CE-03-Chapter III.

ChapterIII.

INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT IN CONVERSION—OUR OWN DOCTRINE STATED AND DEFENDED.

Section I.

WE now proceed to state our own doctrine respecting the influence of the Spirit in conversion, and to present a brief view of the grounds on which it rests. The work upon which we are now entering is certainly of a nature calculated to impart a far higher pleasure than that in which we have just been engaged. For, however necessary it may be to expose the errors of an opponent, it can never be so pleasing a task as defending our own cause, especially when true. The thing first in order, then, is to state the proposition to be maintained, to wit:— The Holy Spirit operates in conversion through the Truth only.

Before entering upon the defense proper of this proposition, 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 discussion 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 it to be a mere influence or impersonal emanation from the Father, or the Son, or from both; but, in the strictest 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 respecting the Spirit. Assuming these views to be correct, no effort is here made to defend them.

Second, the proposition to be discussed is not a question of power. It is not a question as to what the Spirit can do, but a question as to what it does. Nor is it even a question as to what the Spirit does, except in 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. We 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 expressions 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 when he makes remarks to the effect that the Spirit cannot operate except thus and so, it is because operating 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 inadmissible. All such remarks of Mr. Campbell are limited, and necessarily so, either by the nature of the subject he is speaking of, or the proposition he is discussing. The slightest attention to a few points like this would have saved Mr. Jeter much simulated anxiety occasionally to understand him. The question, then, which we are to discuss, is not a question of power, but a question of fact, and, hence, is to be decided not by speculation but by testimony, and that not human but divine.

Third: we wish to distinguish between what may be called strictly the influence of conversion, and those other influences which, though purely incidental or circumstantial to it, yet in many instances serve greatly to aid it, and which we shall denominate providential influences. This distinction is important, and we regret that our limits compel us to treat it so briefly.

Providential influences may be divided into two great 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 for good is great. They relieve, for example, the wants 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 become 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 impart much useful information, to correct many a vicious habit, and frequently to induce even an entire reformation of life. In these and various other ways, too numerous to mention, may the members of the church often be of the greatest service in inducing 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 performed can, in point of effect, hardly be overestimated. If the Truth is distinctly stated and sufficiently amplified, 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 thus 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 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 stranger’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 penetrate 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 conversion 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 intelligent Christian cannot receive. Indeed, in regard to the whole subject of providential influences, as well as in regard to the influence proper of conversion, Mr. Jeter’s mind seems to be in complete confusion. Clearly, he does not understand us, he does not understand the Bible, and we seriously doubt whether he understands himself.

Fourth: the proposition to be discussed limits the discussion strictly to conversion. As to how, or to what extent, the Spirit may affect persons not in conversion, 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 opponents. It says, in conversion the Spirit operates through 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 undertakes 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 logical grounds, we should be compelled to close the present controversy, and demand judgment against the adverse party. For Mr. 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 concedes to us the very ground we claim, and the only ground which, in this controversy, it is possible to settle: namely, that the Spirit does operate through the Truth. His language is:—"It is freely admitted that the Spirit operates through the word in the conversion and sanctification 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. We shall, however, waive all technical advantages and proceed 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 state. We employ it then throughout this chapter to denote strictly a mental and therefore a moral change, and not as including any outward act of obedience. In other words, we employ it as exactly equivalent to the expressions born of the Spirit, born 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 expression born 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 by 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 defense 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. Nothing is done in effecting redemption for which there does not exist a necessity. And in all cases in which, like the present, a peculiar interposition is denied, the necessity for it must be first clearly shown, otherwise such denial stands good against it. Neither 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 distinct from and above the Truth is exerted, then certainly we might infer a necessity for it; and such necessity would become a legitimate ground of argument. But that such an influence is exerted is neither proved nor conceded. Hence the existence of a necessity for it cannot be assumed. Moreover, where a necessity exists for doing a thing, there exists a reason for doing it; but where no such necessity exists, the presumption is, that the thing, if done at all, is done without a reason, which in the case of conversion is not admissible. We hence conclude that in conversion no influence is exerted distinct from and above the Truth. And what is here said suggests the true theory of the argument usually urged from depravity in defense of an influence above or not in the Truth. It is first assumed that man is totally, or, as Mr. Jeter has it, "utterly, ” depraved. It is then urged that this utter depravity, or rather the resistance which is met with from it in conversion, cannot be overcome by any force of divine Truth, however great, and that there is hence a necessity for another and greater influence. But, instead of assuming this, which is the main point in their argument, let the advocates of this peculiar influence come forward and show us, either by indisputable and pertinent facts, or by passages of Holy Writ clear and relevant, that man is thus depraved; then, and not till then, will their argument be of any force or entitled to any respect.

Section 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 be admitted to be present in conversion. In order to be responsible man must be left free. To whatever extent we interfere with his perfect freedom, whether in sinning or in obeying, to that extent precisely we destroy the essential nature of his act as a moral agent and degrade him to the level of a mere machine. All we can do for him or with him, as a moral agent, is to present the Truth, proved to be such, distinctly to his mind, and then 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 designed to have only the effect to make him willing. But he is, suppose, no matter from what cause, unwilling or disinclined to receive the Truth. But the Spirit interposes with an influence distinct from and above the Truth, and inclines him to do the thing which he himself is inclined not to do. Is this the act of a man acting of his own will, or is it not rather the act of a man acting against his will? Certainly, Mr. Jeter will doubtless tell us, it is the act of a man acting of his own will, for the Spirit gives the man the will. The case then is simply this:—the man is not compelled to act against his will, but compelled to accept a will which is not his own. We shall leave the reader to decide how much this improves the case.

