CE-01-Chapter I.

Chapter I.

REASONS FOR THE PRESENT WORK—BIOGRAPHY—TITLE OF MR. JETER’S BOOK—SECTS, CLERGY, ETC.

Section I.

MR. JETER’S book has now been in the hands of the public for nearly two years. All have read it who felt the inclination to do so, and on its merits have passed their opinions. It has now, therefore, taken its place on the shelf, seldom, or never, perhaps, to descend from that quiet abode of intellectual labor, great and small, to be read a second time. It may not be amiss therefore, now that it has well-nigh done its work, to cast over its pages a sober second view, with the intention of pronouncing upon its contents a more mature and dispassionate judgment. The views "examined" by Mr. Jeter are deemed by him not sound, hence utterly untenable, and fast becoming obsolete. They have been published to the world in an age of great mental activity, and, to say the least, have now been before the community in their present form for more than a quarter of a century. The men, the means, and the motives to examine these views thoroughly have been abundant. Have they been subjected to that examination? and if so, in what way? In the pulpit they have been incessantly assailed. Uneducated preachers, in their rude and earnest style, have pressed the attack with great violence. Learned divines, deep-read in the various forms of heresy and versed in the surest methods of detection and exposure, have laid the line and the plummet to them. The shrewd disputant has attacked them with whatever of skill practice can impart, and all the hoarded means which experience can collect. Even grave professors, with their subtle distinctions and rigorous logic, have tried them by all the laws analysis can supply and every rule induction can suggest. Nor have they fared better from the press. From transient paragraphs in daily sheets to the careful strictures of monthly periodicals; from trashy letters in weekly newspapers to the most elaborate essays of pamphleteers; from the coarsest attacks malevolence can direct to the most polished critiques which learning can produce,—in all these ways have they been subjected to examination. And yet, notwithstanding all this, and much besides; notwithstanding these views are unsound,—utterly so; notwithstanding they have well-nigh spent their force; notwithstanding their hold on the mind of the pliant credulous public is daily becoming less firm; notwithstanding the great and general distrust with which the awakened world begins to view them; in a word, notwithstanding "The Reformation," in Mr. Jeter’s own language, "has proved a failure," there yet exists a necessity—an inexorable necessity—for a formal, methodical, and masterly exposition of these views. Surely this is not without its significance. We may affect contempt for a foe, may speak of his broken ranks and enfeebled warriors; but, while we marshal our own forces with so much tact, select our positions with so much caution, and consult with our subalterns with so much solicitude, it will be somewhat difficult to persuade a looker-on that no formidable enemy awaits our attack. But what reception has Mr. Jeter’s book met with? His brethren have received it well. Its summary of Baptist principles, though neither full nor strong, they accept as sound. Its defense of these principles they regard as satisfactory. Its style they pronounce good, its spirit excellent. And, as a refutation of the doctrines it professes to review, they have, or at least persuade themselves they have, a deep interest to consider it successful. Nor can we doubt that it enjoys the favor of those denominations who have agreed, with as much pleasure and as little justice as Mr. Jeter, to pronounce us heretics. Those denominations agree with him on the points touching which he dissents from us. The interests of both, therefore, being identical, their sympathies are mutual. Hence they consent to favor his book, because his book subserves their cause. Nor has he ever allowed himself for a moment to overlook this circumstance. He has, it is most evident, intentionally refrained from introducing into his book any matter, has studiously avoided every expression, which could have given the slightest offence to the parties whose favor he hoped to secure. And the gentlest note that warbles through his book is the oft-recurring te deum to orthodoxy. All of which has concurred to render the book acceptable, if not popular. But ought the book to be reviewed? We believe it should, and for so believing assign, from among other reasons, the following:—

Justice to the cause of truth demands that, the sophistry and unfairness with which Mr. Jeter attempts to sustain his own doctrines should not be allowed to pass unrebuked.

