CE-05-Chapter V.

ChapterV.

"THE IDENTITY OF REGENERATION, CONVERSION, AND BAPTISM."

Section I.

SUCH is Mr. Jeter’s caption to some twenty-five pages of matter curious and empirical indeed. Here his peculiar genius displays itself to admiration. He sports like a giant with phantoms of his own creating, and plays with the freedom of a boy with Mr. Campbell’s views, so "obscure, variable, and contradictory." His great argument, in the mastery of which not even the infidel himself shall dispute the palm with Mr. Jeter, is here employed with its finest effect. Truth and falsehood, vice and virtue, is and is not, are not more contradictory than the views of Mr. Campbell! This has been for ages past, and still is, the chief ground on which the infidel has disputed the truth of Christianity. The Bible, he affirms, is contradictory, therefore it is false. And Mr. Campbell’s views are contradictory, affirms Mr. Jeter, and hence must be false. With a single distinction the analogy is complete:—the infidel may err, but not so Mr. Jeter! Of all the arguments which can be urged against any cause, this, we believe, is, in the opinion of the best judges, deemed the feeblest. And yet extract this argument, together with all that rests on it, from Mr. Jeter’s book, and the shrunken thing will resemble nothing so much as an Egyptian mummy. Of these feigned contradictions we shall take no notice.

Before proceeding to the main subject of this chapter, we have first a few extracts to present from what Mr. Jeter has written under the preceding caption, on which a few remarks may be offered, in order to abbreviate our future labors and to correct some errors into which he—most innocently, no doubt—has fallen.

We regret that we cannot be obliged to Mr. Jeter for his "admission." Had it been made for Mr. Campbell’s sake, we might have been so; but such was not the case. It was made, not to do Mr. Campbell justice, but to avoid a somewhat less sore event to Mr. Jeter himself,—that of being convicted of willful falsehood. He knew that the most partial and superficial reader of Mr. Campbell’s writings could contradict him without this admission; hence, he made it to save himself,—for nothing else. But Mr. Campbell "has written equivocally—perhaps it would be better to say obscurely—on the necessity of a moral change before baptism."

Candidly, we are grieved at this. We are willing to review Mr. Jeter severely,—nay, even bitterly, when he merits it, as he not seldom does,—but neither unjustly nor discourteously. But how, within any of these limits, to describe what he has here said, without the appearance of being rude, we confess we know not. It is to be regretted that an author whose pedigree points to an American origin should still by his speech so often betray a Cretan extraction. In writing near half a hundred volumes and thousands of pages, it would surely be a miracle had Mr. Campbell never penned an obscure or equivocal sentence. But is an equivocal or obscure sentence here and there only, a just ground on which to prefer a charge of writing equivocally or obscurely on a point which lies nearest the writer’s heart? Are all Mr. Campbell’s writings equivocal or obscure on the necessity of a moral change before baptism? Alas for the weakness and corruption of the human heart! If, it may truly be said, there is any one subject on which Mr. Campbell has shed the whole splendor of his peculiar eloquence, it is the necessity—the absolute necessity—of a change, a moral change, a spiritual change, a deep, vital, pervading change of the whole inner man, preparatory to baptism. Of all the subjects on which he has ever written, this appears to be that on which he is most sensitive, most cautious. He has described it and insisted on the necessity of it times innumerable, and in a style the most varied, pointed, and luminous. Who, then, we ask, that is unwilling to be recreant to the truth, can charge him with writing either equivocally or obscurely on the subject? Is there no moral change implied in belief? none in repentance? and does not Mr. Campbell insist that these shall precede baptism? On some subjects we may brook a charge which is both false and injurious to us as a people; but Mr. Jeter must learn that this subject is not one of them.

We presume that Mr. Jeter has, in this extract, come as near doing Mr. Campbell justice as he has ever come doing any opponent justice; and he is far from doing him justice. He certainly, however, does Mr. Campbell the justice to acquit him of holding the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, for which we thank him sincerely and heartily. Baptismal regeneration, as he justly states, denotes, as popularly understood, a moral change—i.e. a change of the inner man—effected by baptism. This doctrine Mr. Campbell eschews from his whole heart. He has never penned even one sentence which, except by the most dishonest artifice, can be shown even to look towards the doctrine. He ascribes to baptism no value whatever except as a condition of remission, or (which is hardly a different thing) as a part of the new birth; but neither as a condition of remission nor as a part of the new birth does he ascribe to it any moral effect on the heart or the soul. Even as a part of the new birth it is a part to which no moral effect (effect on the inner man) can be ascribed. Indeed, all that is moral, strictly so called, in the new birth, precedes baptism, and necessarily so. True, as a condition of remission or as a part of the new birth, Mr. Campbell ascribes to baptism an immense value; but the value "which he ascribes to it consists in no power which it has to produce any moral effect or change in the heart or the soul, but solely in its being appointed, jointly with other conditions, for remission.

