CE-02-Chapter II.

ChapterII.

MR. JETER’S DOCTRINE OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT IN CONVERSION EXAMINED.

Section I.

PASSING over all else Mr. Jeter has to say on "Campbellism" 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 enlighten 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 inception in the fertile brain of Mr. Campbell up to the period of full formation. However, at last they assumed, it seems, the form of a system. Into this system Mr. Jeter boldly dips, and on its capital items dwells at length, among the chief of which is the influence 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 defense of it, several things to say. The proposition contains three superfluous terms, to wit: internal, mighty, and efficacious. No 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, but 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 differing from moral suasion. The second, thus:—This influence is exerted ordinarily through the Truth. The first of these propositions we may conceive intended 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 exerted, but merely says of it, it differs from moral suasion. But what it is that thus differs we are not informed. Of course it is not moral suasion, since it and moral suasion 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 influence which persuades, 1: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 understanding 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 what it differs from. It is a 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.

Now, it is in regard to this latter influence that we join issue with him. We 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 question 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, notwithstanding 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 propositions, 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.

Here now is another point on which we take issue with Mr. Jeter. We deny that in conversion any influence 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 "distinct 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 difference between us.

Now, in order to establish these positions what has Mr. Jeter to do? First, he has to produce from the Bible at least one passage, which either actually asserts or necessarily implies the existence of an influence distinct from and above the Truth, as an influence in conversion. 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 without the Truth. Nor 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 reverse. Nor to all this does Mr. Jeter deem himself unequal. Certainly he undertakes it, or at least what implies it; and how well he performs his task, we shall now proceed to acquaint the reader.

Section II. The testimony by which Mr. Jeter proposes to establish 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 emphasis seems to be laid. But is it not a little strange that Mr. Jeter, after assuring us that his testimony is "direct," should not attempt to establish directly by it the truth of his proposition, 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 indirectly 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

New Testament as a birth of the Spirit. Now, we deny that such 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 concordance, every passage in the Bible 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 Mr. 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 New 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 following:—"That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." But does this passage contain a description of anything? especially, does it contain a description of one thing as another? plainly, does it contain a description of conversion 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 he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." Had this passage been adduced to prove 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. But Mr. Jeter adduces it to prove that conversion 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 intended to prove best shows the unwarrantable use he attempts to make of it. We shall therefore dismiss it without an additional remark. But whether conversion is, in the New Testament, described as a birth of the Spirit or not, is little to Mr. Jeter’s purpose. It is freely granted that the New Testament teaches the doctrine of a new birth, but utterly denied that it teaches the figment which he calls the new birth. Nor is it at all material to his conclusion that conversion shall be considered a birth in any sense. His position is, that in the new 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 carried his point. But, that we may appear to do him no injustice when we represent him as holding so "strange a position, we shall quote his own language.

"There is," he remarks, "a resemblance between generation, or the natural birth, and conversion. The Spirit of inspiration has employed this resemblance to elucidate the subject of man’s moral renovation. In physical generation the nature and qualities of the parent are conveyed to the child. Adam begat a son in his own likeness. That which is born of the flesh is flesh,—that is, not merely corporeal, but depraved, corrupt, partaking 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 offspring .... The argument, in brief, is this:—that the new or moral birth—implying 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,—first, that in conversion the divine nature is communicated; second, that this communication is effected by a voluntary and efficient agency of the Holy Spirit, which, in Mr. Jeter’s dialect, means a "supernatural agency." But is the divine—is any nature communicated in conversion? To propound the ridiculous question is to obtain sentence against it. It is difficult—indeed, impossible—with those who receive such nonsense to succeed in refuting it. Nor, fortunately, is anything of the sort very necessary, since the doctrine is, by its very extravagance, completely refuted. Candidly, does Mr. Jeter himself believe it? Does he suppose others will believe it? Does he think the human mind so ductile, so easily warped, that it can be duped into the belief of a thing so utterly fabulous? Alas for the world if he has not reckoned too far on the pliancy of its credulity, if he so thinks!