According to this theory, which is the theory of Mr. Jeter and his brethren, conversion is in no sense—not even in part—in the power of the sinner himself, but depends absolutely on the power and will of another. Now, we request him to acquaint the world whether the sinner, so circumstanced, is responsible for not being converted until the Spirit exerts on him that peculiar influence for which he contends; whether, in a word, the sinner is responsible for being what he cannot but be,—a sinner? We 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 sinner so free, and place the Christian, by the indwelling of the Spirit within him, under an influence affecting the freedom of his will? We reply, that no such thing is done. The Christian has the will, but lacks the power; hence the Spirit only helps his infirmity without affecting his will. To aid the Christian to do what he is already more than willing to do, but lacks the power to do, is a very different thing from constraining the sinner to do against his will what he has the power to do. True, God works in the Christian, as we conceive, both will arid 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 as he is of his own existence. His hand, for example, lies at rest. Now, it cannot be said that he is more conscious of his existence than he is of the power to move that hand. Nor is he simply conscious of the power to move it: he is also conscious that such and such motives would induce him to exert that power; and his consciousness is no less vivid in the latter case than in the former. There is not a sin he commits which he feels not the conscious ability to refrain from committing. He may feel that it is very certain he will not refrain, but still he feels perfectly conscious that he can do so. Nor is this less true in regard to duties, even the highest. A man to whom the proposition is presented and explained is as conscious of the ability to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, as he is of the ability to move his hand when it lies at rest. It is this very consciousness of the ability to do what yet perhaps he neglects to do, not because he cannot do it, but simply because he does not resolve to do it, that constitutes his negligence a crime and makes him feel guilty in the sight of God. Destroy the consciousness of this ability, and that instant you take away not only his sense of guilt, but even the guilt itself; for man never yet sinned where he felt a conscious inability to refrain from sinning. Whether man is thus conscious or not is not a debatable point. Within himself he carries the clear and certain proof that he is so. That the Holy Spirit should, by special influence, induce men to do what they are conscious they both can do and ought to do without such influence, is as destitute of countenance from the Bible as it is subversive of every principle of moral government. God aids men to do only what he knows they cannot do without his aid, and not what they know they can do and are conscious they should do without it. And, should it be alleged that men never become thus conscious without a special influence, we reply that then all men have been already the subjects of it; for there is not a man in Christendom to whom the gospel has ever been preached who is not thus conscious. He may pretend to be infidel or atheist and consequently deny that such is the case; but he can never silence the voice within him which asserts the contrary.

Mr. Jeter’s doctrine presents the sinner in a strange predicament, truly. He is perfectly conscious he can believe the Truth and obey it; and yet it is perfectly certain that, without an influence distinct from and above the Truth, he can do neither. He resembles a man with an amputated arm, who is perfectly conscious he has the power to move an arm, and yet it is perfectly certain that unless by miracle he receives an arm he cannot move one. And so with the sinner; he is perfectly conscious that he can believe the truth and obey it, and it is perfectly certain that without a peculiar influence from the Spirit he can do neither. But (may it not be said?) a man is as conscious of the ability to live the Christian life, as he is of the ability to believe the Truth and obey it; and that hence, by the preceding argument, the gift of the Spirit is not necessary to the Christian. But this is not true. Indeed, it is a curious fact that, while men never doubt their ability to believe the Truth and obey it, they ever doubt their ability to live the Christian life. It is precisely in regard to this point that they do doubt their ability. Not only do they distrust themselves in regard to the Christian life, but they seem to feel half-conscious that they are unequal to it; and hence, from this very distrust, many long decline entering on it. We conclude, then, instead of its being true that men are as conscious of the ability to live the Christian life as they are to believe the Truth and obey it, that the very reverse is true.

Section V. Our fourth argument is, that the Savior and the apostles always addressed their audiences AS IF their conversion depended alone on the Truth they heard, which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that it depended on the Truth and something else.

Now, the case admits of but two solutions. Either the conversion of their audiences depended alone on the

Truth which they heard, or the Truth was inadequate to effect it. If we accept the former of these solutions, the preaching of the Savior and the apostles is easily accounted for. We then have reason not simply in what they preached, but also for their preaching. At once we see a fitness and propriety in all they said and did, and can account for that inimitable naturalness in their speeches, which carries them so directly to the heart. Their adaptation of the Truth to the mind with such exquisite skill is then easily explained. We then see the reason why their proclamation of the Truth was attended with such peculiar and striking evidences of reality and power. All this is easily understood if we only reflect that conversion depends on the Truth. But, if we accept the latter of these solutions, certainly the preaching of the Savior and the apostles, if not what they preached, becomes a riddle of no ordinary intricacy. They knew that the Truth was inadequate to effect conversion, if such is the case, and yet they preached the Truth. They knew that their audiences, without, in Mr. Jeter’s language, "a new and peculiar process," could not receive the Truth; and yet they pressed it on them. They knew that their audiences could not receive the Truth; and yet they denounced condemnation against them for rejecting it. Shall this be charged on the Savior and the apostles? Or shall we say that all whom they addressed were, by this "peculiar process," prepared to receive the Truth? Certainly not; for we know that many, very many, rejected it. Or shall we suppose that "an influence distinct from and above the Truth" accompanied it to render it efficacious? Where, we ask, first, is the evidence, and where, second, the advantage? Still, conversion in many cases did not ensue. Or shall we be told that, although without this influence none can receive the Truth, still, with it all are at liberty to reject it? In the one case, then, since the rejection of the Truth is necessary,—i.e. results from an inability to receive it,—the rejection is, of course, no sin. And yet if there is any one thing taught in the Bible more clearly than another, it is, that the condemnation of those to whom the gospel is preached dates certainly from the instant in which they reject it, and for that very reason. And, in the other case, since men are still at liberty to reject the Truth, still free to do with it as they will, where is the advantage of the influence? With it men do no more than what they do without it.

Let anyone who is not blinded by a false system of religion attentively study the speeches of the Savior and the apostles, and nothing will strike him more clearly than this:—that they delivered their speeches precisely as other men do, assuming the ability of their audiences to understand and receive what they said, without any thing more than simply saying it, and leaving them to abide the consequences of rejecting it. This is the view which first and chiefly strikes that elemental common sense with which all are endowed; and it is not until that common sense has been completely stultified by some pernicious theory of religion that men abandon this view, and blindly adopt one which neither sense nor revelation sanctions.

Section VI. Our fifth argument is, that in no land or age has there ever yet occurred a single case of conversion without the Truth: a fact which proves that conversion is effected only through the Truth. The light of the solar system would seem to depend not more absolutely on the presence of the sun, than does conversion on the presence of the Truth. This fact is of itself enough to settle forever the truth of our position. Indeed, we should find it difficult to establish the connection between cause and effect, if conversion is not here shown to depend on the Truth alone. Where the Truth is, there conversion may occur; but where the Truth is not, there it cannot occur,—at least it is very certain it never does occur.

