAS M. SMITH, Veterinary Sorseou, and Meiiil)er n( Uih London Veleriuary Medical Society. WITH A SUPPLEMENT, BY J. S. SKINNER. TO CARPENTERS_AND MECHANICS. JUST PUBLISHED. A NEW AND IMPROVED EDITION OF THE CARPENTER'S NEW GUIDE, BEING A COMPLETE BOOK OF LINES FOR rreatinof fully on Practical rieometry, Ssiffit's Brick and Pla.ster Grotn*, Kicbes of every (les< ription, ?ky-lis:ht«. Lines for Rinifs Hn