CE-07-Chapter VII.

ChapterVII.

REMISSION OF SINS.

Section I. THE subjects heretofore treated of are important certainly, but the present one is peculiarly so. Indeed, those subjects derive their value from this. Hence, no effort should be spared to understand it, nor any method be left untried which is likely to aid us in forming accurate scriptural conceptions of it. The absorbing interest of the subject, and the conflicting opinions which exist respecting it, should make us patient in the collection of such facts as seem most likely to lead to sound decisions concerning it, as well as careful in combining those facts and just in deducing from them no conclusion which they do not warrant. From the mind and from the heart every preference for any view of the subject, which it is not clearly the intention of our heavenly Father we should entertain, should be banished completely and forever. Upon this subject, at least, let the sincere love of the truth direct our thoughts. In the discussion of this subject Mr. Jeter consumes some sixty-nine pages of his book. Perhaps we should suppose him sincere. It is not impossible he may be so. But, candidly, this part of his book affords no feeble evidence that the love of the truth dwells not in his heart. If, throughout the whole chapter, he was not struggling against the clear convictions of his conscience, he has at least shown that he was struggling against the almost overpowering light of the Truth. We stoop not to do him injustice, but we know not the book, making the slightest pretension to truth, from which can be extracted a more shameful perversion of it than is contained in this inflated performance. Throughout the whole piece he labors to make it appear that he is saying something important; hence its redundancy of silly epithets. It teems with trickery and special pleading, and perks its commonplace sayings in our face on every page. There is something about it so false, haggled, and paltry, as to leave the mind impressed with no feelings but mingled pity and disgust. Upon the ground of merit, whether consisting in defensive arguments or refutatory strength, we should never have lifted a pen over this wretched chapter. But we shall be expected to notice it, and, accordingly, shall do so. We make it the occasion of restating our own views, which will exhaust its value to the world. In the present chapter we shall assume that sins during the reign of Christ are remitted according to a uniform plan; or, in other words, that the conditions on which they are remitted are precisely the same in every case. Now, the question is, what is that plan, or what those conditions? When we assume that these conditions are the same in every case, let us be understood. We speak not of the innocent babe, the irresponsible idiot, or untaught heathen. We speak of those only who have attained to years of accountability, and to whom the redemption which is in Christ Jesus has been tendered. We are now, in other words, to discuss the law of remission, not the question, Are there exceptions to it? to determine the grounds on which God will forgive the responsible, not those on which he saves the irresponsible; to ascertain the plan according to which he will save the enlightened, not that according to which he saves the unenlightened.

Mr. Jeter maintains that a person’s sins are remitted the instant in which he becomes a penitent believer, and, consequently, before and without baptism. From this we dissent.

We maintain that the sinner, though a believer, is still required to repent and be baptized in order to the remission of his sins, and, consequently, that they are not remitted before and without baptism,

We shall now proceed to the defense of this position; after which, we shall notice such of Mr. Jeter’s objections to it as may be deemed, on any ground, worthy of notice. We shall then notice his defense of his own position. The passage on which we base our first argument is the following:—"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." That the salvation here spoken of is that primary salvation which consists in the remission of sins, we hold to be simply certain. The Savior directs the apostles to go and preach the gospel to every creature. This is the salvation which occurs first and immediately after the preaching; hence, there is no salvation which precedes this, nor any sense in which, previous to it, the term salvation will apply. This is the first, and is so called because it consists in the remission of sing. If any one doubts this, let him attempt to form to himself the conception of some preceding salvation; let him state in what it consists, then in what this consists, if not in the remission of sins; then let him make the effort to establish by the word of God the reality of such preceding salvation, and he will not be long in discovering—if honest—his error. Nor can it fail to strike any one that this salvation is conditional, and that the conditions are named in the passage. These conditions are not to be regarded in the light of causes, but as conditions strictly. Still, let no one suppose, because they are conditions, that they are not essential to whatever is made dependent on them. A condition may be as absolutely essential to whatever is dependent on it as though it were a cause in the highest sense of the word. There is this distinction:—the connection between a cause and its effect is necessary; that is, it exists in the very nature of things; but the connection between a condition and whatever depends on it is not necessary, but arbitrary. It exists at the will, or by the appointment, of him who prescribes the condition. Hence, conditions have no power to produce, or merit to procure, that which depends on them. It is in all cases conferred as a gratuity or favor. Compliance with conditions, on the ground that there is merit in it, can oblige the Savior to confer no blessing. Though he has prescribed the conditions, and they are complied with, still, the blessing conferred is a matter of grace or mercy. But, where he has promised to confer such blessing, it will as certainly be conferred, where the prescribed conditions are complied with, as though the conditions were absolute causes and the blessing an effect certain to follow. What is here said presents us with the true view and suggests the real value of the conditions named in the passage.

Two questions here present themselves,—both easily answered, to-be- sure,—the first respecting the number of these conditions, the second, what they are. The first of these questions may be deemed by some a matter of no moment. From such a view we differ. Not that we think anything of moment depends on the mere circumstance of these conditions being many or few. There exists a far higher reason than this for determining their number. That reason we shall embody in the form of a rule, thus:—Where salvation is promised to a person, or affirmed of Mm, on certain named conditions, though it may depend on more conditions than those named, it can never depend, on less. To this rule there is not, we affirm, an exception in the Bible. We boldly challenge Mr. Jeter to produce even one, or to show that the rule in any case affirms falsely and is hence unsound. Unless he can do this, the controversy between him and us in regard to the value of baptism is at an end.

Now, that the passage in hand contains two, and but two, conditions, is obvious even to the eye. These conditions are belief and baptism. The Savior promises salvation to, or affirms it of, him who complies with these conditions. This is absolutely certain. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Hence, unless the foregoing rule can be shown to be unsound, (which we predict will not be shown,) it follows that, although salvation—or, which is the same thing, remission of sins —may depend on more than belief and baptism, the two named conditions, it can never depend on less. And, when we say it can never depend on less, we beg that our previous limitation will be borne in mind. We speak of the responsible to whom the gospel is preached, and of them alone. Here now is an argument, which we believe to be true in its premises and correct in its construction, with its conclusion regularly drawn, to which we invite the special attention of Mr. Jeter. We request of him that he will come manfully and fairly forward and join issue with us over this argument; that he will show that its premises are false, its construction defective, or its conclusion not fairly drawn. This much we have a right to demand, and we do demand it in the name of truth and reason. Should he fail to comply, he confesses his incompetency to the task, and abandons the question at issue in our favor. Nor can we admit, much as Mr. Jeter is inclined to cavil at it, that salvation depends on one of these conditions more than on the other. The very form of expression which creates the dependence makes salvation depend on the two conditions jointly and on each equally. The present, moreover, is the passage which creates this joint dependence. Hence, no passage spoken previously to it can have the least effect in weakening it, certainly none in showing that it does not exist; and, since none spoken subsequently in the least affects it, it follows that the dependence once established must be considered as established forever.

Under what circumstances, if any, the Savior will void these conditions, or in what cases, if at all, he will void one but not the other, are questions we shall leave the curious to decide.

But, for the sake of those whose convictions rest not so much on argument as on simple, transparent statements, it may be proper to somewhat amplify the passage. Of whom, then, does it say, he shall be saved? Clearly, of him who believes and is baptized. Of him who believes but is not baptized, it says nothing; neither of him who is baptized but does not believe, does it say anything. Of him alone who believes and is baptized does it say anything; but of him it does say he shall be saved. The instant he believes and is baptized, all the passage says is true of him, but not an instant before. The passage directs the apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Out of the whole number preached to, it selects a particular class, of each of whom it says, he shall be saved, rejecting all the rest. What now makes the difference between the class selected and the class rejected? For what especial reason is a preference shown? Bach one of the class selected believes and is baptized. This makes the difference. No matter how much, or how little, or what, short of this, the class rejected may do, of it salvation is not affirmed. The class selected believes and is baptized; therefore it is saved.

We shall now subjoin, and briefly examine, a passage which is thought to justify a very different conclusion from that now arrived at; to wit:—"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." On this passage Mr. Jeter and all that class of sophists to which he belongs lay great stress. Their argument on it is briefly this:—He that believes on the Son has in him, the instant in which he does so, the principle or germ of eternal life, and is therefore to be considered forgiven. If by this it is meant that belief is the principle or germ of eternal life, we shall grant it to be correct, but still deny that he who simply believes is, on that ground alone, forgiven. But if it is meant that the principle or germ of eternal life is something else besides belief,—which implies remission,—we utterly deny that the passage teaches the doctrine.

But, without being more specific, let us grant that the passage affirms remission, or what implies it, of him who believes; and more than this it certainly does not affirm. Remission of sins, then, according to the rule previously stated, can never depend on less than belief, —the named condition,—though it may depend on more. Now, it will readily be conceded that it can never depend on less; but may it depend on more? Even Mr. Jeter concedes not only that it may depend on more, but that it actually does,—namely, on repentance. And, in so doing, he concedes what proves the utter annihilation of the sole ground on which his doctrine of remission rests. For, if remission may depend on more than belief,—the only condition named in the passage,—the question arises, On how much more? When Mr. Jeter says, on repentance only, this is an arbitrary limitation. We cannot admit this to be the answer to the question, How much more? But, according to the rule, remission cannot depend on less than both belief and baptism,—the conditions named in the previous passage; whereas, both according to the rule and Mr. Jeter’s concession, it may depend on more than belief,—the only condition named in the present passage. Now, one thing will be granted,—that the passages are reconcilable. When, then, we concede that remission of sins may depend on more than belief,—the sole condition named in the present passage,—must we not concede at least as much as is contained within the narrowest limits of the previous passage? If not, the passages are not reconcilable, since they teach that remission of sins depends not on one and the same set of conditions, but on two different sets; which, again, is contrary to the hypothesis that the conditions are the same in all cases. Hence, since baptism is the only condition contained within these limits which is not named in the present passage, it follows that we are bound to concede baptism to be necessary to salvation or remission. In order to sustain Mr. Jeter’s position that remission of sins depends on belief and repentance alone, one of these passages must be so construed as to imply a condition which it does not name; but, in order to oppose our position, the other must be so construed as either to exclude, or render null, a condition which it does name. How amiable must that complacency be which blinds a man to nothing so much as his folly, and forbids no blush but that which inconsistency prompts!