But, while acquitting Mr. Campbell of holding, or rather teaching, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, Mr. Jeter had still to do so in such a manner as to leave the mind half suspicious that he may still be tinctured with the doctrine. "Some things [we repeat what he says] which Mr. ’Campbell has written, as we have seen, seem to imply this doctrine; and he has exposed himself to the suspicion of holding it, by quoting its advocates in support of his peculiar views." This is not manly. Why, if Mr. Jeter really wished to acquit Mr. Campbell of the charge fully, did he not do it like a man, in one clear, broad sentence, unaccompanied by any suspicion-breeding qualifications? He acquits him because he knows him to be not guilty, and yet in such a way as to leave the impression that after all he may not be quite innocent. But "what he [Mr. Campbell] clearly maintains is, not that we are regenerated by baptism, but that baptism is itself regeneration, and the only personal regeneration."

What Mr. Campbell clearly maintains is,—1st, that regeneration and the new birth are identical; 2d, that the new birth consists of two parts,—to wit: being begotten, or quickened, by the Spirit, and being baptized; and 3d, that, therefore, baptism is not itself regeneration, 1:e. the whole of it. But because baptism, as a part, and especially as the last part, of regeneration, implies the other and preceding part, Mr. Campbell" sometimes calls it regeneration, precisely as faith sometimes stands for the whole gospel, in which, however, it is merely a single item. In this sense, but in no other, does he maintain that baptism is itself regeneration.

Plainly, Mr. Jeter means to say, that Mr. Campbell seems to teach that immersion changes the believer’s heart. Did not his conscience smite him while penning this? If not, he need never fear it in time to come while sin­ning. He may console himself with the reflection that he enjoys immunity from the punishment of at least one great foe to injustice and crime. But to an upright mind Mr. Campbell seems to teach no such doctrine as Mr. Jeter ascribes to him. Mr. Campbell certainly means to teach that there is a distinction between the sprinkling of an infant and the immersion of a believer. But what is it? Has he merely implied it and left it to be inferred? No. He distinctly expresses it. His language is, "not so a believer, immersed as a volunteer in obedience of the gospel. He has put on Christ." Sprinkling the babe does it no good, but not so the immersion of the believer. By it he puts on Christ. This is the distinction, and the only one, which Mr. Campbell even, seems to teach, except by a construction which converts truth into falsehood, and against which the imperfections of human speech afford no protection.

Section II. But what is the meaning of the terms Regeneration and Conversion, and to what extent, or in what sense, if any, are they identical with baptism? To this question the present is not the place to reply fully. This can be better done in the chapter on remission of sins. Indeed, after what has now been said, neither a very full nor a very formal reply can be deemed necessary. For the present, therefore, we shall be content with submitting merely such distinctions and other considerations as the nature of the case seems here to require and as can with propriety be now introduced. As we promised in a preceding chapter to assign the reasons elsewhere for there substituting the term "begotten" for the term "born," we shall now commence by inquiring what is the only true and proper rendering of the original word rendered "born" in the phrase "born of God." Certainly it is to be rendered either by the term "begotten" or "born," but the question is, by which? Mr. Jeter thinks it may be rendered indifferently by either, according to the taste of the translator. But in this he is unquestionably wrong. The principle which, in translating, takes precedence of all others, where it can be applied, is this:—where a doubt exists as to what English word we are to translate a term in the original by, select a case in which no doubt can exist, and render by the proper word; then, in every other case where this same original word occurs, render by this same English word, unless the sense forbids it. This is perhaps the most important rule known to the science of interpretation, and, happily for the present question, applies, and consequently settles it forever.