If an effect were never known to happen except when a particular circumstance was present, yet did happen in thousands of cases when that circumstance was present, though not in every case, no one would for a moment hesitate to pronounce that circumstance the cause of the effect; and the cases in which it did not happen would be accounted for by supposing the presence of some disturbing or countervailing influence. But what is this but the case of conversion stated? Conversion happens, though not in the case of all, where the Truth is; but where it is not, never; and even where the Truth is, the more frequent will conversions be—other things being equal—the more distinctly the Truth is presented to the mind, and the freer it is kept from impurities when transmitted to the heart. And the cases in which conversion does not occur are owing to no want of power or lack of vital force in the Truth, but to its not being perceived or understood to be the Truth, or to the willful resistance offered to it. But it is not necessary to elaborate this argument; to state it is enough. Indeed, the mere statement of it would seem to establish the truth of the proposition now in hand as conclusively as it is possible to establish any proposition, unless we could produce it in the very words of the Bible. We shall only add, that the fact here stated and the conclusion deduced from it have stood for ages the reproach of the man-invented system of conversion advocated by Mr. Jeter and his brethren.

Section VII. Our sixth argument is, that the Apostle James ascribes conversion to the Truth and to that alone, which forbids the belief that it is effected by the Truth and something more. The passage on which we base this argument is the following:—"Of his own (the Father’s) will begat he us with the word of Truth.” The term here translated "begat," we should state, is not the term which is usually in the New Testament rendered begat. But its meaning is equally as clear, and its force and extent of signification precisely the same, as the usual term, when the usual term is employed to express the agency of the Spirit in conversion. All, then, that the term "born" denotes, or can denote, in the expression "bornof the Spirit,” is here expressed by the term "begat." Each term alike exhausts the subject, and each alike is complemented by the subject. One has not a shade of meaning which the other has not. They are synonymous.

We shall assume, presuming that the position will not be questioned, that what the passage ascribes to God "as its author is ascribed to him as the remote author, and was in reality effected by the Spirit as the more immediate agent. Hence, of course, we assume that whatever the term "begat" denotes was effected by the Spirit.

Whatever, then, is effected by the Spirit in conversion, and all that is effected by it, is, in the passage, comprehended in and expressed by the term "begat." Hence, whatever the influence was, in kind or degree, by which this effect was produced, is the influence, in kind and degree, by which conversion is effected. What now was that influence? To this question the clearest answer is necessary, and to this question the clearest answer is at hand. That influence was "the word of Truth," or simply the Truth. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of Truth." If this passage does not settle the question now at issue, then it would seem that it is never to be settled. It is either an untaught question, and, hence, should not be debated, or it is a mere ground for endless and fruitless wrangling, and, hence, should be abandoned. What, we inquire, is the fact which it is the intention of the passage to assert? what, in other words, is its predication? Is it this:—"Of His own will begat he us"? It is not; and, although this is asserted, yet this is not the whole, nor even the chief feature, of the assertion. That feature is, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of Truth." The passage contains the answers to two questions:—1. Are we begotten by the Father? 2. And if so, by what means? To the first question the passage replies, We are begotten by the Father. To the second it replies, We are begotten by the Truth.

Here, then, in the present passage, the truth of our proposition is asserted, actually and unequivocally asserted, in language as clear, strong, and pointed, as human ingenuity can invent, or human speech supply. If its truth is not asserted,—if, in other words, it is not asserted that conversion is effected by the Truth,—what form of human speech, we ask, could assert it? The reply is, none.

But, Mr. Jeter will doubtless say, I admit that the Spirit "ordinarily" effects conversion through the Truth, but maintain that in doing so it exerts through the Truth a peculiar vital influence not inherent in it,—that a virtue which is no part of the Truth goes out of the Spirit through the Truth into the soul, converting it. In other words, he will doubtless maintain, that, as a spark of electricity discharged from a point passes through the atmosphere into an attracting object, so an essential, quickening influence, being discharged from the Spirit, passes through the Truth into the soul, converting it. But where, we ask, in the first place, is the evidence that this is true? Soberly, we ask, where? If Mr. Jeter’s prospects for eternity were staked upon making it good, with sadness we should add, he is a doomed man. But this is precisely the point at which the difference between him and us begins to show itself. We maintain—i.e. Mr. Campbell and his brethren—that in the Truth as such, that is, in the Truth as divine, as of the Spirit, resides the power by which in all cases the Spirit effects conversion: a power which, as we conceive, cannot be intensified and the human will be left free, and which, for that reason, is all the influence that can be admitted to be present in conversion. We go further, and maintain that it is as much the law of conversion that it shall be effected by the Truth, as it is of reproduction that an oak shall spring from an acorn and not from a miracle; and, further, that we are no more at liberty to suppose the Spirit ’absent from the work of conversion from the fact that it is the law of conversion that it shall result from the Truth and not from something else, than we are to suppose the Creator absent from the work of reproduction from the fact that it is the law of reproduction that an oak shall spring from an acorn and not from a miracle.

But, in the second place, we inquire, has not the expression "the word of Truth" its own proper, individual signification or value,—a value which belongs to it simply as the expression "the word of Truth,"—which can neither be increased nor diminished, and in which the influence for which Mr. Jeter con-tends is not included? Either it has, or that influence is included in the expression as an integral part of it, as a part of its own individual signification simply as the expression "the word of Truth." Now, let Mr. Jeter choose his alternative. If he choose the former, then is he pledged to abide the following conclusion. Of his own will begat he us: how? By the word of Truth? No. But by the word of Truth and something else. Hence, when the passage says, "Of his own will begat he us by the word of Truth," since the expression the word of Truth is not equivalent to the expression the word of Truth and something else, it asserts not the whole truth, but suppresses at least half of it, and is hence false. This is the fatal reef on which Mr. Jeter’s doctrine drifts him, and no skill or cunning on his part will enable him to escape it. Or does he accept the latter alternative, and say that the influence for which he contends is included in the meaning of the expression the word of Truth?—that it belongs to it as part of its own individual signification?—that, in brief, it is part of, or resides in, divine Truth as such? If so, then he and we are agreed, and so the controversy is at an end.