But, granting that he who believes is, in the instant in which he does so, saved: what follows? He that believes and is baptized shall be—what? Not saved, surely; for he is already saved in the exact sense in which the passage says, he shall be saved. Can we say of an event which is past, and which can never happen but once, that it shall be? Is this the language of truth? We see not the distinction between avowed infidelity and that system of religion which compels the Bible to falsify itself. But Mr. Jeter’s exposition of the passage on which our first argument is based is worthy to be repeated. It is contained in the following extract:—"The assurance that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved does by no means warrant the conclusion that remission of sins does not precede baptism. There is perfect accordance between this promise and the plain, literal declaration of Jesus that ’he that believeth on the Son is not condemned.’ Certainly, if he that believes on the Son is not condemned, he who not only believes in the Son, but, in submission to his authority, is baptized, is not condemned."

If he that believes on the Son is not condemned, certainly he that believes and is baptized is not condemned; or, plainly, he that is not condemned is not condemned! Such is the logic of Mr. Jeter. It may comport with his sense of propriety to trifle thus with solemn things, but in the act he confesses his inability to meet the issue between him and us. No one is deceived into the belief that this is either argument or criticism, or anything more than a shallow artifice adopted to evade the force of an unanswerable position. But "the assurance that he that believes and is baptized shall be saved does by no means warrant the con­clusion that remission of sins does not precede baptism." In other words, a divine promise that a person, on compliance with certain named conditions, shall receive a stipulated blessing, by no means warrants the conclusion that the reception of the blessing does not precede the compliance! Thus foolishly argues our opponent. But Mr. Jeter, after all, compliments the position he so vainly seeks to refute, by the very disposition he makes of this passage. His evasive and quibbling treatment of it is a virtual acknowledgment that the argument which we, as a people, base upon it, is, by him at least, wholly unanswerable. He shrunk from a manful encounter of that argument, and in the deed confessed it to be invincible. To omit all notice of the passage he knew would be highly impolitic, and yet in treating it he touched it with a delicacy which nothing save his sense of utter incompetency could create. Had Mr.! Jeter felt himself able to wrest the passage from our hands, or to show that the use we make of it is illegitimate, he is not the man to let the occasion slip. In that event nothing short of a score of pages could have exhausted his revelry or afforded vent for his exultant feelings. His array of exclamation-points would have exhausted the printer’s stock on hand, his ordinals would have mounted rapidly up to tenthly, and the te deum to Orthodoxy would have been repeated in tones unusually sweet; but, alas, eleven lines scant is all the space Mr. Jeter could afford to devote to the passage! But what of the passage "he that believeth on the Son is not condemned"?

1st. It is to be explained precisely as we have already explained the passage, "he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."

2d. Since the passage was spoken long before baptism was instituted, and without any reference to it, it can hence have no power to invalidate the design of an institution then future. But, even granting that, when the passage was spoken, remission of sins depended strictly on belief alone, it would only follow that in subsequently prescribing the conditions of remission the Savior determined that it should depend no longer on belief alone, but on belief and something more.

3d. Where two statutes exist,—a former and a latter, both on the same subject,—the latter is always held to be the law; and, if any difference exists between them, the latter stands, setting aside the former precisely to the extent of the difference. And the rule holds true of the divine no less than of the civil law. Suppose, then, "he that believeth on the Son is not condemned" to be the former statute, (which is strictly true,) and "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" to be the latter: which stands as the law of the Savior upon the subject of salvation? None can mistake the correct reply.

Section II. The passage on which we found our second argument is the following:—"Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,"

Without some qualification it is not correct to say of one passage of Scripture that it is more important than another. But it is certainly true of some passages that they are more important than others in the decision of certain questions, their importance in such cases depending on their pertinency to the question in hand and their force in deciding it. Accordingly, in deciding the terms upon which the remission of sins is to be enjoyed, no more important passage can be adduced than the one now in hand. It speaks to the question of remission intentionally, clearly, decisively. Had we not another passage in the Bible upon the subject, we should still insist that this passage alone forever fixes the value of baptism by the establishment of an inseparable connection between it and remission of sins. We fear not to go before the world and stake the entire issue between Mr. Jeter and us, respecting the design of baptism, upon this single passage. We emphasize its value in the present controversy and solicit for it especial attention.

Now, we affirm that this passage teaches that baptism with repentance is for—that is, is necessary to—remission of sins; that it makes remission depend on baptism in precisely the same sense in which it makes it depend on repentance; and that a connection is thus established between them of a nature so permanent that remission is in all cases (previous exceptions aside) consequent on baptism and never precedes it.

It will not be denied that the connection here contended for is possible. It is certainly competent for our heavenly Father to make remission depend on baptism in the most absolute sense. Since, then, the connection is not impossible, the question. Does it exist? is fairly open for discussion; and, since it is a question of fact, it is susceptible of proof precisely as is any other question of fact in the Bible. But let it be determined,—1st, whether the form of speech employed to express this connection, supposing it to exist, is, in the judgment of critics, adequate to that purpose; 2d, whether it is a form of speech well established or of frequent occurrence in the New Testament. The form of speech to which we refer is the use of the Greek particle eis (ise) to express that an act or acts is performed for—i.e. in order to—some end or object; and the presence of an accusative case to express what that end or object is. But is this form of speech adequate to this purpose? That it is so, we shall consider established by the following testimonies:—

The literal, or, rather, primary, meaning of eis, it is proper to state, is into, a meaning confined chiefly to verbs of motion,—the motion being directed into something or some place. But the sense of the passage now in hand forbids this meaning For, first, if the particle be taken literally, the passage is not intelligible, or, at best, has a very uncertain meaning. Second, it belongs to a class of passages in which the particle signifies not into, but in order to, expressing the end or object for which something is done. Evidence for what is here said will be furnished in the course of the present argument. But is this form of speech of frequent occurrence or well established in the New Testament? That it is so, we shall now proceed to exemplify by actual instances. Of each of those we shall quote no more than will be necessary; and, in order to indicate the exact meaning of the particle, we shall, in each case, translate it, together with a few of the words which immediately follow it. Let the reader bear in mind that what we are now at is, to show that eis is employed to express the design of an act or that for which it is performed.

These, though only a few from a large number of passages all belonging to the same class, are quite sufficient to show that this is a common and well-established form of speech in the New Testament. But does the passage now in hand belong to this class? We reply, It does; and that this is shown by a circumstance which renders it absolutely certain. In order to present the most distinct view of this circumstance, and at the same time to exhibit the dependent clauses of the passage in immediate connection with one another, let us omit, first, the clause "in the name of Jesus Christ," when the passage (leaving the particle untranslated) will read thus:—Repent and be baptized, every one of you, eis remission of sins. Next, let us transpose the first two clauses of the passage, when it will stand thus:—Every one of you repent and be baptized eis remission of sins. Last, let us omit the expression "be baptized," which will neither affect the form of speech nor the sense of the particle, when we shall have, Every one of you repent eis; remission of sins; or, translating the particle, Every one of you repent (eis) in order to remission of sins. From this there cannot be a dissenting voice. No expression but in order to, or the word for in the sense of in order to, will express the meaning of the particle. Here, now, the relation between repentance and remission of sins is clearly seen. Remission of sins is seen to depend on repentance, or repentance to be necessary to remission. Now, this relation is precisely the circumstance which determines to what class the passage belongs,—namely, to that class in which eis signifies "in order to,"—i. e. necessarily, and in which, consequently, it can signify nothing else. But does not the presence of the term "be baptized" except the passage from this class? We shall see. The audience were commanded to do two things:—repent and be baptized. These two things are related to a third,—remission of sins; and, whatever that relation is, it is of necessity one, for there is but one particle to express it, which, in the same place, cannot express two relations. Consequently, whatever relation repentance bears to remission of sins, baptism bears to it. Hence, the presence of the term "be baptized" does not except the passage from the class.

Since, therefore, the relation which repentance bears to remission of sins determines the passage to belong to that class in which eis signifies in order to, and in which it can signify nothing else, and since the presence of the term "be baptized" does not except the passage from that class, it follows that the true intent and meaning of the passage is, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, (eis) in order to remission of sins.

Finally, we conclude, from the grounds now before us, that the relation of baptism to remission of sins is such that baptism, like repentance, is necessary to remission; or that remission depends on baptism in precisely the same sense in which it depends on repentance. And, if there is either value in criticism or reliance to be placed in argument, the conclusion is indisputable. But let us suppose this position to be denied, and that it is maintained that baptism sustains to remission the relation of a subsequent to a former act, and what follows? Clearly, that repentance likewise sustains to remission the relation of a subsequent to a former act. But this proves too much, and hence is false. But we wish to exhibit this position, together with its consequences, even to the eye, and, in order to do so, will again have recourse to the passage, from which, after transposing the clauses as before, we will first omit the word "repent," thus:—Everyone of you be baptized (eis) because your sins are remitted. This is exactly Mr. Jeter’s position,,—a tough one, truly. But let us grant that it is true, or, rather, that we have at last hit on the true meaning of the particle, and that it is unalterable. We will now replace the word "repent:"—Every one of you repent and be baptized eis remission of sins Is the meaning of the particle now altered? Of course not. Let us then bring out its meaning:—Every one of you repent and be baptized (eis) because your sins are remitted; or, transposing the terms, Be baptized and repent (eis) because your sins are remitted; plainly, Repent because your sins are remitted. How absurd! And yet, absurd as it is, this is a strict result from Mr. Jeter’s method of construing the passage. This result of false criticism and false reasoning has never yet, been fairly met and honorably disposed of by even one of our opponents. Indeed, it cannot be.