We decide, therefore, to review his book, and, in BO doing, hope to make its contents the occasion of achieving good,—contents which, whether it was designed or not, have no tendency but to evil. In executing this task, we think it best to notice the topics to be treated of in the order, for the most part, in which they are met with in Mr. Jeter’s book. Whatever lack of method, therefore, may be discovered in the present work, (and we shall admit it to be both great and obvious,) must be attributed to the very immethodical manner in which he has arranged the materials of his own work. For, although he has affected a method, it is only a method of being affected. Of Mr. Jeter’s book as a whole, we shall not, for the present, further intimate our appreciation than to say, its style is dull and haggled, its thoughts narrow, its arguments absolutely nil, its reflections trite and shallow, its air vain and pretending, its spirit dissembled and mean.

Section II. But Mr. Jeter’s book has more objects than one in view. It is intended to contain an attack no less on Mr. Campbell himself than on his views. On what ground else can we account for the wretched biography of Mr. Campbell which it contains? There was no necessity for this. Mr. Campbell’s private personal history is not the ground on which his published views must stand or fall. These are to be tried by quite a different rule. But the case admits of a short solution. Mr. Jeter hates Mr. Campbell with an intense hatred. Hence, while professing to furnish a candid exposition of his errors, he could not resist the temptation to present a brief sketch of his life, that he might be afforded the opportunity of giving expression, much as the fact is sought to be concealed, to this absorbing feeling of his heart. But he had, besides, an additional reason for this sketch. He feared to risk himself in a grapple with Mr. Campbell’s views on their own merits; and he hence wished to enfeeble them by an effort to make it appear that they have emanated from a source not wholly unattended by suspicious and vitiating circumstances. If Mr. Campbell’s views have strength, reasoned he, their author, it may be, is not faultless; hence they must be made to appear attainted by being connected with him. The sole design of this sketch is to present Mr. Campbell before the world in a doubtful and half-ridiculous light, and thus bring discredit on his views. We leave the reader, however, to form his own estimate of an effort to blur a character from which, nevertheless, the author of that effort derives his sole distinction in the world. Had Mr. Jeter’s book contained a manly examination of Mr. Campbell’s real views, and not so many proofs of personal animosity, certainly it would have been less objectionable than it is. A strong, dignified analysis and examination of these, with no indications of personal ill-will, would have been received, however much we might have differed from him in his judgments, in a spirit of genuine kindness.

He could not even select a title for his book without furnishing a verification of what has just been alleged. "Campbellism" was the only term which could vent the feelings of his heart. And yet he knew no term to be more offensive to us as a people. And he should have known that it is an act of high discourtesy to attempt to designate the views of any body of believers by terms which they hold to be unjust, and which they have repeatedly avowed do not express them. And no man, we must add, but a boor in feelings, whatever may be his factitious position in society, will stoop to the deed. The views associated in the public mind with the term "Campbellism" are not the views entertained by Mr. Campbell and his brethren. They are such as our enemies represent us as holding, and not such as we ourselves believe in. Of this fact we believe Mr. Jeter to be not ignorant. On what principle, then, except on that of a willingness to become a trafficker in misrepresentations and opprobrious epithets, could he consent to employ the term? He knew the term to be one of reproach, and hence felt himself called on to offer an explanation for using it; and yet he knew it became not a whit the less a term of reproach for all that. If a man consent to deal in slander, it is far from being a sufficient apology for his offence to say he does not mean his slander to be slanderous. No apology can justify the application of this discourteous epithet to our views. But the author’s scanty vocabulary, it would seem, is to be blamed for the use of the term. It could afford him no descriptive epithet for a cause the merits of which he proposes gravely and decently to argue; and he is hence driven to the use of a term familiar to none but the charlatan, save Mr. Jeter.

Section III. Of much that is said in Mr. Jeter’s book we purpose taking no notice whatever. Especially is this remark intended to apply to the first part of the book, in which so little is said that is worth reading, and so much less that is worth reviewing. Accordingly, under the caption "Campbellism in its inception" occur but two passages to which we shall invite the attention of the reader. These we notice, because they acquaint us at the outset with that depth of penetration which we shall so frequently have occasion to admire in the volume before us.