Section VIII. Our seventh argument is, that the Apostle Peter ascribes conversion, or being born again, to the Truth, and to that alone, as the means by which it had been effected; and that, therefore, we are not at liberty to ascribe it even in part to another and unknown cause. The passage on which we rest the present argument is the following:—"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God." The original term here rendered "being born again" is the term which is usually, in the New Testament, rendered by the words begat, begotten, born,—with this difference: the term is here combined with a particle which has the force, in the" present case, of the word again, or the prefix re. The term, as employed in the present passage, expresses precisely what is meant by the expression "born of the Spirit;" and the effect which it denotes is to-be ascribed to the Spirit as the author of it. Consequently, we have now to determine, not what effect was produced, but by what power it was produced; not what agent was employed, but with what instrument it wrought. In a word, the effect is known, and we have now to seek the instrumental cause from which it resulted. And in all such cases what is the method of procedure? It is briefly this:—

We have an effect A, which is supposed to result from two causes, B and C. We first try to produce the effect with B, and fail. We then try C, and fail. In this case the effect is held to be a joint result from both B and C. Or we try to produce the effect with B, and fail. We then try C, and succeed. In this case the effect is held to result from C alone, and B is excluded.

But, it will no doubt be said, the present is not a question in experimental philosophy. True: but what it lacks of being a question in experimental philosophy it happens to have in being decided by a still less fallible authority; and, hence, the conclusion arrived at has all the certainty of one arrived at by actual experiment. The effect in hand is denoted by the expression "being born again. " Mr. Jeter maintains that this effect resulted from the joint influence of two causes,—to wit: the Truth, and "an influence distinct from and above the

Truth." We deny that the latter cause had any hand in producing the effect. Let, now, the difference between us be decided by divine authority. How, then, was the effect produced? The Bible answers, "by the word of God." Unless, then, the second cause constitutes an integral part of "the word of God," (which it cannot, since it is "distinct from and above" it,) it was excluded from any share in producing the effect; hence, that effect resulted from the first cause alone,—the Truth; and, therefore, our proposition is true. Indeed, we now feel at liberty to say, it is impossible to establish the truth of any proposition, either by argument or Holy Writ, if the present and preceding arguments do not establish the truth of ours.

We are not at all ignorant, however, of the impotent clamor which Mr. Jeter and a few bigots will raise against these conclusions. This, they will cry in the ears of the multitude deep-mired in the "ditch," is the "word- alone system." Many a gracious compliment will be lavished upon the sectarian divinity, Orthodoxy; and her smiles will be deemed more than a compensation for all failures to defend her cause. But we beg to tell these gentlemen that this is not the "word-alone system." The "word-alone system" conceives the Spirit to be ever absent from the work of conversion; this system conceives it to be ever present: the "word-alone system" conceives the Truth to be as destitute of vital force as the words of an obsolete almanac; this system conceives the Truth, since of the Spirit, to teem with an intense quickening power, but ever resident in the Truth as divine: the "word-alone system" is false; this sys- tern is time. These are a few, and but a few, of the distinctions between the "word-alone system" and this. But, should Mr. Jeter still clamor, Yet is your system a word-alone system, we reply, Then are we the intrepid advocates of a word-alone system, and deny that the Bible knows any other.

We shall here take occasion to say, that the word "born," both in the preceding passage and in the one which we shall next cite, is not the word which most accurately expresses the sense of the original; but, as the difference is one which does not in the least affect the arguments respectively based on them, and as we purpose adverting to the matter again elsewhere, we shall for the present give it no further notice.

Section IX. Our eighth argument is, that belief in Christ and being born of God are identical; and that, since belief in Christ depends on the Truth alone, therefore being born of God, or conversion, depends on the Truth alone. The passage on which we base this argument is the following:—"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." From this passage it is most clear either ’that to believe that Jesus is the Christ and to be born of God are identical, or that they are so inseparably connected that we cannot produce the former without, at the same time and by the same means, producing the latter. This point, being actually asserted, we do not allow to be debatable. Whatever influences, then, will produce belief in Christ will also produce the effect—if belief itself is not that effect—denoted by the expression "born of God." But the meaning of this expression is the acceptation in which we are now taking the term "conversion." With the view, therefore, of ascertaining on what immediate cause conversion depends, we shall now. proceed to ascertain on what immediate cause belief or faith depends. The passage we shall first adduce is the following from the parable of the sower:—"Now, the parable is this: the seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are they that hear: then cometh the devil and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." The word, then, or the Truth, it seems, can, and actually does, enter the hearts of the wayside men. And if it can penetrate the hearts of these, it will hardly be thought that it lacks the power to penetrate the hearts of any others. But Satan interposes; and for what? There is a result to be prevented: that result is salvation. But, in order to prevent this result, there is another, antecedent, specific result to be prevented, which is belief. To prevent belief, then, immediately, and salvation remotely, is the object for which Satan interposes. And full well does he know how to prevent a result or an effect. He removes whatever the result depends on, or the cause of the effect, and the work is done. Now, what cause does he remove from the hearts of the wayside men in order to prevent belief? and he certainly removes the real cause. Is it an ’influence distinct from and above the Truth? This question ought to silence Mr. Jeter forever. But no; this is not the cause which Satan re­moves from the hearts of the wayside men. "He taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe." The word, then, or the Truth, is that immediate cause on which belief depends; hence, the word or the Truth is the immediate cause on which conversion depends. If this is not demonstration,—moral, that is,—then there is no meaning in the term. But we are not quite done with the wayside men. Mr. Jeter says, the influence for which he contends is exerted "ordinarily" through the Truth. Is it now exerted on the wayside men, or is it not? Of course it must be one or the other. Suppose, then, it is exerted. Still the Truth is taken away; but, when the Truth is taken away, what becomes of the influence? Does it remain? If so, where is the advantage in it? for the men are still infidels. But suppose it is not exerted. Still there remains in the word a power fully adequate to produce belief without it; hence, it is not necessary. The passage we shall next quote to show on what immediate cause faith depends is the following:—"So, then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." This is one of those fine passages which no sophistry can so pervert as quite to hide its meaning. It is the comprehensive statement of an innumerable number of cases, and, as a brief religious formula, serves the admirable purpose of preventing a tedious enumeration of all the circumstances, remote and near, on which faith as an ultimate result depends. It states a great fact in religion; and, therefore, with great propriety, states it with remarkable perspicuity. It pointedly asserts that faith comes by hearing, 1:e. by healing the word of God. And only what it asserts it teaches. Indeed, since it asserts strictly that faith comes by hearing the Truth, the implication is that it conies in no other way. For, the instant we show that faith results from the Truth and some other cause, say an "influence distinct from and above the Truth," that instant we cast a doubt over the passage. If, for illustration, it was the avowed purpose of an individual to whom the causes were all known to account for a given effect, and he should say, This effect results from such and such a cause, at the same time suppressing one of them, what should we think of him? Could we conceive of him as speaking but to deceive? When an apostle undertakes to assign the causes of a result, does he suppress one of them?