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, however—which he cites to prove, it would seem, that this nature is "conveyed" in conversion,—we may infer that he means spiritual­-mindedness or spirituality. This text we have already had occasion slightly to notice, namely:—"That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," upon which Mr. Jeter ventures to ring the following changes:—"That which is born of the Spirit is spirit,—resembles the Spirit, partakes of his holiness,—is spiritual." Spirituality, 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 ho employs this expression that he cited the passage, but to prove that the nature of which he speaks is conveyed 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 evidence of what he cites it to prove. By what law of language, then, does Mr. Jeter transmute the substantive Spirit into the adjective spiritual? We utterly deny that he has the right, in violation of the known laws of interpretation, to trifle thus with the word of God merely to serve a purpose. The passage does not say, that which is born of the Spirit is spiritual; 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 quickened by it, is the spirit of man, his mind. The passage teaches that in that great, vital, and inconceivably important 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 meaning, 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, looking broadly over it a last time, say whether he can discover 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, however, the new birth consists (as he maintains it does) in being merely quickened by the Spirit, then we affirm that there is nothing analogous to it known to him in heaven or in earth. There is, we grant, an analogy between the new birth, as defined in the New Testament, and natural birth; but between the new birth, as qualified by Mm, and natural birth, there is no analogy. The now birth, as qualified by him, has no foundation either in revelation or in nature, and hence bears no resemblance to any created or uncreated thing. But the new birth is not a birth in the sense in which natural birth is a birth. Indeed, what is called the new birth is not a birth. It is merely an event analogous to a birth, and is, for that reason, called a birth. Hence, it does not belong to the same class of events with natural birth, and, consequently, we cannot reason from the one to the other as though it did. Yet this is just what Mr. Jeter does. He reasons from the natural birth to the new as if they were both 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 certainty) 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 how 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, nature is communicated. But, unless the new birth resembles the natural in all respects, (which it does not,) or is known to resemble it in this, (which is not known,) this conclusion does not follow,—as it clearly does not. From all the premises, therefore, now before us, we conclude that Mr. Jeter’s doctrine, that in conversion the divine nature is communicated, is a sheer fiction; and his conclusion, that it is effected by an influence of the Spirit distinct from and above the Truth, a gross non- sequitur.

Section III.

Mr. Jeter states his second proposition thus:—’’Conversion is termed in the Scriptures a creation, and is described in a variety of language of similar import.” The train of argument implied in this proposition is this:—It is first assumed that conversion and creation are—not identical events surely, but yet so very similar, that whatever power is necessary to create is necessary to convert; and then inferred, since almighty power alone can create, that it alone can convert. Of course the reader is left to infer (a thing which he can easily do) that almighty power, and the influence of the Spirit, for which Mr. Jeter contends, are the same. Now, clearly, the first thing to be done in order to establish this proposition is to show the near resemblance between 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 discussion of it, in one sense, but in his conclusion in a very different sense. He asserts—in. which, however, as usual, he is not correct—that conversion is termed in the Scriptures a creation. But, conceding for the present that he is correct, is it termed a creation in the literal acceptation of the term? Mr. Jeter alone will say it is. In a metaphorical sense only can the term creation be applied to conversion. Yet he, as if not in the least aware of this, proceeds to discuss his proposition using the term literally, and then, when he comes to draw his conclusion, erroneously infers, since the term literally implies the exertion of almighty power, that almighty power is exerted in conversion. But a moment’s reflection ought to satisfy even him that when he terms conversion a creation he is not using the term in the same sense in which it is said, in the Bible, 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 absolutely and literally to originate. But in this sense it can never apply to conversion.

But, waiving any thing further on this point, we shall not hesitate to admit that Mr. Jeter has established the conclusion he aims at, provided he succeeds in showing that the creation of which he speaks is effected by an influence of the Spirit "distinct from and above the Truth,—a supernatural agency." The first passage which he urges in defense of his proposition is the following from the prophet Ezekiel:" A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I 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 ap­plicable 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 unquestionably 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 replace 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 wickedness 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 hardships while in exile had the effect, in the providence of God, to work out for them. And yet, of this change, so perfectly natural and so easily accounted for, Mr. Jeter says, it was "a work which neither men nor angels could perform." So thought not the Lord, it seems, when, by the same prophet, he said to the same people, "Make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Is­rael?" And as to whether 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 workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." This looks more respectable than any thing we have yet had. The passage contains the word "created," and sinners are converted. Now, the question is, first, in what sense are Christians created? and, second, by what power are sinners converted? As a physical creation is not contended for, but only a "renovation," the first question may be disposed of at once. The only remaining question then is, by what power or influence is the sinner converted? Since the effect itself, a renovation, 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 sufficient quantity, to influence the judgment, and in the power of motives 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 Mr. Jeter’s language would seem to warrant a different conclusion. "The word employed in this text," he remarks, "to denote this renovation,—created, (xtizw,)—is employed to express that exercise of power by "which the universe was brought into existence. (Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16.) 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 suspect him for a heretic. Clearly, the spirit was on him while writing the foregoing. But 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 anything about the meaning of the term, he knows this to be false. When applied to creation, the term has not the same meaning that it has in the passage in hand, or when applied to conversion. Creation is one thing, conversion quite another; hence, the same term in the same sense can never express them both.