"It cannot be questioned," remarks Mr. Jeter, "that circumstances exert a mighty influence in forming the tastes, opinions, and characters, and guiding the lives, of most men;" and then on the next page adds, "Had Mr. Campbell not passed his early years in Scotland, his religious views and career would have differed widely from what they have been."

Now, that Mr. Campbell’s views might have differed from what they are at present is certainly not impossible; but that they would have differed is what Mr. Jeter does not know, though he scruples not to assert it. But, conceding the truth of his hypothesis, what then? Does it follow that Mr. Campbell’s present views are wrong? What his views might have been, had the scene of his early life been different, has no­thing whatever to do with the truth of his present views. Their truth rests on quite a different foundation. And yet Mr. Jeter’s position, if it amounts to anything, amounts to this:—that Mr. Campbell’s views, because formed not in America but in Scotland, are wrong; and of course, by the same conclusive reasoning, that Mr. Jeter’s views, because formed not in Scotland but in America, are right! We admire his complacent logic!

Mr. Jeter’s classic education has not only had a fine effect on his fancy, but it has enriched his speech with the most choice selection of terms which language can afford. "Campbellism," mutable and transient as a dream, dances through his imagination in forms styled, with exquisite taste, "inception," "chaos," and formation." There are many reasons why these terms should have been chosen; some which even a child can understand. Their number is three; their syllables, eight; their letters, a score and three. One is a dissyllable, the other two are not; two are trisyllables, the other one is not. They can be counted, spelled, and accented. They can be written, printed, and transposed. They can be sung in poetry, read in prose, and delivered in. declamation. And, no doubt, many other like curious and weighty reasons for their selection would occur to a person of Mr. Jeter’s penetration; but these are enough, surely, to satisfy even the dullest that the terms have been wisely chosen.

Mr. Jeter styles his second chapter "Campbellism in its chaos;" and the striking resemblance between its contents and the meaning of a term in the heading occurs to us as one of the happiest coincidences in his book. In the second paragraph of this chapter, he says, "It would have puzzled the most careful, discriminating, and candid reader of the ’Christian Baptist’ to form any clear conception of Mr. Campbell’s principles or aims." But few persons, we suspect, acquainted with Mr. Campbell’s writings, will be prepared to admit the correctness of this statement. From the. writings of no author with whom we happen to be acquainted is it easier to collect his principles and aims, than from the writings of Mr. Campbell. His learning, accurate discrimination, and fertile speech, enable him to express himself with a clearness and precision equaled by few, excelled perhaps by none. Simple justice to the character of a great man demands that at least this much shall he said in defense of a style of writing singularly strong and free from doubt.

Section IV. On the twenty-fifth page of Mr. Jeter’s book, he says, "Mr. Campbell aspired to the honor of being a reformer." And the emphasis laid on the word "reformer" hints, not very remotely, at the truest pledge this clergyman can give of his amiable nature,—a sneer. But was it, indeed, under the circumstances, a thing to be sneered at, to aspire to the distinction? We shall see.

"That a reformation was needed by the Christian sects of that time," says Mr. Jeter, "none, who pos­sess a tolerable acquaintance with their condition and the claims of the gospel, will deny. Indeed, what church, or member of a church, does not, in some respects and in some degree, need reformation? There was needed then, as at all times, an increase of religious knowledge in the churches; but, more than this, an increase of piety. The reformation demanded by the times was in spirit and practice rather than doctrine. They were then, as now, far too worldly, formal, and inefficient. Among the Baptist churches there were some sad evils. In parts of the country, the churches were infected with an antinomian spirit, and blighted by a heartless, speculative, hair-splitting orthodoxy. These churches were mostly penurious, opposed to Christian missions and all enlarged plans and self-denying efforts for promoting the cause of Christ. In general, the careful study of the Scriptures, the religious education of children, the proper observance of the Lord’s day, a wholesome, scriptural discipline, the reasonable support of pastors, and, in fine, devotion to the Redeemer’s cause, were too much neglected."