It was formerly stated that if eis be taken literally the present passage is either not intelligible or has a very uncertain sense, and that, consequently, a different acceptation of the particle is required. This becomes apparent by simply inserting its literal meaning, thus:— Repent and be baptized, every one of you, (eis) into remission of sins. What can anyone collect from the expression, repent into remission? If to English ears it has any meaning at all, it certainly is a most vague and uncertain one. Nor does the expression "be baptized into remission" yield a sense in any respect better. Even conceding (what is doubtful) that the sense of the passage might be collected from the primary meaning of the particle, still, this is not the sense in which the Holy Spirit intended it to be taken, and hence is not the sense which is most easily defended. The present seems a proper place to sum up the result of the two preceding arguments. According, then, to the passage still in hand and the rule formerly stated, remission of sins, though it may depend on more, can never depend on less, than repentance and baptism, these being the named conditions. In our first argument it was ascertained that remission can never depend on less than belief and baptism. From the two arguments, therefore, we conclude that, although it may still depend on more, it can never depend on less, than belief, repentance and baptism, these being the sum of all the different conditions named. But we shall now present Mr. Jeter’s exposition, or view, of the passage on which our second argument is based. It is contained in the following extract:—" In Matthew 3:11 we have these words:—I indeed baptize you with water unto (eis) repentance. Here the term cannot, without gross impropriety, be rendered for or in order to. We know that John did not baptize his disciples in order that they might repent. He demanded of them not only repentance, but fruits meet for repentance, before he admitted them to baptism. He baptized them, not that they might obtain repentance, but as a sign or acknowledgment that they had repented. (Matthew 3:8-9.) Now, in the very sense in which the Harbinger baptized his disciples (eis) unto, for, into, repentance, did Peter command his pentecostal hearers to [let the reader note that the word ’repent’ is here suppressed"] be baptized (eis)for, unto, into, remission of sins; that is, not to procure, but as a sign or acknowledgment of, this privilege, which God has graciously and inseparably united with repentance and faith."

1st. What is hero said rests on no law of exegesis known to the literary world. It is, as a criticism, false and arbitrary. If Mr. Jeter submitted it in candor, he deserves to be pitied; if not, to be despised. He knew, or should have known, that the passage in Matthew differs from that in Acts in the only respect which could have required the particle to be rendered alike in both. Render the particle in the former passage as in the latter, and the former passage makes nonsense; render it in the latter passage as in the former, and the latter passage makes nonsense. Thus:—I indeed baptize you with water (eis) in order to repentance—nonsense; but, repent and be baptized (eis) in order to remission of sins —sense good. Repent and be baptized (eis) because of remission of sins—nonsense; but, I indeed baptize you with water (eis) because of repentance — sense good. This is enough to satisfy any thinking person that the passages are dissimilar in the very point material to Mr. Jeter’s criticism, and, consequently, that it is false. We add, that we accept the view he seems to take of the word "repent," not as correct, but merely to test the soundness of his criticism. The correct view of that term would require a different rendering of the particle. But, as this is not a matter now in hand, we give it no further notice.

2d. Why, in offering his criticism, did Mr. Jeter employ the three English particles for, unto, and into, which are not synonymous, to represent but one particle in the Greek? Did he fear to commit himself, and hence seek to render his expression as ambiguous as possible? He knew that to bring his meaning out would prove fatal to his criticism; hence he cunningly masked it under a trio of particles.

3d. But why did Mr. Jeter, when he came to apply his criticism and to develop the meaning of the passage, suppress the word "repent"? We commend him to the charity which thinks no evil. But he knew, first, that Peter commanded his audience to be baptized for the exact object for which he commanded them to repent; second, that he commanded them to repent in order to remission of sins; and, third, that unless the term "repent" were suppressed this fact would become apparent and falsify his criticism. Hence, he deliberately suppressed the term to conceal the weakness of his cause, and in the act betrayed the weakness of himself. Such trickery as this in the work of an infidel would he denominated base, but in the work of a Christian we shall mildly phrase it an error. But perhaps Mr. Jeter will have the adroitness to say that this was an unintentional omission, or the skill to transmute the printer into a scape-goat to carry off his sin. Printers certainly err at times, as do other men. But there is another class of men singularly addicted to erring, always most unintentionally it is true, but in all of whose errors there is noticeable this remarkable peculiarity,—they never err in favor of the adverse party,—accountants (for example) whose books exhibit a great many false entries, but never one against the interest of the merchant!

Section III. As the basis for our third argument, we subjoin the following:—"And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord."

Candidly, it would seem to be useless to do more than merely quote this passage. To misunderstand it may not be impossible; but how its import is to be rendered more obvious by comment, it is difficult to see. And to attempt to defend it against the cavils of those who have resolved to reject its teaching would be an idle consumption of time. Still, the passage is too important to be merely quoted and then dismissed.

There is no diversity of opinion between M"*-. Jeter and us in regard to the character of the act which Paul was commanded to perform. It is agreed on both sides that his baptism was real, not metaphorical. Nor can there be any doubt that the term "sins" has here its accustomed sense. These points, then, may be dismissed at once. Consequently, the only remaining question to be settled is, what is the meaning of the expression "wash away?" or, still more pertinently, what connection, if any, does it express between baptism and remission of sins? That the expression is metaphorical is granted. Sins are not washed away: they are remitted. Upon this no controversy can arise. But what is there in the expression to indicate or suggest this? The term rendered wash away is, in the original, a strong compound verb which in its simple form denotes to wash merely. Here, however, it is compounded with a particle which signifies from, denoting the separation of one thing from another, and which has its force represented in the expression by the term away. Hence, in its compound form the verb signifies, not to wash simply, but to separate one thing from another by washing. It implies a separation, and expresses how it is effected.

First, then, it implies a separation: and this is indeed the radical conception in remission. For not only does the term remit, in its underived or Latin form, as well as in English, signify to send away, send from, or let go, (in which evidently the conception of separation is essentially involved,) but such, also, is the exact meaning of the Greek word which remit translates. Indeed, how one thing can be washed away from another, without being separated from it, is not conceivable. Hence, we conclude that separation—i.e. of sins, or remission—is the radical conception in the expression,—the thing for which it stands.

Second: hut not only does the expression imply a separation; it expresses how it is effected,—namely, by a washing. Separation is its radical, unfigurative meaning, the thing it denotes; and the metaphor consists in this:—that the separation is represented as effected by, or depending on, a washing, which, it is hardly necessary to add, consisted in being baptized. But this view, in effect, represents Paul as being commanded to be baptized and thereby to separate himself from his sins. Nor can the view be deemed far from correct when it is remembered that apolousai (apolousai) is middle, and is hence to be construed as having this force. But how is it that a person can separate himself from his sins, when in reality they are separated from him, or remitted, as an act of mercy, by our heavenly Father? Clearly, by complying with the conditions, and in this way alone, on which the separation depends.

Since, therefore, the conception which lies at the very bottom of the expression in hand is separation, and since this is the radical idea in remission, we conclude that the exact and full force of the passage is, Arise, and be baptized, and thereby separate yourself from your sins,—put them away; or, (which is evidently the sense;) Arise and be baptized, and your sins shall be remitted. But perhaps a similar expression—similar because metaphorical and of the same signification—may assist us in understanding the language of Ananias. That the expressions blot out and wash away sins have exactly the same import no scholar or critic will deny. The only distinction between them is, that what is represented by the one as being blotted out is represented by the other as being washed away. They do not represent different things, but express the same thing differently. Now, when Peter in Solomon’s porch said to the people, "Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," metaphor aside, what did he mean? Obviously, Repent and be converted, that your sins may be remitted. Precisely thus, then, must we interpret the expression wash away thy sins,—namely, Arise and be baptized, and your sins shall be remitted. The two expressions are identical in sense, their interpretation the same. When we view baptism as a condition on which remission of sins depends, we have no difficulty in understanding the language of Ananias. Paul’s sins were not remitted before his baptism. Hence, Ananias commanded him to be baptized and wash them away. But when he complied, then God, for Christ’s sake, remitted them; and, because the remission was made dependent on the baptism, the sins remitted are represented as being washed away in it. This, to a person of candor and common sense, can hardly be said to admit of dispute.

When, on a subsequent occasion, Paul said to the Philippian jailer, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, Mr. Jeter has no difficulty in discovering the intimate dependence of salvation on belief. Nor can he deny the conditional nature of belief. He can see no more natural fitness in it to procure remission than he can in the act of being baptized. And yet when Ananias says to Paul, Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, Mr. Jeter can see no dependence of remission on baptism, can see in it nothing which renders it necessary, even as a condition, to remission. But an adverse light to Mr. Jeter’s creed has a singular effect on his vision. But let us suppose his theory of remission to be correct. Paul’s sins, then, were remitted the instant in which he believed, and consequently before his baptism. At that time, therefore, his sins had no existence whatever. They were simply a nonentity. Indeed, he had no sins,—hence, none to be remitted, none to be washed away, none to be disposed of in any sense. And yet Ananias, the Lord’s special messenger, is represented as saying to him, Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins! Did Ananias, we ask in the name of truth, command Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins when absolutely he had not one sin remaining? If the theory of Mr. Jeter is correct, it casts over the deed of Ananias a painful suspicion; "but, if the language of Ananias is true, it brands the theory of Mr. Jeter as a human invention and false.