But, I grant, Mr. Jeter will say, that faith comes by hearing the word of God, but maintain that the Spirit must aid the sinner to hear—that is, to understand and receive—the Truth. But of the truth of this there is no evidence. It is a mere creation of the human fancy, countenanced neither by reason nor the Bible. It grew out of that inveterate form of depravity insisted on by Mr. Jeter, and which is itself a dream. Hence, the dream became parent to the fancy, which is the true account of both.

We conclude, then, since belief in Christ and being born of God are identical, and since belief in Christ is shown by the preceding premises to depend on the Truth alone, that the Truth alone is that on which depends being born of God, or conversion.

Section X. Our ninth argument is, that the original ofJohn 3:8in its most natural sense—that which it yields by the soundest rules of interpretation—teaches that being born of the Spirit (or conversion) is effected by hearing or receiving the Truth. The well-known rendering of this verse in the common version is, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and. thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." In citing this verse as the basis of an argument, we have three objects in view:—1st, to ascertain, if possible, its real meaning; 2d, to show that in its real meaning it teaches the great doctrine for which we are contending; 3d, to show that the popular interpretation of it is false. In the outset we shall assume that the verse in the original contains an explanation of the long-litigated clause, "born of the Spirit." In doing so, we are not unmindful of the fact that a very different view has been thought to be the correct one. For, by very general consent, it has been held that the verse contains an illustration of the mysterious manner in which the Spirit quickens the sinner into life. This we conceive to be the radical misconception which has utterly obscured the sense of this fine passage.

Without one solitary verbal mark in the original indicative of an illustration, or the slightest indication in the verse itself or the context that such a thing was either meant or necessary, has the verse been assumed to be illustrative and rendered accordingly. A more unaccountable departure from some of the best- established laws Of exegesis than its rendering in some respects exhibits, it has not been our lot to meet with. And long since, we doubt not, the present rendering would have been utterly discarded, had it not, by the mystery in which it wraps the sense of the verse, administered to the well- known species of fanaticism on spiritual influence of which Mr. Jeter sighs to show himself a champion. No man ever yet thoughtfully read the passage in the English Bible and then laid it down feeling satisfied that he understood what he had been reading. This circumstance alone should long since have suggested the suspicion that the sense of the original was not fairly dealt with.

And, believing this to be the case, we propose to retranslate the whole verse. In doing this we expect to discover an apt, germinal explanation of the expression "born of the Spirit." Of course, in a statement brief almost to obscurity, we expect to find nothing elaborated but much suggested. We expect to find the subject explained, touched rather by those single rays of light with which the Savior penciled so matchlessly, than illumined by the whole splendor of his eloquence. We expect to meet rather those hints which, cautiously traced out, lead to the truth, than to meet, at first sight, the truth itself. Still, we expect to find something determinate, something appreciable.

We propose submitting, as we proceed, first, a trans­lation of each single word of most of the verse: we shall then briefly append the reasons for the rendering, and, occasionally, shall distribute these words into appropriate groups for the sake of indicating more clearly their collective sense.

First, then, in regard to the word which, in the common version, is rendered "wind." This word occurs in the Greek New Testament three hundred and eighty-six times. In three, hundred and eighty-four of these it is rendered into English either by the term "spirit" or by its inelegant equivalent "ghost." Once, in the book of Revelation, it is rendered "life," where, with equal propriety and more consistency, it might have been rendered "a spirit." But not in a single case in the New Testament, except in the verse in hand, is it rendered "wind." Now, in translating, one great rule to be observed is this:—to translate the same original word uniformly by the same equivalent English word, unless the sense forbids it. No translation is deemed good which violates this rule, none very faulty which does not. Now, since the word in hand, out of three hundred and eighty- six instances, is, in three hundred and eighty-four of them, uniformly rendered into English either by the term "spirit" or by a term having precisely the same meaning, the presumption in favor of a similar rendering in the two remaining instances is as three hundred and eighty-four to two. And when it is remembered that the sense interposes no obstacle to such a rendering, this presumption becomes an imperious necessity. For these reasons, therefore, we do not hesitate to render the word in hand "spirit," meaning, thereby, the Holy Spirit. Should the case be thought to require it, we may add, that this rendering has been suggested, if it is not still sanctioned, by names which stand justly high in learning and sacred criticism. Its claims, however, upon public confidence must rest ultimately on its own merits.