Well may Mr. Jeter, after this, admit that a "reformation" was needed by the "Christian sects" of that time; and yet he does not blush to sneer at the man who "aspired to the honor" of effecting it. As to whether the reformation demanded was a reformation "in spirit and practice rather than doctrine," we shall leave those best acquainted with the wretched state of doctrine at the time to decide. But Mr. Campbell never proposed a reformation of "Christian sects" as such. He proposed that all sincere and pious Christians should abandon these "sects," and, uniting upon the great foundation upon which, as upon a rock, Christ said he would build his church, form themselves into a church of Christ, and not into a "sect." A "Christian sect" we pronounce simply an impossible thing. Sects there may be, innumerable; but Christian, as sects, they can never he. A church of Christ is not a sect, in any legitimate sense of the term. As soon as a body of believers, claiming to be a church of Christ, becomes a sect, it ceases to be a church of Christ. Sect and Christian are terms denoting incompatible ideas. Christians there may be in all the "sects," as we believe there are; but, in them though they may be, yet of them, if Christians, clearly they are not. Mr. Campbell’s proposition never looked to the reformation of sects as such. A sect reformed would still be a sect; and sect and Christian are not convertible terms. Sectarianism originates, and necessarily, in the church, but has its consummation out of it. Hence Paul, in addressing the church at Corinth, says, "There must be also heresies (sectarianism) among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest." But here is something which seems never to have struck the mind of Mr. Jeter. With the apostle, sectarianism originated with the bad, and the good were excluded; but with Mr. Jeter it includes the good, and the bad are excluded. How shall we account for the difference? As soon, however, as the "heretic" (the sectarian) is discovered in the church, he is, by the apostle’s direction, to be admonished a first and second time, and then, if he repent not, to be rejected. Now, we request to be informed by Mr. Jeter how, according to this rule, a "Christian sect" can exclude her "sectarians" and still remain a "sect"? Heresy and sectarianism are identical, being both represented by the same term in the same sense in the original; and that which they represent has its origin in the flesh. Hence the same apostle, in enumerating the works of the flesh, mentions, among other things, strife, sedition, heresy, (sectarianism.’) Heresy or sectarianism, we are taught by the Apostle Peter, is introduced into the church by "false teachers," and is "damnable;" and yet Mr. Jeter, with true foster-father tenderness, can talk of "Christian sects."

Section V.

Another peculiarity of "Campbellism in its chaos" was, it seems, a most virulent attack on the "kingdom of clergy." Mr. Jeter’s defense is eminently characteristic, being affectionate, feeble, and short. There is something mournful and sad in its melancholy air. Nor can we wonder at the circumstance. Pew men were ever more feared or more hated by the clergy than Mr. Campbell; and few men were ever more clerical than Mr. Jeter. Young, shallow, and bigoted, the Attic wit and racy humor of the "Christian Baptist" caused him excruciating pain. He learned to sigh in time long gone, and with increasing age and decreasing strength his sigh has grown to a dirge. Our sympathies are moved for the man. And in the length and painful nature of some of his labors there is much to move even a harder heart than ours. Gazing for thirty years intently into the "Third Epistle of Peter," where his port and bearing and all the secret springs and motions of his heart lie mirrored in lines so just and true, is an object to move the pity even of a wretch. But was there no just ground for the attack on the clergy? We shall let the following picture, drawn by Mr. Jeter himself, of the truth of which he, we presume, is the best judge, answer the question. "They (the clergy) were by no means faultless," he observes. "Some of them were ignorant, conceited, and vain; others were proud, haughty, and imperious; others, still, were hypocritical, mercenary, and base; and not a few were worldly, selfish, and sycophantic." After this, it would be an idle waste of time to defend Mr. Campbell’s attack on the reverend gentlemen here so happily and savagely described.