Mr. Jeter has a "symbolic theory of baptism," by which, in a very few words, he disposes of the present passage, which will be noticed in another place.

Section IV. The passage on which we make our fourth argument is the following:—"According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." In regard to the expression renewing of the Holy Spirit, there exists, we believe, little or no diversity of opinion. With one consent, it and the expression begotten by the Spirit are allowed to be identical in sense. If they are not, the distinction between them may be said to be this,—that begotten by the Spirit expresses the fact simply, while the other is rather descriptive of it, it being a renewing. Of this effect or renewing the Holy Spirit is the author; hence, it is called a renewing of—i.e. effected by —the Spirit. It commences in the enlightenment of the mind, and results in a deep and earnest faith in Jesus Christ. It comprehends all between the entrance of the first ray of heavenly light into the mind of the sinner and his first overt act of obedience. It is a renewing of the sinner in the inner man, the effects of which become apparent in his outward conduct; and, without it, no act which he can perform can be truly styled an act of obedience. Its importance cannot be too weightily emphasized, nor can too much zeal be shown in urging the Truth upon the sinner’s attention through which it is effected. But what is the meaning of the expression washing of regeneration? That it refers to baptism, or is another and descriptive name for it, is almost universally conceded. This much, then, we might fairly take for granted. But this is not the question. The question is not, what does it refer to, but what is its meaning? On this point nothing is allowed to be taken for granted; but why? Is it because the expression has an uncertain meaning? This is not the reason. Is it because its structure is so involved as to hide its meaning? Not at all. Or is it an unusual form of speech, which refuses to yield its sense by the common laws of language? By no means. It contains a meaning which is not acceptable. This is the reason. The only difficulty in the expression seems to lie in deciding whether the washing named in it belongs to regeneration as an integral part of it, and therefore as essential to it, or whether it is not a washing subsequent to regeneration, and hence no part of it,—in a word, the washing of a person already and completely regenerated. Those who adopt the latter view separate the expression, making the term washing refer to one thing, and the term regeneration to another; while those who adopt the former view, regard the whole expression as only a complex name for baptism, and hence as inseparable; and this view we think to be unquestionably the correct-one. For, if the expression be separated, to what, first, refers the word washing? To baptism, respond the talent and learning of Christendom. From this there is hardly a dissenting voice. But to what, second, refers the term regeneration? To this absolutely no answer can be given. It cannot refer to being begotten by the Spirit, for this is expressed by the clause renewing of the Holy Spirit: it cannot refer to baptism, for this is represented by the word washing. Indeed, according to this view, it is simply an unmeaning redundancy with neither sense in it nor reason for its presence. But a little attention to the structure of the expression, especially to its sense, will assure us not only that it is not separable, but that the term "regeneration" is a mere epithet, serving to qualify the preceding word "washing." And this is according to a well-known principle in the Greek language. Nouns in the geni­tive case (is the principle) are often used in the sense of adjectives to express the qualities of both persons and things. This is clearly the principle according to which the expression is to be resolved or cleared of difficulty. The following instances are subjoined as illustrative of the principle.

And I say to you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon ofunrighteousness:—the unrighteous mammon.

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer: —in the Greek, a hearer offorgetfulness.

But these instances are enough. Now, precisely as the genitive is used in these instances is it used in the expression now in hand, thus:—According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration—or, converting the term "regeneration" into an adjective, a regenerating washing—and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. By the phrase "regenerating washing" is not meant a washing which implants any holy principle in the heart, or which, in any other way, morally affects the inner man; hut merely a washing which completes the new birth. The epithet "regenerating" is objectionable, we grant, for the reason that it is liable to be misconstrued. It is here, however, employed merely to illustrate the principle and for the want of a better term. That the conclusion just arrived at is correct may be inferred, further, from the ambiguity of the expression "washing of regeneration." This may be invariably set down as decisive against the correctness of a rendering. Not that a rendering can be inferred to be correct from its not being ambiguous; but, from its being ambiguous, its incorrectness may be certainly inferred. That the expression is ambiguous is evident from the uncertain import of the particle—of—which it contains. First, it may mean a washing effected by regeneration; or, second, a washing belonging to it as part of it; or, third, a washing performed on it,—i.e. the subjects of it. The particle of has all these acceptations in the following expressions:—The mark of a pen,—something effected by it; the point of a pen,— something belonging to it as part of it; the mending of a pen,—an act performed on it. This is enough to show that the expression is ambiguous. Hence, we infer the preceding to be the true meaning of the passage. But to what is reference made in the word "saved"? or to what does it properly apply? First, it is clear that it refers to a salvation then past, then completed. Hence, the apostle could speak of it as a matter of history. Second, that it is the salvation which occurred when Paul ceased to be "foolish, disobedient, deceived, &c." Third, that it is the salvation which depends on the renewing of the Holy Spirit, and is the first which happens after it. But what is this but the remission of sins? This, then, we conclude, is the reference in the word, or the thing to which it applies. But this salvation depended not alone on the renewing of the Holy Spirit. For he saved us by the washing of regeneration, one thing, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, another. Hence, the washing of regeneration—or baptism—is essential to the remission of sins, or is one of the conditions on which it depends. But it is proper now to present Mr. Jeter’s exposition of the passage, which is contained in the following paragraph:—" The phrase ’washing of regeneration’ is found nowhere in the Scriptures but in the text cited from the epistle to Titus. It is generally—not universally—supposed to signify baptism. That it does, cannot be proved. My own opinion is, that it is exegetical of the following words:—’renewing of the Holy Ghost.’ Regeneration is called a washing, because it is a moral cleansing; and this washing is precisely equivalent to the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The text may be rendered ’the washing of regeneration, even (kai) the renewing of the Holy Ghost.’ The Greek particle kai is frequently rendered ’even’ in the New Testament: Matthew 8:27; Matthew 25:29; Mark 6:12, &c. But, so far as this argument is concerned, I will admit that the words ’washing of regeneration’ mean baptism." In this paragraph occur some two or three matters on which we shall dwell for a moment.

First. "It [the phrase, washing of regeneration] is generally—not universally—supposed to signify baptism. That it does, cannot be proved. My own opinion is, that it is exegetical of the following words:—renewing of the Holy Ghost." The "general" belief, then, according to Mr. Jeter, is, that the washing of regeneration signifies baptism. This, in other words, is the belief of the learned world,—the orthodox belief; and yet he dissents from it. But why? Had this belief and ours differed, would he have dissented? There is something singularly perverse displayed by him in treating this and some other passages. When the orthodox belief and ours differ, he grows clamorous and urgent for the authority of orthodoxy; but when the orthodox belief and ours agree, then he dissents from both. "We have piped to you and you have not danced, we have mourned and you have not lamented," is a severe description of hypocritical folly.

Second. "Regeneration is called a washing, because it is a moral cleansing; and this washing is precisely equivalent to the renewing of the Holy Ghost." But regeneration is not called a washing in this or any other passage in the Bible. The assertion is not true. It is merely "my opinion." The passage neither asserts nor implies that regeneration is a washing. On the contrary, it represents the washing as being a washing of regeneration, and hence not regeneration itself. It is a washing of—i.e. belonging to—regeneration as part of it,—something essential to it, without which it is incomplete; but it is not regeneration itself. The part of a thing is not the whole.

Third. "The text may be rendered, the washing of regeneration even (kai) the renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Certainly it may be so rendered; and so, falsely, may every other passage in the Bible. But it cannot be correctly rendered and be rendered thus. Mr. Jeter’s criticism is utterly faulty. It rests on no principle whatever. But what is the meaning of the particle mi, on which it turns? Literally and primarily it means and. This is universally conceded. Now, in translating, the most sacred rule in use is this:—to translate a word uniformly by its literal and current meaning, unless the sense forbids it. But does not the sense of the present passage forbid the literal and current meaning of kai. If so, why did Mr. Jeter not point it out? He knew positively that it did not, and yet he rendered the particle even, and in so doing violated the most sacred rule known to the science of interpretation.

True, the particle is rendered even in the passages to which he refers; but on what ground? Simply on the ground that the sense forbids the literal and current meaning, and hence requires a different one. This becomes evidently merely inserting the literal meaning, thus: —"What manner of man is this, that and the winds and the sea obey him?" Matthew 8:27. Clearly, this is wrong. The sense forbids the use of and, and hence requires another word. By inserting even we see what word it is, thus:—"What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?" and so of the other passages referred to. But we cannot produce a jar like the preceding by the use of and in the passage from Titus. We can read, in harmony with the great rule just stated, "He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit," and the reading is smooth, the sense good, and the mind profoundly convinced that we read correctly. The very circumstance which requires the particle to be rendered even in the passages referred to is wanting in the present one; hence to substitute even for and in it is wholly unauthorized.

Section V. Our fifth argument is suggested by the following:— "Wherein [the ark] few, that is eight, souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us,—not the putting away of the filth of the flesh? but the answer of a good conscience towards God." This passage (so exceedingly obscure in the form here cited) is susceptible of a much more intelligible rendering, thus:—In which (ark) a few, that is eight, souls were saved by water, which also now saves us in its antitype, baptism, which consists not in putting away fleshly impurity, but in seeking a good conscience in God. This rendering is according to the best text of the Greek New Testament extant. A few additional remarks, however, explanatory of it, will not be thought amiss.