Next, respecting the word translated "bloweth." This word is found in the Greek New Testament but seven times; in six of which it is used to express the acts of things, and only in the remaining instance (the present) the act of a person. But, in almost every case where expressive of the act of a person, it is to be rendered into English simply by the word "breathe." And this is so obviously the word by which it is to be rendered in the present instance, that we shall attempt no defense of the rendering. But in what acceptation are we to take the word "breathe"?—a literal or a figurative? To answer this question at once, we inquire, Does that essential, subtle person, whom we denominate the Spirit, perform the act we call breathing? Can we predicate of it such an act in any intelligible sense,—especially in the sense in which we say of a man, he breathes? Certainly not. To do so would be to assert what we believe the very nature of the case forbids; for it does not consist with our notion of spirits that they breathe. They may cause breathing, as the human spirit; but they themselves breathe not. Hence, since the act itself—breathing—is not conceivable, we are not permitted to con­strue the term as meaning it. We decide, therefore, to construe the term figuratively, and this the nature of the case requires. But what does the term "breath" signify? what does it express? We reply, it certainly expresses action, but in such a way as not to indicate the precise kind of act performed. This we learn, as we shall presently see, and with much certainty, from the attendant circumstances. The expression "where it listeth" may be slightly improved thus:—where it sees fit. So far, then, the verse reads thus:—The Spirit breathes where it sees fit. In the remark next succeeding,—to wit: "and thou hearest the sound thereof,"—we have the clue to the particular act expressed by the word "breath," which, of itself, is indefinite. But, in order to trace out this clue and show to what it leads, we must examine strictly the meaning of the word rendered "sound." This word is met with in the Greek New Testament one hundred and forty-one times; in one hundred and thirty- one of which it is rendered "voice;" in eight, including the present case, "sound;" in one, "noise;" and in one case is joined with a verb, and rendered "noised." Generically, the term expresses sound simply; specifically, a particular kind of sound. Hence, before we can, in a given case, correctly render it into English, we must know what particular kind of sound is meant, or from what subject it proceeds. In the case in hand it was clearly the force, and nothing else, of the preceding substantive, wind, which determined it to be rendered sound. But since the original of wind does not mean wind, but Spirit, the presumption is that the original of sound does not mean sound, but something else.

Now, in every other case in the New Testament (a few doubtful ones perhaps to be excepted) where it denotes sound proceeding from a person, without distinction as to whom, that sound is the voice of such person heard in the act of speaking. Hence, since in the present case the term denotes sound proceeding from the Spirit, a person, that sound is, if there be any value in induction, determined to. be the voice of the Spirit heard in the act of speaking. We therefore decide that voice is the true rendering. But this voice is what IS heard in the act, breathing; hence, breathing and speaking must be only two different names for the same act, with this distinction,—that breathing is figurative, speaking literal. So far, then, the verse reads as follows:—The Spirit breathes where it sees fit, and you hear its voice; the meaning of which is, the Spirit speaks where it sees fit, and you hear its voice, or what it says. But are we borne out by facts elsewhere to be collected in asserting of the Spirit that it speaks? We certainly are. The Savior says, ""When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, ho will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak." The foregoing conclusion, then, though fully justified by the verse itself, is thus corroborated by facts. But the Holy Spirit, in an unembodied form, never uttered a monosyllable in a human ear or communicated a thought to a human being. Only when in man does it speak to him. As the Word became incarnate to save, so the Spirit becomes embodied to enlighten. But when in man, it then speaks by him to him for him. But it has thus spoken only through the prophets and apostles. Hence, what we hear from the Spirit, and all we hear, is what it has spoken by them. Consequently, in construing the word speak, in the clause the Spirit speaks, we are not to limit it to the mere act of speaking, but to construe it largely as embracing all the prophets and apostles have said, or the entire word of God. Thus, likewise, are we to construe the word hear in the expression "you hear its voice."

Since, then, the Spirit speaks, what does it speak? The response is, The Truth. Hence it is called "the Spirit of truth." But truth is distributed into truth proper, and facts; and facts again into facts past or history, facts present, and facts future or prophecy. Hence, truth proper, and facts past, present, and future, as far as they involve the question of human salvation, constitute the grand themes on which the Spirit speaks to man. But it was not enough that the Spirit should speak: all it says must be authenticated. Hence its truths are confirmed by its facts; its facts again by the most complex yet simple, strange yet natural, compact yet extended, body of testimony known to or to be conceived by the human mind. It is what the Spirit has thus spoken and authenticated that man hears; and what he thus hears that enlightens him; and what thus enlightens him that he believes; and what he believes that melts him into pity, inspires him with hope, or moves him to action, as the case may be. There is no rescinding this law of nature or modifying this order of things.

Next, concerning the clause "but thou canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth," which we shall alter but slightly, thus:—but you know not whence it comes and whither it goes, which is a literal rendering of the original. This clause has been for ages past, and still is, the glory and the shame of the blind guide,—at once his subterfuge, his decisive argument, his joy, and his puzzle. Who, when the mystic doctor has been pressed on his favorite myth,—spiritual influence,—has not seen him close the argument with a triumphant air, thus?—"All, but thou canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth." Even Mr. Jeter, like "the silent owl on stealthy wing," floats into the gloom of the passage and there disappears. He merely quotes it, with no attempt to. explain it, leaving us in charity to hope he may know something about it, but with many a suspicion that he knows nothing. The clause occurs, slightly varied, three times, and but three, in the New Testament,—twice in the following extract:—"Jesus answered and said to them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true; for I know whence I came and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I came and whither I go." It is in the form here last occurring, with a slight variation, that the expression is applied to Nicodemus. The Savior, in the extract, applies it first to himself to express something which he alone knew:—"I know whence I came and whither I go." He then applies it adversatively to the audience to indicate that what he knew they did not know:—"but ye cannot tell whence I came and whither I go." Now, the form of the expression applied to the audience, and that applied to Nicodemus, mean precisely the same thing, with this difference:—the Savior applied it to the Jews to express something which they did not know of him, but which they should have known; to Nicodemus he applied it to express something which he did not know of the Spirit, and which at that time perhaps he could not know. But what was the thing which Nicodemus did not know? We reply, precisely what the clause says he did not know. But what was this? Simply, "whence it (the Spirit) comes and whither it goes." The whence and the whither, then, of the Spirit was all. But this is not the popular belief. The popular belief is, that the thing which Nicodemus did not know was, how the Spirit operates in regeneration. But the clause says nothing about how the Spirit operates in regeneration; not even whether it operates at all or not; positively nothing about its exerting any supposed secret influence therein. Hence these are not the things of which the clause says Nicodemus was ignorant. The whence and the whither of the Spirit, and no more, is what he did not know.