Section IV.

Mr. Jeter states his fourth proposition thus:—"Conversion 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 simi­lar 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. Conversion is not a resurrection, even conceding that it is one at all, in the sense in which Christ was raised from the dead. If it were, then it would be allowable to argue from the one event to the other. But the most that can possibly be said of the two events is, that they are merely analogous; hence, they do not necessarily imply the exertion either of the same kind or the same degree of power. The first passage quoted by Mr. Jeter, in defense 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 quickened us together with Christ; (by grace ye are saved.")

Here it is distinctly said that God made the Ephesians, who had been dead in sins, alive: but did he make them alive in the same sense in which he made Christ alive, when he brought him from the dead? If not, on what ground can Mr. Jeter assert that we are converted by the same "energy which raised Christ from the dead"? His error lies 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 metaphorically,—they have both resulted 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 semblance of authority, asserts it to be "clear from the context." The "context" to which he alludes is the following petition of the apostle for the church at Ephesus:—"That ye may know what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead." Mr. Jeter takes for granted what everybody except himself knows is not true; namely, that to believe according to the working of God’s mighty power is to believe because that power is exerted in us. We believe, it is true, according to, or in conformity with, the working of God’s mighty power. But on whom was that power exerted, and when? On MS 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 of¹ 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 necessarily 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 does it even necessarily imply it? Obviously, it does not assert it. Unless, then, it necessarily implies it, it does not teach it. Will Mr. Jeter affirm that the passage necessarily implies it? If so, we demand on what ground? Is it because God cannot give the increase 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 111 utter of speculation. Doctrines taught only by possible implication are doctrines untaught, to which class clearly belongs the doctrine of an influence in conversion "distinct 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. But "the text teaches," says Mr. Jeter, "that the success of gospel ministers, even the most eminent, whether in the conversion of sinners or the improvement 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 according to analogy." "In the vegetable kingdom," ho assures us, "God gives the increase;" and even condescends to acquaint us with the astounding fact that "the most skillful 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 principle 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 "Campbellite" should ever do so, is, we know, the event least likely to happen of any other in the three kingdoms of which Mr. Jeter speaks. A "Campbellite" would be most certain to limit his inferences to what the Scriptures do teach, either by actual assertion or necessary implication, and all beyond, we feel assured, would be left to the speculator and to Mr. Jeter.

But, in regard to the expression "God gave the increase," 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 believe the fact because the word of God asserts it, and all beyond the fact is fiction. Where the all-wise Creator has thought it best to withhold an explanation of the mode in which he executes his will, we think it safest to venture none. But not so Mr. Jeter: he speaks, as if he were the embodiment of light, where angels need be mute.

Section V.

Mr. Jeter’s next "proof" of "the doctrine of a supernatural agency in the conversion of sinners” is the following:—’’Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the Truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren: sec that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.”

It is here distinctly said that the persons whom the verso addresses had purified their souls in obeying the Truth. Of course, then, Mr. Jeter will admit that purification of the soul, at least, is not dependent on the peculiar influence he advocates. Since, then, this influence 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 obedience. 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 construed to mean more than its terms will fairly import. How, in the light of this golden rule, the truth of which is intuitively perceived, do we feel that Mr. Jeter’s conclusion is justified by the passage in hand? We cannot feel so. But, he will doubtless urge, they obeyed through the Spirit, 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 only, through an influence of the Spirit distinct from and above the Truth? If not, how can Mr. Jeter know that another influence is not meant? Will he answer these questions? Never, we predict. If he affirms that only an influence distinct from and above the Truth is 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 preceding instance, the most that he can claim for his doctrine is, that it is not impossible it may be implied. One brief sentence exhausts his logic:—it is not impossible 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 distinct from and above the Truth? This is the question. And we require that it be made good not by passages 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 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 exposition 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 defense 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 be to me a people." In this passage the Lord declared by his prophet that during the reign of Christ he would put his laws into the mind and write them in the hearts of his people,—a declaration upon which Mr. Jeter relies as sustaining his theory. Now, be it distinctly noticed, that the passage asserts 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 mode, unless the mode to be proved is itself the fact asserted. And yet Mr. Jeter employs this passage to prove mode and nothing else. He is not attempting to prove the fact that God puts his laws into the mind and writes them in the hearts of his people, but the mode in which he does it,—the mode being the only thing in dispute. In a word, he is attempting 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 consequently, unless when a passage states a fact it also explains the mode of its occurrence, although it is competent 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 construing a passage to mean more than its terms will fairly import. The passage, then, can only mean that, during the reign of Christ,

God would cause his people to understand his laws, and these laves 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 published 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 "process 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 VII.