According to the common text, antitype is the subject of the verb saves. This, however, is now regarded as incorrect; and the true subject is held to be the relative pronoun o 1: Such is the case in the text now before us. With this relative antitype is in apposition, and baptism with antitype; and, although a somewhat unusual apposition, yet it is attended with no ambiguity. The relative is in the neuter gender, agreeing with water as its antecedent,—the only noun in the sentence with which it can agree. The terms rendered putting away and seeking are both in the nominative case, and, since no verb is expressed, of course to or after one understood. That this is the verb is, hardly admits of doubt. It is not necessary, however, in order to express the sense of the passage, to be so slavishly literal as to indicate these circumstances. Hence, in our rendering, we have not done so. But on what ground have we substituted the word seeking for the word answer? We reply, first, there is a necessity for it; for the passage, as it now stands in the common version, conveys no intelligible meaning whatever; indeed, it is simply a jumble of words without meaning. Second, it agrees better with the sense of the original term. The verb from which the original term is derived occurs in the Greek New Testament fifty-nine times; in fifty-five of which it is rendered either by the word ask or by some of its forms; in two, demanded; in one, desired; and in one, questioned; and in every single case should have been rendered either by ask or by some of its forms. "To seek after" is given as one of the meanings of the verb, in the best lexicon to the Greek Testament we have yet seen. Hence, the noun, retaining substantially the same sense, must mean either an asking or a seeking; and, since seeking gives a clearer and better sense, we therefore decide in its favor. Asking is applicable rather to persons than to things; hence it is better to say of baptism it is a seeking than an asking. But why substitute in for towards? We answer, Because it gives a clearer sense and accords better with the usage of the Greek particle. That it gives a clearer sense is obvious at a glance, and hence needs no further illustration. The particle in the Greek is eis, which seems to have the sense of (en) in: not that eis is used for en; but there appears to be the idea of previous motion combined with a state of rest, in which case eis has the force of en. The following is an instance of this usage:—"And, leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt (eis) in Capernaum." In such cases the previous motion is, by the best critics, supposed to have suggested the use of eis; the real force of the passage being, And, leaving Nazareth, he came (eis) into Capernaum, and dwelt there. Again, the passage itself in hand supplies an instance of the usage. Noah entered into (previous motion) the ark; hence he is represented as having been saved (eis) in it. In the same manner, the previous use of baptism seems to have suggested the use of eis, which we have rendered in instead of towards. We are baptized (eis) into Christ; hence in him we are all said to be one. We are baptized (eis) into the name of the Father; hence we dwell (en) in him. Consequently, since it is by baptism that we enter into him, it would seem highly proper to represent it as consisting in seeking a good conscience (eis) in him, especially when we have full authority for such a use of the particle. The preceding view of the passage has at least this advantage,—that it is "perfectly intelligible, as well as consistent with what we know to be taught elsewhere; and although it is here rather suggested than insisted on, still, we believe it possessed of a high degree of certainty. But all this has little to do with our argument. The ground on which it rests is asserted in the common version,—namely, "Baptism doth also now save us." From this it is clear that there is a sense in which baptism saves us, or a salvation which depends on or is effected in and by baptism. The question is, What is it, or in what does it consist? First, it cannot be salvation in its most comprehensive sense; for it is limited to baptism. Second, it is not, be it what it may, a partial, but a complete, salvation; for baptism "now saves us." Hence, previously to baptism it does not exist; subsequently it does: but without baptism it cannot exist. What, now, is the safest and fairest method of ascertaining in what it consists, or, since the passage asserts the fact that baptism saves us, how shall we determine in what sense?

Clearly, the best method of obtaining a correct reply to this question is, to ascertain in what sense the word saved is used when used in connection with baptism, or what is therein accomplished to which the word is applicable. Happily, this is an easy task:—"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. " "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." Jointly, these passages determine, definitely and conclusively, that the word "saved," when used in connection with baptism, is used to denote remission of sins; and whatever meaning it certainly has in these passages it certainly has in every other precisely similar passage, and, consequently, in the present one. Hence, baptism doth also now save us, because therein our sins are remitted. Of the truth of this, little doubt can remain, when it is remembered that the same apostle on whose language we are now commenting commanded an audience to repent and be baptized in order to remission of sins. Hence, it may with great propriety be represented that baptism consists in seeking a good conscience in God, because it consists in seeking a conscience freed from sin. Of this passage, Mr. Jeter, with characteristic shyness when a passage disfavors him, says, "The text above cited from Peter is one of the most obscure in the apostolic epistles. Commentators have been greatly perplexed and divided concerning its import. As it is not necessary for my purpose, I shall not attempt to expound it."

That it should perplex some men is not at all to be wondered at. Passages perplex from various causes, some, the more, the less obscure they are.’ The present passage asserts that baptism now saves us; hence, how perplexing!

But, as containing a comment generally on the import of the term salvation, but especially, it would seem, on its import, as used in connection with baptism, in the passages from Titus and 1 Peter, we shall extract from Mr. Jeter the following paragraphs:—

"Do these Scriptures [from Titus and 1 Peter] teach that the sins of a believer are remitted in the act of baptism? This is the question under discussion. God saves us by the washing of regeneration (baptism) and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Baptism doth also now save us."

"The term salvation is of comprehensive import. It denotes the whole process by which we are delivered from sin and fitted for the enjoyment of heaven. It includes a thorough moral renovation, the remission of sins, adoption into the family of God, and perseverance unto death in the way of holiness. It is commenced in repentance, carried forward in sanctification, and will be completed by the resurrection from the dead. The sincere believer in Christ, even before baptism, is in a state of salvation, but his salvation is incomplete. Now, God saves us by all the means which he employs to instruct, impress, purify, and preserve us. The written word, the ministry of the word, meditation, prayer, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, afflictions, are all means by which God saves us. We are said to be saved by faith, saved by hope, to save ourselves and others: 1 Timothy 4:10; to work out our own salvation, Php 2:12. Salvation is promised to him that endureth to the end: Matthew 16:22. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him: Hebrews 5:9. And we are saved by baptism. All these things have an influence in securing our salvation,—are among the means by which God, in his mercy, carries on and completes the work. Baptism, which symbolizes the regenerating influence of the Spirit of God, and is a public and solemn acknowledgment of the remission of sins through faith in Christ, is designed and fitted to separate us from the world, impress on us our obligations to Christ, and aid us in the pathway to heaven. It certainly, however, does not follow from this position that the remission of sins is suspended on the act of baptism. This conclusion is drawn from the assumption that whatever promotes our salvation is essential to the forgiveness of sins,—an assumption manifestly false. He that endureth to the end shall be saved; but is the believer unpardoned until he finishes his race? or is he not pardoned at the commencement of it? Christians are exhorted to work out their own salvation; but are not their sins forgiven before the completion of the work? We are saved by baptism, not as. a condition of obtaining the remission of sins, but as one of the means which God employs to perfect the work of our salvation,—a means not indispensable to that result." The sole design of this truthless paragraph is to so mystify the word salvation as to render the passages from Titus and Peter in which it occurs of no avail to us. The design of its author was not to develop the meaning of a term, but to confuse and perplex it,—not to render a great point clear, but to exclude a distasteful light. Having transcribed the entire paragraph, we may now request the attention of the reader more particularly to the following points:—

1. "The term salvation is of comprehensive import." Sometimes it is, but it has not always the same extent of signification. The assertion of Mr. Jeter is true in the same sense in which the testimony of a witness is true who, being sworn to testify to the whole truth, suppresses a part of it. When Paul says the gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes, he employs the term in its most comprehensive sense, and certainly in a sense much more comprehensive than when he says, the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but to us who are saved it is the power of God. In the latter case, it is limited to and its import exhausted by an event then past, a process then completed; but not so in the former case.

2. "It" (the term salvation) "denotes the whole process by which we are delivered from sin and fitted for the enjoyment of heaven." Does it, indeed, always? It is charitable to hope that Mr. Jeter believed the assertion when he made it, but it is very certain that no one else who bestows upon it a moment’s reflection will believe it. "Baptism doth also now save us." Does the term here denote the whole process by which we are delivered from sin and fitted for heaven?

3. "It" (salvation) "is commenced in repentance, carried forward in sanctification, and will be completed by the resurrection from the dead." Salvation is commenced in repentance! No one believes it who understands either the operations of his own mind or the teachings of Christianity. An ignorance in the ranks of his brethren, profound enough to accept as true this and like sentiments, is what has contributed, in no small degree, to give to Mr. Jeter’s book the brief inglorious notoriety it has attained. Nothing more clearly shows how much both he and they have yet to learn than the tenacity with which they cling to, and the frequency with which they reaffirm, this absurd dogma. It crops out in his book on more occasions than one. Attention is here called to it, not for the purpose of discussing it, but merely for the sake of giving to it an emphatic denial.

4. "Now, God saves us by all the means which he employs to instruct, impress, purify, and preserve us. The written word, the ministry of the word, meditation, prayer, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, afflictions, are all means by which God saves us. We are said to be saved by faith,—saved by hope,—to save ourselves and others, —to work out our own salvation. Salvation is promised to him that endureth to the end. Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. And we are saved by baptism."

Now, granting that salvation is a process to the completion of which faith, hope, baptism, &c. (the items severally enumerated by Mr. Jeter) are necessary, does it still follow that each of these items has not its own specific value in the accomplishment of the general result,—a function to perform not performable by any other?—in a word, that baptism is not for the remission of sins? To assume that it does so follow, is to assume the very point in dispute. We grant that salvation is a process, but still maintain that the exact sense in which baptism is necessary to its completion is, that it is for the remission of sins. It is no reply to this position to say that faith and hope are also necessary to salvation. It is freely granted that they are, but not that they are necessary in the same sense in which baptism is necessary. To assume that such is the case, is just as erroneous as to assume that, since life is a process to which eating, sleeping, and drinking are necessary, a man lives by sleeping in the same sense in which he lives by eating. And yet, if there is any argument in the preceding extract, this is what it amounts to.

