CE-09-Chapter IX.

ChapterIX.

MR. JETER’S DOCTRINE OF REMISSION EXAMINED.

Section I.

WE shall now proceed to examine Mr. Jeter’s defense 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, we shall not say; but certainly he has treated it with a brevity not a little significant. 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 understood, there is not one truth in the ten. They were all constructed with a view to deception. Without an additional qualification not one of them has the least tendency 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:—

Prop. 1. "That throughout the New Testament the remission of sins, or justification, is unequivocally and uncon­ditionally connected with faith or with exercises which imply its existence.” The terms "unequivocally" and "unconditionally" are inserted in this proposition for no purpose 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. Deception was the thing intended when they were inserted and the only effect they can have. Omit them altogether and the sense of the proposition remains the same, thus:—Throughout the New Testament the remission of sins, or justification, is connected 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; hut this is not what Mr. 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 New Testament the remission of sins is connected with faith alone or with exercises which imply its existence. Now the word "unconditionally" may be inserted with effect, thus:—Throughout the New Testament the remission of sins is unconditionally connected 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 New Testament the remission of sins depends unconditionally on faith alone or on exercises which imply its existence. But this is far too clear for Mr. Jeter. No deception could lurk in it. Its falsity becomes apparent at sight. In this form the proposition makes remission depend on faith to the exclusion not only of baptism hut of repentance likewise. 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 remission depends on faith to the exclusion of repentance likewise; hence the intentional ambiguity of his proposition. But 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 unconditionally 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 baptism, 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 affirms is, that remission of sins is unconditionally connected,— 1:e. with faith or with exercises which imply it. And this is certainly true. Unconditionally qualifies connected. But connected is not the word which Mr. 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. But the instant his proposition is made to assert this, the supplemental clause falsifies it.

If 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 proposition 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 necessarily 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 New 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 using it, and yet knows that no other term half so well and briefly conveys his meaning. That he believes with his whole heart that faith is the sole condition of remission 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 something 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 proposition, 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:—

It is worthy of note that Mr. Jeter seems to be discussing all the time a proposition which is not in dispute. He seems to be discussing the proposition that the sinner is saved by faith. But this we have never denied. What 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. "That privileges which are inseparable from the remission of sins are frequently promised, in the New Testament, to exercises or graces that imply the existence of faith." This is a mere repetition of the second proposition with a slight change of verbiage. That relates to blessings, 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 relates to blessings! But this, like that, rests on three minor propositions, namely:—

To enjoy the kingdom of heaven is certainly a privilege, but a privilege enjoyed by those alone who are in it. Now, however commendable and necessary a thing 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 by being born of water and of the 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.

Spirit 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 attended. 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 depended 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 without 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 Mr. 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 refuted a thousand times) is briefly this:—The thief on the cross was saved, and saved without baptism; therefore baptism is not neces­sary 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, for, that is, the means of obtaining, the remission of sins, but, even then, in the case of a Jew only, and not in that of a Gentile. But, when John died, baptism again ceased to be necessary to salvation even in the case of a Jew. John had no successor in office,— left no one to continue his ministry. His baptism ceased with his life. Hence, from the day of his death until the day of Pentecost there was not a man on earth authorized to administer baptism. Indeed, during this period there existed by authority no baptism. Hence, the Savior neither authorized the seventy nor the twelve whom he sent out during this time, to baptize. And, although it is pretty certain that after John’s death some of his disciples continued to practice his baptism, still, they did it without authority. Now, it was during this time that the salvation of the thief occurred. It occurred at a time ’when baptism had by authority positively no existence whatever. Hence it was obligatory on no one.

We are now prepared 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 correct. But how illogical to infer that, because baptism was not necessary to salvation at a time when it had no 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 maybe objected (though the objection is, in my view, of no validity) that these cases occurred before the giving of the apostolic commission." What 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 necessary. 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 baptism. 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 esta­blished by divine authority, of what 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 remission 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—unless 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 remission—he can never say what relation—is to be taken as evidence thereof, and then on this fact bases his inference as to when Cornelius was pardoned. But his argument is clearly defective. When it is once established that baptism is, even in one case, for the remission 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 that baptism even in the case of Cornelius was for the remission of sins.

Section V.

Having now examined such arguments as Mr. Jeter has to offer in defense 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 endeavored to show, is not a condition or means of obtaining the remission of sin, then it follows that it is a symbolic declaration of the remission of sins already obtained through faith in Christ. In support of this conclusion, I remark,—

"First. That it is in perfect harmony with the teaching 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 New 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 confusion of thought than it indicates, it would be difficult to imagine. No 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 particularize.

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 argument, 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; but what does this represent? Remission 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 remission of sins? We repeat, where?

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 literally eat the loaf and drink the wine, and these represent, or stand for, his body and blood. In like manner, in baptism 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 farfetched 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 remission of sins.