We have now to notice the second part of Mr. Jeter’s defense of a supernatural agency in the conversion of sinners,”—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 sanctification being admitted, it follows, as a logical sequence, that the same influence is exerted in conversion, which is but the com­mencement of the work of which 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 immediate contact of the Holy Spirit with the human. Mr. Jeter’s first "direct proof," under this head, in defense 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 renewing the ungodly." Not quite correct, we venture to say. Mr. Jeter’s first argument is intended to "respect" his position, and is derived from the power of the Holy Spirit. But his "first argument" is in reality no argument at all. It is merely an instance of the fallacy of shifting the ground in debate. The question between Mr. Campbell and him is not a question respecting what the Spirit can do, but a question respecting what it does. In regard to what the Spirit can do, as an abstract question 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 respecting 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. 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.

Once for all, we wish to correct this stale falsehood, which has been repeated by every reviler of Mr. Campbell, from Greatrake down to Mr. Jeter. The satisfaction with which these gentlemen have dealt in this barren tale seems to have been real, heartfelt, complete. They have had exquisite pleasure in repeating it.

Regeneration, in the Bethany dialect, is exactly equivalent to the new birth; and the new birth, in the Bethany dialect, means to be begotten by the Spirit and to be born 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— than to any act preceding it, includes also all the other acts preceding it, or the whole process of being born again. In this sense and in this only, and for these reasons, has Mr. Campbell ever employed the word "regeneration" as equivalent to being born of water, or immersion. And if in every instance where ho 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 fairness, is not ashamed to repeat. A single extract from Mr. Campbell—an extract, too, well known to Mr. Jeter—will sot this matter forever at rest. "By the bath of regeneration," says Mr. Campbell, "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 reputation of ’others, of the man who has the front to come forward and say, Regeneration mean’s, in the Bethany dialect, born of water, or immersion?

2. "All that is done in us before regeneration, God our Father, not the Holy Spirit, effects by the word."

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 immersion 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 sentence; but it is a falsification for which Mr. Jeter, and not Mr. Campbell, is responsible. True, God our Father 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 approaches much nearer both to the Bethany thought and the Bethany dialect.

Section VIII.

"My second proof," says Mr. Jeter, "is derived from the nature of sanctification. It is progressive holiness. It is beautifully described by the wise man:—’The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day:’ Proverbs 4:18. Regeneration is the commencement of holiness. Regeneration 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."

Section IX.

"My third proof," remarks Mr. Jeter, "is drawn from the direct testimony of revelation. The Scriptures, I may 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 influence; and to these in all cases do we ascribe conversion. But this is not the question. Neither is it whether the Spirit that nourishes is the Spirit that begets. There is one Spirit. The question is, whether the Spirit which is admitted to dwell in Christians, but not in sinners, affects the latter in conversion in precisely the same way in which it affects the former after conversion. This is the question at issue, which Mr. Jeter undertakes 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 passage:—"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" re­ferred 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 Mr. Jeter asserts, which God, by some hidden influence, had begun in them at their conversion, and was still carrying on.

But, even granting that by the "good work" is meant their conversion, what then? The passage merely asserts that God had begun this work and was still carrying it on, but by what influences it does not say, and hence does not decide. But, if Mr. Jeter cites the passage merely to prove that the "work" was of God,—that is, that it was begun and carried on by him,—then he cites the passage to prove what we, at least, have never denied. In regard to the other passage cited by Mr. Jeter,—namely: "for it is God who worketh in you [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 whatever 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 authority, and hence as false.

Section X.

"My last remark," says Mr. Jeter, in closing his "direct" proofs, "concerns the honor of the Holy Spirit. The theory which I am opposing represents the infinite Spirit as condescending to carry on and complete a work which was commenced and passed through its most difficult stage without his influence." Whose theory it is that represents the Spirit as condescending 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 impression that there is a necessity for his peculiar spiritual influence, 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 defense of his proposition that "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." We now submit the case to the reader with the single remark, that, if competent to form a judgment, and candid, we fear not his decision.

It is proper to state that we have found no little difficulty in collecting out of some seventy-five pages of matter, whose predominant trait is a masterly confusion, the entire material part of Mr. Jeter’s defense. 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.