5. "Baptism, which symbolizes the regenerating influence of the Spirit of God, and is a public and solemn acknowledgment of the remission of sins through faith in Christ, is designed and fitted to separate us from the world, impress on us our obligations to Christ, and aid us in the pathway to heaven." That baptism symbolizes the regenerating influence of the Spirit of God, is a naked, unsupported assertion. It is wholly false. No evidence exists in the word of God Of its truth. Had such been the case, Mr. Jeter, whose fondness for a pedantic array of texts displays itself even on the most trivial occasions, would have saved us the pains of seeking that evidence. It may be an article in his creed, but it is not a doctrine of the

Bible; and, while fidelity to the former may impel Mm to assert it, fidelity to the latter should impel all honest men to reject it. Nor can less than this be said of the position that baptism is "a public and solemn acknowledgment of the remission of sins through faith in Christ." Three things, and only three, can be said in its defense. It is asserted by Mr. Jeter; it is a tradition, of his church; it is not, in so many words, pronounced by the Bible to be a lie. On these grounds alone it rests.

6. "It certainly, however, does not follow from this position that the remission of sins is suspended on the act of baptism. This conclusion is drawn from the assumption that whatever promotes our salvation is essential to the forgiveness of sins,—an assumption manifestly false." The assumption is not only manifestly false: it is manifestly foolish, and manifestly the assumption of nobody but Mr. Jeter. This is not the only occasion on which he has constructed a foolish hypothesis for us, and then sought to make the impression that some doctrine which we entertain is deducible from no other ground. It would have been far more honorable in him had he confined himself to positions which we do entertain, and not have feigned for us those which we do not entertain, merely for the sake of deducing from them some conclusion which, after all, renders no one half as ridiculous as himself.

Section VI. The passage on which we base our sixth argument is this:—"Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This passage we regard as presenting us with a complete view of the new birth,—as informing us in what it consists, or what facts constitute it. And, whenever the subject of regeneration is spoken of, we wish it to be distinctly understood that the present passage contains our conception of it. In declaring that "except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," the Savior merely propounds the doctrine of the new birth generally, in a statement of the necessity of it. But in the present passage he states definitively in what the new birth consists, reiterating the necessity of it. The former passage propounds the doctrine, the latter passage explains it That to be born again is to be born of water and of the Spirit, does not admit of argument. The passage was intended, when spoken, to have, not a present, but a prospective, bearing. It applied at the instant when the Messiah’s kingdom commenced, and ever afterwards, but not a moment before.

We cannot agree that the importance of the passage can be exaggerated. When the Savior shuts the kingdom of heaven against all, except on certain conditions, those conditions become of transcendent interest. Neither flight of fancy nor fertility of imagination can invest them with an unreal importance. The passage naturally distributes itself into two clauses, each clause comprehending an integral part of the new birth, and the two parts exhausting the subject. These clauses are, respectively, born of water, born of the Spirit. The meaning of these determined, all must agree that the question, In what does the new birth consist? is settled. As the latter clause has already been explained, only the other remains to be examined. What, then, is the meaning of the expression born of water? In order to decide this question, we must decide, first, the previous question,—In what acceptation must we take the language of the expression?—a literal or a figurative? This question can be discussed best, perhaps, by resolving the expression into the two simple verbal members which compose it,—to wit: born of and water. To some this division may seem unnecessarily minute. We do not think it so. By thus breaking down the expression into these simple members its parts come singly into view, by which means each can be subjected to a severer, because a more distinct, examination.

Upon the acceptation in which we are to take the member born of, no diversity of opinion exists. It is universally agreed to be metaphorical. But what its meaning is, is supposed to depend on the acceptation in which the term "water" is taken. Are we then to take this term in its literal and ordinary acceptation, or in a figurative sense? In the latter sense, is responded by many. Let us now examine the hypothesis implied in this response, which, being concisely expressed in the form of a proposition, is this:—The term "water" is figurative. This is a tough proposition. It has led its advocates into great extremes. No effort has ever yet been made to defend it, upon which the stain of iniquity does not rest. Conceived at first in a spirit of unbelief, it has since been advocated only in crime. The uncorrupted heart spews it out as a vile conception, and the scorn of reason lies on it. Not until the mind has been robbed of its independence by the tyranny of some human creed, or stricken by some fatal paralysis, will it suffer the noisome thing to lodge within it. But it is proper to subject it to a still further examination. Where the literal and current acceptation of a term happen to be the same, as is the case with the term "water," the presumption is, that such a term, wherever found, is used in that acceptation. And such, moreover, is the force of this presumption, that nothing can set it aside except the most stringent necessity. Either such must be the nature of the case about which the term is employed, that it cannot be taken literally, or some most obvious circumstance must attend it, indicating that it is employed metaphorically; otherwise it has certainly, in every single instance where used, its current signification. But is not the nature of the new birth such—the case about which the term "water" is employed—as to forbid the term being taken literally? If not, then it has its literal sense. Now, we must, of course, before we can infer any thing from the nature of the case, know what the case itself is. Here, now, at the very outset, we encounter a serious difficulty. For, Until the import of the term "water" is settled, the meaning of the new birth remains doubtful. This term forms one of a compact assemblage employed by the Savior to describe the new birth. Until, therefore, we settle its meaning, we remain ignorant, to the full extent of its individual signification, of what it serves jointly to describe. Hence, from the nature of that thing so described we can infer nothing to set aside the literal acceptation of the term. In the literal acceptation, therefore, it stands. But is not the term attended by some obvious circumstance indicating that it is employed metaphorically? That it is not is evident even to the eye. Clearly, it was not the Savior’s intention, in mentioning water, to institute a comparison between it and anything else. Had such been the case, he would have preceded the term by some such particle as like, so, or as. He does not say, Except a man be born like, born so, or born as; but, Except a man be born of water. Hence, comparison is out of the question. Nor can the term be employed metaphorically. Of words thus used (and metaphor is limited to single words unattended by any sign of comparison) there are two classes:—1st, such as, on being pronounced, suggest their meaning instantly; 2d, those in which the meaning, even after they are pronounced, remains hid until it is brought out by some added explanation. The fallowing are instances of these two classes:—1st. "Go ye and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to­morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." Here the word "fox" is applied to Herod metaphorically; yet, on hearing it pronounced, we as instantly collect its meaning as had the Savior said, Go and tell that cunning monarch, &c. 2d. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." In this instance the word "temple" is employed metaphorically, and its meaning is completely hid until it is added, "but he spake of the temple of his body." Now, to which of these classes (and there are no others) does the term "water" belong? Not to the former; for, on being pronounced, it suggests, on the hypothesis that it is metaphorical, absolutely no meaning at all; nor yet to the latter, for no explanatory clause is added. Hence, the term is not metaphorical.

But, again, a term is employed metaphorically when applied to a thing which resembles, in one or more respects, what it usually denotes, and because it is desired to suggest that resemblance. Now, to what, supposing the term "water" to be metaphorical, is it applied, in the passage in hand, which resembles the material element we call water. The human mind can conceive of nothing. Yet there must be something; for, even granting the term to be metaphorical, it still has some real meaning; but what it is will never be determined. From all the preceding premises, therefore, we conclude that the acceptation in which the term "water" is to be taken is its literal and current acceptation; that it denotes, in other words, simply the material element we call water.

It is proper to note, however, that the clause "born of water" contains a metaphorical term,—to wit, born. Literally, this term, as is well known, denotes the event which brings man into the present life. But here it is employed not literally. It is employed metaphorically; and, hence, must represent an event which, in one or more respects, resembles its literal signification. What, now, is that event? or, without separating the terms, what signifies the expression born of water?

1. If there is any confidence to be reposed in the talent and learning of all ages since Christ, this question is settled:—the expression signifies baptism But it is proper to have before us the precise point to which this testimony is adduced. It is not adduced to settle the value or meaning of baptism. It is adduced merely to show what thing the expression "born of water" denotes, not what the value or significance of that thing is. These are different questions; hence, testimony fully adequate to settle the one might be very inadequate to settle the other.

2. Water is never present in any act connected with the kingdom of Christ except one. But in that one it is always present, and from it never absent. That act is baptism. But in the expression ’"born of water," water is present. Hence, it must be in baptism, since water can be present in nothing else. Baptism, therefore, must be the thing denoted by the expression born of water.

3. The term born is metaphorical; yet it must signify something which, in one or more respects, resembles its literal meaning. This something, moreover, must be connected with water. Now, la all Christianity, what is there which, even in one respect, bears the slightest resemblance to the literal meaning of "born," except baptism? In baptism we come out of the water, and that to live a new life. Is not this being born of water?

4. If the expression "born of water" does not signify baptism, then its meaning is wholly indeterminate. Hence, no living man can say whether he is or is not in the kingdom of God. But the Savior never intended to leave man in doubt on so vital a question. We hence infer that the expression is determinate, and signifies baptism.

It is now easy to complete our argument. There are but two kingdoms on earth in which men exist,—the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. These two kingdoms are separated from each other by one and the same line. All on this side are saints, all on that sinners; and all are on that side until born of water and of the Spirit: then, all thus born are on this. We can no more conceive of a saint in the kingdom of Satan than we can of a sinner in the kingdom of God; nor can we any more conceive of a saint without his being born of water and of the Spirit than we can of a sinner who is. The instant in which a man’s sins are forgiven he passes from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God. But he passes from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God the instant in which ho is born of water and of the Spirit. Hence in that instant his sins are forgiven. But let us suppose a part of this to be denied. Let us suppose it to be maintained that a man, though born of water and of the Spirit, might still be in the kingdom of Satan. What is true of one man in this respect might certainly be true of all. Hence all men, though born again, might still be in the kingdom and tinder the dominion of Satan. Clearly, this is false. From all of which we conclude that a man’s sins are remitted the instant in which he is born of water and of the Spirit, or, inverting the expressions, the instant in which, being begotten by the Spirit, he is immersed.