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Now, the question is, shall the word born be here retained, or shall it give place to the word begotten? In order to settle this question, the rule requires that we shall find a case in which this same original word occurs, but in which no doubt can exist as to what English word it is to be translated by. Let us then try the next clause:—"and every one that loveth him that—begat. " Here it is impossible to employ the word born; and equally impossible to employ any other word but the word begat. This, then, is a case in which no doubt can exist. Hence, in every case where this same original word occurs, it is to be rendered by begat or begotten, unless the sense forbids it. Let us now, using this term, render, according to the rule, the entire verse from which these clauses are taken. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. Here, now, by the force of the rule, we produce a rendering which is not only correct but uniform,—a circumstance constantly aimed at in every good translation.

It may now be proper to cite a passage or two in which, although the same original word occurs, neither begat nor begotten can be used, because the sense forbids it. 1. "By faith, Moses when he was born was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child." Here it is obvious at a glance that the term begotten cannot be used. 2. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Here again the sense requires born; because to say except a man be begotten of water, is nonsense. For these reasons we ventured to substitute the term begotten for the term born, in John 3:8, thus:—The Spirit breathes where it sees fit, and you hear its voice; but you know not whence it comes and whither it goes: in this way is (begotten) every one that is begotten by the Spirit. But in reply to this it may be asked, why not make a passage in which the original word has to be rendered born, as in the two last instances, the basis of our criti­cism, and compel the other passages to conform to it? We answer, where a term is used in two senses, a wider and a narrower, as is the case with the term now in hand, the rule applies to the term first in its narrower sense; since it is of necessity that the term must have its narrower sense, though not that it shall have its wider. It is hardly necessary to add that born is a term of wider signification than begat. For this reason, therefore, the rule must be applied as in the preceding instances. But now comes the great material question, Does the phrase begotten by the Spirit or begotten of God—for they are identical in sense—express the whole of the new birth? In other words, does the new birth consist in being begotten by the Spirit, and in nothing else, even in part? Mr. Jeter affirms that it does: we deny it. This constitutes the difference between us. The new birth consists in being born of water and of the Spirit. At least, so taught the Savior:—"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." That to be born of water and of the Spirit is to be born again, no honest man acquainted with the subject ever yet denied. And this is regeneration. Hence, regeneration consists not in being born of water alone, nor yet in being begotten by the Spirit alone, but in the two jointly and inseparably,—is complete in neither, but only in them both. This is the doctrine for which we contend. In the order of events, it is true, being begotten by the Spirit precedes being born of water, and never succeeds it. As that does not complete the new birth without this, so this without that is nothing. So far, then, as regeneration consists in being born of water, so far it and baptism are identical; no further. So much, then, for the identity of regeneration and baptism.

Section III.

Next in regard to the word conversion. All we have to say on this term shall consist in a few remarks on the following passages:—1. "Wherefore my sentence is, that ye trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned to God." The word here rendered "are turned" is the word which in other places is rendered convert, conversion, &c. It was here applied to the first Gentile converts to Christianity, and comprehended all that made the difference between the alien and the baptized person, and hence, of course, baptism itself. Since, therefore, it applied to the whole of a process of which baptism is a part, conversion and baptism must, to a certain extent at least, be identical. Now, the question is, to what extent? Or, putting the question in another form, Did the word conversion apply equally to all parts of the process of which baptism is a part, or is there not evidence that it applied more particularly to one part than to any other, and, if so, to which part? In order to answer this question, we shall now present the second passage, to wit:—"Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." Now, we shall assume that the persons here addressed were believers,—a thing which need not be done, since Mr. Jeter concedes it. The following is his language, or, rather, view of the passage:—"’Repent,’ said he, (Peter,) change your minds, ’and be converted, reform your lives, (and these exercises clearly imply faith,) ’that your sins may be blotted out.’" The word conversion, then, did not, in this case, denote belief, since it was believers who were commanded to be converted. Neither did it denote repentance, since this is denoted by the appropriate term. What, then, did it denote? After belief and repentance, what remains? Baptism only. Baptism, then, we conclude, was that part of the whole process of turning to God, which the word conversion more especially applied to; hence to this extent, and in this sense, but in no other, conversion and baptism are identical.

This, however, we wish distinctly to state, is a point upon which we, as a people, have never laid the slightest stress. Seldom, in a long career, has Mr. Campbell mentioned it; and then never to insist on it as a matter of half the moment his enemies represent it as being. And, considering the offence it has given to certain weak-minded people, it would, perhaps, have been better had it never been mentioned at all.