But, because Nicodemus did not then know the whence and the whither of the Spirit, does it follow that we are now ignorant of the manner in which the Spirit operates in conversion? Such conclusion has no dependence on such premise, and hence of course cannot follow from it. The fact that Nicodemus was ignorant of one thing is no reason why we should be supposed ignorant of a very different thing. Yet this is the popular mode of reasoning from the clause. That what the clause means may be the better understood, let us somewhat expand the whole passage to which it belongs by supposing the following train of thought to be passing through the mind of the Savior. The Spirit, Nicodemus, speaks to men where it sees they will heed its teachings; and you hear its instructions, which you must receive in order to be enlightened by it; but of the Spirit itself in other respects you are ignorant. You know not whence it comes and whither it goes. I have told you what it does, which you may understand; but of the Spirit itself you must remain in other respects ignorant until I am glorified. Then it will be given; when you will have no difficulty in understanding what it is not proper I should at present make known to you. The popular interpretation of this clause is worthy of notice. It is this:—You, the human family, cannot comprehend how the Spirit exerts its mysterious influences on the human heart in regeneration. It is as incomprehensible to you as the operations of the wind. But all the Savior says is this:—"Whence it (the Spirit) comes and whither it goes, you, Nicodemus, know not." How singularly does the speculation contrast with the "truth!

Finally, we come to the concluding clause of the verse:—"so is every one that is born of the Spirit." And first in regard to the particle rendered "so." The primary and usual meaning of this particle is "in this way." It occurs in the Greek New Testament upwards of two hundred times, and is generally rendered so, in the sense of in this way. Now, a chief rule in translating is this:—to render a term invariably by its primary and usual meaning where they agree, unless the sense positively forbids it. In the present instance, therefore, since the sense does not forbid it, we are compelled to abide by the rule, and hence to render the particle in this way. But in rendering it thus, the clause to which it belongs becomes elliptical, as may be perceived thus:—In this way is every one that is born of the Spirit. The sense is here clearly incomplete, hence we involuntarily ask, how? In order to complete the sense we must supply the ellipsis. But here we come in contact with another rule, which says, Avoid an ellipsis where the sense can be as well expressed without it. Here, then, by the force of one rule, we come in conflict with another; and, as both cannot stand, the question arises, Which must yield? In all such cases the rule which respects expressing the sense is held to yield to the one which respects determining the sense, the latter being necessary, the former merely discretionary. Hence we must abide by the rule which requires us to render the particle in this way, and supply the ellipsis. But in supplying an ellipsis we are not to act arbitrarily. Indeed, we are no more at liberty to act arbitrarily in supplying an ellipsis than we are in creating one. The omitted word must be such as occurs to the mind readily, and, when supplied, such as satisfies it by completing the sense in an easy, natural way. In the present instance we supply the ellipsis thus:—In this way is (born) every one that is born of the Spirit

Instantly the mind seems to accept this as correct. It gives completeness to the sense, and leaves us asking no questions. It imparts to us a feeling of satisfaction such only as we feel when the truth flashes full on the mind. We conclude, then, that it is correct.

Substituting, then, the word begotten, which is required by the sense, for the word born, the reasons for which we shall assign elsewhere, and the whole verse reads 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. How then is a person begotten by the Spirit? By hearing what it says or being enlightened by its Truth. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of Truth." "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God." Is not the conclusion overwhelming? With a few additional remarks we shall dismiss the passage. The clause, "you know not whence it comes and whither it goes," is to be limited to Nicodemus, or rather to the time preceding the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. For, since then, in no sense can it be said of Christians that they know not whence the Spirit comes and whither it goes. We possess information respecting it which Nicodemus did not possess, which enabled the Savior to say of him what cannot be truly said of us. In the outset of the present argument, we assumed that the verse in hand contains an explanation of the expression "born of the Spirit." In further confirmation of this, if further confirmation can be thought necessary. we once more request attention to the closing expression of the verse. This expression does not contain a reference to the new birth generally, but only to so much of it as consists in being begotten by the Spirit. Hence it does not say, in this way is every one born that is born again; but, in this way is every one begotten that is begotten by the Spirit. Being begotten by the Spirit, then, is strictly what it explains. It states the mode in which this is done,—to wit, by hearing or believing what the Spirit says. And how easily and naturally does the whole verse develop itself into this conclusion! Each step in the investigation rests on the firmest basis; every position is determined by some simple and obvious rule in sacred criticism; and the conclusion accords strictly with the other conclusions already arrived at in this chapter from other portions of Holy Writ.

Section XI. Our tenth argument is, that conviction of the sinner, which is peculiarly the work of the Spirit, and which may be considered as but another name for conversion in the view ice are now taking of it, can be effected in no way known to the human mind except by the Truth. As a partial basis for this argument we cite the following scriptures:—"Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the Comforter will not come to you: but if I depart I will send him to you. And when he is come he will reprove (convince, it should have been) the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." Again, "If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him." From these scriptures it is clear, first, that to convince the world is the peculiar work of the Spirit. From this work, we may add, it has never been absent a moment from the day on which it descended to commence it, the day of Pentecost, to the present. Indeed, conviction seems to be as peculiarly the work of the Spirit as expiation was of the Son; nor can we any more conceive of the Spirit as now absent from its work than of the Son as absent when he accomplished his. And further, as the Son, though the author of redemption, effects it through agents and other means appointed by him thereto,—the way which to him seems best,—so the Spirit, though the author of conviction, effects it, not as many ill-taught and superstitious people suppose, by an immediate contact of Spirit with spirit, but through the Truth,—the way which to it seems best.