Finally, in order to establish, if possible, still more conclusively the identity of baptism and being born of water, and also to exhibit the perfect agreement between what the Savior said to Nicodemus and what he taught in the great commission, we submit the following:—He that believes and is baptized is saved: he is therefore in the kingdom of God. Hence, he that believes and is baptized is born of water and of the Spirit; for otherwise he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The only way to escape the force of this, is to deny either that he that believes and is baptized is saved, or that he is therefore in the kingdom of God.

It is now proper to examine the main points in what Mr. Jeter has to say on the present passage. Indeed, we regret that the length of his disquisition forbids our transcribing it entire; for by a sensible and candid man it needs only to be seen to be despised. Even from Mr. Jeter it would be difficult to produce anything more corrupt. Take, for example, the first paragraph:—

"The reformers quote this text [John 3:5] with great confidence in support of their views. Let us candidly examine it. The phrase gennhah ez udatos—born of water—does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures. Its import must be learned from the language itself, the context, and the current teaching of revelation. What is its meaning? Mr. Campbell maintains that it means baptism, and founds his argument for baptismal remission wholly on this interpretation. Concerning this opinion I have several remarks to offer." Did Mr. Jeter not know, when he said Mr. Campbell maintains that the phrase, born of water, means baptism, and founds his argument for baptismal remission wholly on this interpretation, that he was deliberately uttering in the face of the world what is not true? Whatever he may have known or thought, it matters not: he has done so. It is painful to have to speak thus of him; but we are not at liberty to suppress the truth in order to avoid saying that he has not spoken it. On page 261 of his book he says, "I will now endeavor briefly to show that the passages of Scripture principally relied on by Mr. Campbell for the support of his doctrine utterly fail of establishing it." Now, let the reader note that Mr. Jeter is going to examine the passages principally relied on by Mr. Campbell to support his doctrine. He then quotes the following:—1. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 2. Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 3. Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say to thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 4. Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. Of which Mr. Jeter says, "This text is adduced by Mr. Campbell with great confidence in support of his cherished theory, that sins are remitted in the very act of immersion." 5. According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 6. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here, now, are no less than six passages on which, it seems, Mr. Campbell principally relies in support of his "cherished theory;" and yet of the single clause born of water, Mr. Jeter says, Mr. Campbell maintains that it means baptism, and founds his argument for baptismal remission wholly on this interpretation! Of the "several remarks" offered by Mr. Jeter on Mr. Campbell’s interpretation of the clause "born of water," we shall transcribe the chief parts of only two or three.

First. "It [the position that the phrase "born of water" means baptism] makes the answer of Christ to Nicodemus false. The kingdom of God must mean the church of Christ on earth, or the state of heavenly glory. This position, it is presumed, will not be called in question. Now, it is not true that none enter into the visible church on earth who are not born of the Spirit. In the purest churches there are members who are not regenerated. In the apostolic churches there were some who were not properly of them. ’They went out from us,’ said John; ’but they were not of us; for, if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.’"

Now, we profoundly believe the expression "king­dom of God," in John 3:5, means the church of Christ on earth,— taking the term "church" in its largest sense; and yet we assert, that into that kingdom no man, woman, or child ever yet entered unless born of water and of the Spirit. When the Savior says of a thing it cannot be, we pronounce it impossible. And, as to "the purest churches" containing members who are not regenerated,—which may be the case,—it is easily explained on the simple principle, that even the purest churches are not wholly pure. But this is not the point in dispute. The Savior does not say, "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into a church partly pure and partly not." He is speaking not of a church, nor of churches, but of the church. A man may be in a church, and yet not in the church; but in the church he cannot be unless born of water and of the Spirit. Nor can he be even in a church of Christ, except in appearance only, unless thus born. Indeed, the very language of John, when, in speaking of certain members, he says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us," clearly implies that they had been members not in reality but in appearance only.

Second. "Nor is it true, that none enter into the heavenly glory who are not baptized. From this conclusion, though it follows legitimately from his doctrine, Mr. Campbell himself recoils. The Savior’s declaration, then, as interpreted by the reformers and many others, is not true."

Mr. Campbell does not believe that the expression "kingdom of God," in John 3:5, means the kingdom of ultimate glory; neither does he teach that none will be saved except those who enter the church on earth. On the contrary, he teaches that the following classes will be saved without entering it:—L All infants. 2. All idiots. 3. Many heathens. 4. Many honest people who are kept in profound ignorance of their duty by the teaching of such men as Mr. Jeter. From what doctrine, then, of Mr. Campbell, does the "conclusion" from which he "recoils" follow so legitimately? The reply is, none. All Mr. Campbell teaches is, that none who are responsible, and to whom the gospel is preached, can, unless born of water and of the Spirit, enter into the church on earth; and that those who, under these circumstances, refuse to enter it, have no assurance that they shall ever enter the kingdom above.

Third. "There is but one method of evading this conclusion. It is sometimes affirmed, for the purpose of avoiding it, that a man cannot constitutionally enter into the kingdom of God except he is baptized, and born of the Spirit." By whom it is so affirmed we know not; but it is not by Mr. Campbell and his brethren. They affirm that a man, unless born of water and of the Spirit, cannot, in any sense, enter into the kingdom of God. They neither say constitutionally nor unconstitutionally; but, unqualifiedly, that he cannot enter at all unless thus born.

Fourth. "If the phrase ’born of water" means immersion, the passage in which it is found yields no support to the doctrine of baptismal remission. If the kingdom of God means, as Mr. Campbell understands it to mean, the reign of Messiah on earth,—the visible church,—then the text proves merely that a man cannot enter the church without baptism, and leaves the subject of the remission of sins wholly untouched." But what is the passage in which the phrase is found? It is this:—"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Now, this text certainly teaches, not, simply, that a man cannot enter into the kingdom of God without being born of water, but that he cannot enter into it without being born of both water and the Spirit. But does it leave the subject of the remission of sins wholly untouched? When a man is born of water and of the Spirit, are his sins still unremitted?

Fifth. "So far as this passage teaches us, a man may be pardoned before, or after, as well as in, the act of immersion. It has no relevancy to the subject under discussion." This is most unfair. So far as the passage teaches a man cannot enter into the kingdom of God without being born of both water and the Spirit. Now, may he be pardoned before being thus born, or after, as well as when thus born? This is the question. If he may be pardoned before being thus born, we ask, how long before—one year or ten—and on what conditions? or, if he may be pardoned after, how long after—ten years or fifty—and on what conditions? Will Mr. Jeter favor the world with an answer to these questions? Mr. Campbell argues that a man is pardoned the instant in which he is born of water and the Spirit,—the instant in which these two events are jointly consummated, and consequently—since to be born of water is to be immersed—the instant in which he is begotten by the Spirit and immersed. And, unless a man can be pardoned before or after the joint happening of these two events, his argument is overwhelming. True, being begotten by the Spirit is precedent to being immersed, but then the value of each depends on the two as concurrent, and not as separate, events.

Sixth. "But what does the text under discussion mean? It is not incumbent on me to show its meaning. I have proved that it does not refer to baptism, and that, if it does, it fails to support the doctrine of baptismal remission: this is sufficient for my purpose. I will, however, perform a work of supererogation. I will quote on this subject a passage from a sermon of the Rev. James Saurin, formerly pastor of the French church at the Hague, celebrated alike for his learning, eloquence, and piety. The phrase, says this incomparable writer, to be born of water and of the Spirit, is a Hebraical phraseology, importing to be born of spiritual water."

Whatever Mr. Saurin may have been in learning or in eloquence is a matter of no consequence here. He has offered an insult, in the instance in hand, to the word of God, which no term but shocking will describe. Judging from the present specimen, ho stands alone in this respect, the gentlemen excepted who cites and indorses his language. To be born of water and of the Spirit imports to be born of spiritual water! Now, let not the reader conclude from this that Mr. Jeter is impious enough to ridicule the passage or daring enough to assert outright that it is a lie. Such is not the case.

All he means is, that, when the Savior says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," neither water nor Spirit is meant. True, the Savior says water and Spirit; but then Mr. Jeter knows perfectly that he meant neither. Hence, all the passage means is, Except a man be born of spiritual water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

Section VII. Our seventh argument is suggested by the following:—"Christ also loved the church, and gave’ himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." That the phrase by the word is, in construing the passage, to be joined with the verb sanctify, is so obviously true that nothing need be urged in its defense,—the proper collocation of the words being, Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that, having cleansed it by the washing of water, he might sanctify it by the word. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." The following rendering of the passage we extract from a recent work exhibiting in many respects the neatest taste and most accurate scholarship:— "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that, having purified it by the water wherein it is washed, he might hallow it by the indwelling of the word of God." But what signifies the expression cleansed it by the washing of water? This question can be best answered, perhaps, by determining separately the signification of the clauses washing of water, and cleansed.

First, then, what signifies the clause washing of water? If, as was urged in the preceding section, there is any confidence to he reposed in the learning and discrimination of the first class of critics, and that, too, in a case in which no interested motives can be presumed to have swayed their judgment, this question is settled. The clause signifies baptism. True, Mr. Jeter feigns to think its import doubtful, but why, none can mistake. He is pledged to oppose, right or wrong, whatever favors us; hence, the more irrefragable our proof, the more vehement his denial. That the term water, or, more correctly, the water, as it is in the original, has here its hard Saxon meaning, is not a disputable point. Joining to this the word washing, or, better still, the washing, thereby making the washing of or in the water, or the water in which the church (the members of it) has been washed, can anyone whose soul is not steeped in error be in doubt as to what the apostle means?

There is but one rite under Christ to which water is absolutely in all cases essential, and to which all who: re members of his church have submitted. That rite is baptism. Here, however, water is present,—water in which the church is washed; hence, since the church comes in contact with water in no rite but baptism, baptism is, or, rather, of necessity must be, what the apostle refers to when he says the washing of water.

Second. But what signifies the term cleansed? We can readily understand why the expression washing of water should have suggested it; but the question is, What does it mean?—a question which we think it not difficult to answer. In the original, both the verb and its derivatives signify to cleanse or purify generally. But the present is not a general but a special cleansing, —a cleansing limited to persons, and effected in the washing of water. Now, in what special sense are persons cleansed in the washing of water? Clearly, they are not therein cleansed from the leprosy; neither therein is any error corrected or vice reformed. They are therein cleansed from sin. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. Repent, and be baptized, in order to the remission of sins. These passages determine most conclusively in what sense a person is. cleansed in the washing of water. Three times certainly, in the New Testament, is the term cleansing, either as a verb or noun, employed to express a cleansing from sin. A cleansing from sin, then, is, we conclude, precisely what is effected in the washing of water. Of the much that Mr. Jeter has to say on this passage, but little is worthy of notice, and even that little, of but slight notice. In speaking of the word cleansed, (p. 270,) he says, "In one place, the word probably refers to the removal of guilt from the conscience by the blood of Christ. (Hebrews 9:14.) In every other passage where it relates to the redemption of man it denotes a moral renovation." The object of this assertion is to create the impression that the word cleansed is nowhere in the New Testament employed to signify a cleansing from sin, and, consequently, not in the passage in hand. But the following passages, in one of which the word occurs in the form of a noun, in the other in that of a verb, (a circumstance not in the least affecting its application,) will show how much confidence is to be reposed in the assertion,— "The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin."1 John 1:7. "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see far off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins."2 Peter 1:9. "If," says Mr. Jeter, "the phrase washing of water means baptism, then the text teaches, not the remission of sins in the act of baptism, but rather baptismal regeneration and sanctification. At any rate, it will be the business of those who contend for that meaning of the phrase to free the passage from a consequence which is exceedingly plausible, if it is not legitimate."

First. The "text" does not ascribe sanctification to the washing of water. It is the cleansing alone which is effected in the water. Sanctification is ascribed to the word. And this repels a plebeian allusion of Mr. Jeter to something which he with characteristic grace styles "the Bethany dialect."

Second. But suppose the passage does teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration: what then? Shall the passage be rejected because it teaches the doctrine? Or shall we attempt to make it teach another doctrine? If the passage teaches the doctrine, then the doctrine is true. Or does Mr. Jeter set himself up to be judge of what the divine word ought to teach, and then, because it does not teach to his liking, compel it to teach differently? This is not the first instance in which this implication has escaped his pen. He too clearly reveals, on more occasions than one, that the ground of his faith is not the Bible, but the suggestions of his corrupt imagination. His creed contains but a single article:—Where the Bible and his whims agree, the Bible is true: where the Bible and his whims differ, the Bible is false. But the "text" does not teach—even conceding that the phrase washing of water signifies baptism, as we profoundly believe it does—what Mr. Jeter affects to think so "exceedingly plausible." Even a child can be made to understand that whatever is ascribed to the washing of water or baptism is ascribed to it merely as a condition, on compliance with which, whatever is so ascribed is conferred by our heavenly Father as a matter of grace or mercy. A position so obvious as this needs no further comment.

Section VIII. Our eighth argument is derived from the following:— "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to promise."

Certainly, the expression "in Christ" is not to be taken literally; and yet there can exist little or no doubt as to its import or the relation which it expresses. Now, we maintain that the very fact that we enter into Christ by baptism, or into the relation which this language expresses, involves the connection between baptism and the remission of sins for which we contend. That the instant in which a person becomes an "heir according to promise," he becomes a Christian, or is forgiven, can hardly be supposed to admit of argument. To suppose a person an "heir" and yet not forgiven, or forgiven and yet not an heir, involves a contradiction, if not in words, at least in fact. But when do we become heirs? The reply is, when we become Abraham’s children; not according to the flesh certainly, but when we are constituted such. But when do we become Abraham’s children? Certainly when we become Christ’s; and we become Christ’s when in Mm, and not before. For, says the apostle, you are all one in Christ, and, if Christ’s, (which you are if in him,) then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to promise.

Now, what persons alone are in Christ? As many, is the reply, as have been baptized into Christ, and not one more. If, now, none out of Christ are forgiven, (and let him who so affirms prove it,) and if all in him are, then the very act of entering into him makes the difference between the forgiven and the unforgiven person. If there is any value in implication, this is conclusive.

Again, out of Christ alone do the distinctions exist between Jew and Greek, bond and free, male and female. Now, not for a moment can it be doubted that the instant in which these distinctions cease to exist is the instant in which we are forgiven. These are worldly distinctions, and cease to exist only when we cease to be of the world, which happens the instant in which we are forgiven. Now, that the instant in which these distinctions cease to exist is the instant in which we are baptized into Christ, is positively certain. Hence, hardly less certain is it that in that instant we are forgiven. But doubtless Mr. Jeter will say, are we not all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus? Certainly we are all the children of God by faith in Christ; for it is by faith that we are led to be baptized into him when alone we become his; and it will hardly be said that we become the children of God before we become Christ’s.

Section IX. As the basis of our ninth and last argument we cite the following:—"And he said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." This passage is cited, not so much to make it the basis of an argument, as to show that it warrants no conclusion at variance with the conclusions now arrived at from the preceding arguments. The question then to be considered is, Does the passage teach that salvation depends on faith alone? Mr. Jeter is constrained to admit that it does not. He concedes that it implies a condition which it does not name; but on what ground does he maintain that it implies but one? One, certainly, is all it names; but if it implies others, why not ten as well as one? To assert that it implies but one is the language of arbitrariness and not of criticism. Mr. Jeter concedes that it implies repentance; but why? If on the ground that repentance is taught elsewhere, so is baptism; but if on the ground that faith and repentance are necessarily united, we deny the position, and assert that they are necessarily not united. If belief cannot exist without repentance, why does the word of God ever enjoin repentance? In that case belief alone need be enjoined, since, if a man believe, he must of necessity repent. The very fact that the word of God enjoins belief in one command, repentance in a second, and baptism in a third, proves that belief and repentance are as distinct as belief and baptism. Poor, indeed, are his conceptions, as well of the workings of his own mind as of the teachings of Holy Writ, who affirms to the contrary. The truth is, that belief not only precedes repentance, but is the very ground of it. From repentance we may certainly infer belief, but from belief not certainly repentance.

Mr. Jeter’s position that belief implies repentance, but not baptism, rests on no foundation worthy of the name. It is an insult to reason no less than to revelation. Had it suited his purpose to exclude repentance, he would have done so with as little compunction as he excludes baptism. The obvious reason why the apostle’s injunction included only belief is, that the jailer, being ignorant of his duty, needed to be taught the whole of it, which, in all cases, begins with belief. But, being properly taught in this respect, every other duty would be, by a person in his state of mind, promptly complied with as soon as pointed out. We are not, however, to conclude, because baptism was not commanded, that it was therefore not necessary, but simply that it was not necessary to command it; or, rather, that when com­manding the first duty it was not necessary, in the same sentence, to command every other. Neither are we to conclude, because the design of baptism is not in every instance stated, that it is not therefore necessary to the remission of sins. The Apostle Peter, in Solomon’s porch, did not command his audience to believe, not because belief is not necessary, but simply because, under the circumstances, it was not necessary to command it. Neither did Paul, when enjoining upon the jailer his first duty, command him either to repent or be baptized in order to the remission of sins; but how illogical to infer" that therefore neither is necessary to that end!

Whatever an apostle, in any case, commanded for salvation or remission, became by that very fact essential to salvation in every case; and, although it should never have been mentioned again as necessary, its value would not have been in the least affected by that circumstance. One command, never repeated a second time, is enough to establish forever a duty, and a single expression, never again reiterated, enough to define and fix its value; but a thousand omissions to mention these subsequently are insufficient to affect either. The Apostle Peter commanded an audience to repent and be baptized in order to the remission of sins, which alone, to say nothing of other corroborative passages, forever fixed the value of both repentance and baptism, and, though neither had ever been mentioned again, this would still be their value.

But, waiving all more exact inquiries, upon what broad basis can we place the salvation of the jailer which, as a precedent, will leave no doubt in any mind? The facts in his case are these:—he heard the Truth, believed it, and was baptized the same hour of the night. The law in his case was this:—he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. Upon this view of the case not a doubt can possibly arise. Why, then, stop short of absolute certainty where the interests of eternity are at stake? But here we must close our arguments upon the connection between baptism and the remission of sins. And, while we regret that our limits will not allow us to extend them further, we confess we are not sensible, everything considered, that such extension is demanded. Some matters which have been omitted altogether might, perhaps, have been introduced and dwelt upon with profit; and yet even these might have added length to the present chapter without deepening the conviction it is intended to produce. A few points touched upon might have been treated, and with advantage, as we conceive, with greater fullness of detail; but even here we have felt that something of importance might, with propriety, be sacrificed to brevity. "Upon the whole, the subject is submitted to the considerate judgment of the reader, in the firm persuasion that if examined in the light of the preceding passages and arguments based thereon, as well as in the light of his own calm reason, he cannot fail to arrive at the conclusion that the position for which we contend enjoys the clear and certain sanction of Holy Writ.