There are some curious illustrations in the Acts of the Apostles of the fact that conviction is the especial work of the Spirit, and also of that singular sentence, the Spirit breathes where it sees fit. We cite the following:—"Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." Again, "The Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." And again, "Now, when they had gone through Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia, after they wore come to Mysia they essayed to go into Bithynia: but theSpirit suffered them not." From these extracts it seems evident,—1st, that, in carrying 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; 3d, that the Spirit breathed, or made known the Truth, not unconditionally everywhere, but only where it saw fit to make it known,—where, in other words, it saw that the Truth would be received. But it is clear, second, that the world—i.e. the unconverted part of it, or sinners—cannot receive the Spirit; that is, that the Spirit cannot enter into sinners; 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 conviction,—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 something said or conceived of is true. And this would make conviction in nothing distinguishable from belief. Nor can this be thought incorrect if we only bear in mind that the Apostle Paul, in denying belief in regard to the past or the unseen, defines it to be conviction, though unfortunately conviction is not the word we have in the common version. Indeed, when we say we firmly believe a thing to be true,—say that Christ arose from the dead,—and we are convinced that it is true, it is impossible 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 wit: the thing of which, we are to be convinced, which must be expressed 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 are absolutely indebted to the Spirit. For, however it may have been suggested by the Savior and confessed by the apostles, long since would it have perished from the memory of the world, but for the record of it which we owe to the Spirit. How true it is that none can say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Spirit! But men could no more have believed this truth without the evidence on which it rests than have invented both the truth itself and its evidence. 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 evidence in quantity and in kind on which it rests. Now, on our part, this thing and this evidence must be voluntarily attended to; and, if so, conviction will as inevitably 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: conviction 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 known 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 referred to. The Savior had said to the disciples, in speaking of the Comforter, "If 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, by 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 manners made it a fit emblem of the Spirit when descending upon the Prince of peace. But the apostles were now to go forth on a fiery mission, were now to engage in a fierce conflict, in which the tongue was to be the great offensive instrument, and the Truth the power. It was in fine taste, therefore, at the outset, to signify all this in tongues of flame. The hundred and twenty were all filled with the Spirit, and began to speak in different tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. This being noised abroad, the people ran together and were greatly perplexed. Some ventured solutions, others wondered, others mocked. At this juncture the Apostle Peter arose and commenced 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 pertinency of its proofs, its regularity and grand conclusion. 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:—"Now, when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Let us now note the parties present, together with their relative positions. First, then, the audience was present, and giving attention. Will Mr. Jeter inform us why? He maintains that God", by a "gracious, inward, efficacious influence of his Spirit," secures the attention of the sinner. Will he point us either to the passage or the fact, in the present case, which teaches it? Certainly not. The report had brought the people together, and what they heard and saw secured their attention. 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 speaking into the hearts of the people, and thus touching them into life. Hence, when the people heard, they were pierced to the heart, or convinced. To what, now, is this conviction attributable? To what the audience heard simply? or to what they heard and to an "influence distinct from and above the Truth"? The latter is Mr. Jeter’s position; the former, ours. The case may be stated thus:—We have an effect—conviction—to account for: and how shall we do it? Shall we ascribe it to the one cause, the Truth, known to be present and acting, and which, therefore, need not be proved? or shall we ascribe it to the Truth, and to another cause, whose very existence as a cause is not known, and whose presence it is hence impossible to prove? Surely none can doubt. When they heard this they were pierced to the heart. Now, what, we ask, in reason’s name, pierced them, save the Truth which they heard? But Mr. Jeter thinks we should adopt a different conclusion. 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 superstition 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 without evidence, and to that enviable penetration which can detect the presence of a cause where no cause exists.

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 ascertaining 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 conclusion 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 conclusion as they lead to. In this case, if the conclusion arrived at, and the conclusion assumed to be already established, are the same, the presumption is that the conclusion assumed to be already established is true. The conclusion which we shall now assume to be established is that in conversion the Spirit operates through the Truth only. Now, what aid, whether we have one or the other of the preceding objects in view, does the case in hand lend to this conclusion? We shall see. The eunuch, on his way to Ethiopia, was reading the book 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, "except 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. Now, however, it was speaking to the eunuch, but speaking only through Philip; and so it continued till conviction was effected. All, then, that was said to the eunuch, the Spirit said, but said it through Philip; all that the eunuch learned, he learned from the Spirit, but learned it through Philip; and all that the eunuch felt, the Spirit caused him to feel, but by what it said. And this is a case of conversion.

First, then, to what conclusion does it lead? Clearly to the following:—1. That the Spirit operated on the eunuch. 2. That it operated through the Truth. 3. That it operated in no other way; since no other way is either named or hinted at.

Second—but on inspection the 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. But where is the evidence that the Spirit exerted on 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 represents himself as having begotten or converted the Corinthians by the gospel; and that, since the gospel in its ordinary acceptation does not include an influence distinct from and above itself, therefore the gospel is the sole influence of conversion. The ground on which this 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 conversion is in all cases the same, the trait with which we should expect to be most struck would be their substantial agreement amidst different circumstances. Accordingly, it is curious to note that in every case of conversion, no matter what the surrounding circumstances may have been, the first thing done was the presentation of the Truth; that this was presented by the Spirit through some inspired teacher and confirmed; that this Truth is then represented as being heard, believed, received, or rejected; and that then conversion ensued or not, just as the Truth was received or rejected. But in no case have we the slightest evidence—not even a hint—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 case? The circumstance is more than suspicious. Now, what the word spoken was to the people then converted, the word written is to us of the present age. As it was then the sole influence of conversion, circumstances 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 powerful,—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 distinct 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 by many influences, yet have you not many fathers, nor have you been converted by many influences; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. The gospel then, or the Truth, we again conclude, is the influence of conversion.

Section XV. Our fourteenth and last argument is, that the only known or determinate cause of Lydia’s conversion was the Truth which 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 heart? This question answered, all else is simple. Now, 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 anything more, means to influence 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. Now, 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, by what means? Mr. Jeter thinks he influenced Lydia to obey by a "gracious, inward, efficacious influence of his Spirit." Doubtless the influence, whatever it was, was a very gracious one, for we can conceive of no other; quite inward, too, since it affected the woman’s heart; very efficacious, also, since it induced her to obey; and very certain that it was of the Spirit, but very uncertain whether it differed from the Truth, or was anything more than the Truth. But on what ground does Mr. Jeter suppose the influence 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 immense 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 cer­tainly better to ascribe the fact to the causes known to be present and acting, than to such as are purely imaginary.

Here, now, we close the defense of our proposition, and, from all the facts, premises, and reasonings thereon, now before us, feel it to be overwhelmingly established, 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 Writ, corroborated by the simplest and most transparent reasonings, can it yet be false? It is at variance with no incident in the life of the Savior, with none in the history of the apostles. In order to establish it the capacity of no word has been overtaxed, no clause forced to bear a reluctant testimony, no sentence unnaturally construed, nor any verse interpreted otherwise than in harmony with the long-established and simplest laws of human speech. We therefore commit it to the world, in the profound belief that all who will sincerely and thoroughly examine the grounds on which it rests will pronounce it true, certainly true.