While admitting that Mr. Campbell attacked the clergy, and at times, too, severely, we still insist that his attack was just and discriminating. To that class of them described in the preceding extract he was, we grant, not over-indulgent; nor in this will he be adjudged to have erred. But there were many among them "whom, while he believed them to be in error, he regarded as men of great intellectual and moral worth: men whom he loved sincerely, and against whom he never let fall a shaft but to correct some waywardness in doctrine, and then always in a spirit of real kindness. True, their treatment of him was such as generally entitled them not even to his respect, much less to his esteem; and yet they shared largely of both. When Mr. Jeter acquaints himself with the lying, bitter,

Smithfield spirit with which his clerical brethren of that day set on Mr. Campbell, he will find his stock of charity exhausted, and his time consumed, in providing mantles to cover their shame, and many a reason to shrink from a comparison of their conduct with that of Mr. Campbell.

Section VI. But "Campbellism in its chaos" was distinguished by another attack of a nature still more offensive, if possible, than the attack on the clergy. Mr. Campbell ventured to question the authority and doctrinal soundness of Creeds or Confessions of Faith. We admit he did, and maintain he was right. First, he proposed to examine creeds historically, for the purpose of ascertaining whence they had sprung, and what their effects on the church had been. Second, to inquire into their doctrines in order to determine their intrinsic value. Third, to investigate the authority with which they are invested. On examining into the history of creeds, he felt it to be fully established that they did not originate with Christianity, neither with the primitive churches; and that they are hence without the sanction either of Christ or the apostles. On the contrary, he ascertained that they originated in an age when Christianity is admitted by all to have been greatly corrupted, and that they grew out of these corruptions and embody them, with a slight admixture of truth. And, as to their effects upon the church, he ascertained that these had been to exclude from the church in the days of her corruption, not the corrupting party always, but the feebler one, and that too without the least regard to the soundness of its views. On inquiring into the doctrines of creeds, it was felt that so far as they embody the doctrines of a party as such, whether a majority or not, they embody not strictly the doctrines of Christianity, but merely the party’s opinions, speculations, and metaphysics; that they are intended not so much to define matters on which parties agree, as to guard points on which they differ; and that hence their legitimate tendency is, if not to create, at least to perpetuate, divisions.

And, in regard to the authority of creeds, it appeared that they are intended to be authoritative codes of laws by which the parties respectively adopting them covenant to be governed both in their doctrine and in their discipline; that parties decide their questions of heresy, not by the Bible, but by the creed; that a person dissenting from the creed is pronounced a heretic, though he declare his belief in the whole Bible in the fair construction of its terms; and finally, that the forms of church policy and rules of discipline contained in creeds, though always binding and frequently tyrannical, are without the semblance of authority from the Holy Scriptures. For these and other weighty reasons, Mr. Campbell felt it to be due the Savior to repudiate creeds altogether. In regard to the propriety of having a creed, and the kind they should have, if any, Mr. Campbell and his brethren reasoned thus:—If a creed contains less than the Bible then it contains too little, but if it contains more then it contains too much; and if it contains anything different from the Bible it is wrong, but if it contains precisely what the Bible contains then it is not a creed but a Bible. And if, they reasoned further, our views of the Bible are correct, there is no necessity for publishing them to the world in the form of a creed. As they are already more accurately expressed in the Bible than we can possibly express them, we will merely publish the Bible. But if they are not correct, then they should not be published in any form, for the Bible does not sanction the publication of what is wrong. But even Mr. Campbell, it seems, has a creed. The following is Mr. Jeter’s language:—"There is in Christendom a great variety of creeds, from the so-called Apostles’ Creed down to the ’Christian System’ composed by Mr. Campbell as an exhibition of the principles of the Reformation." But whether Mr. Campbell’s brethren have a creed or not does not appear from Mr. Jeter’s book. It is presumed, however, from the following language, that they have none:—"Every intelligent Christian," he remarks, "has a creed, written or unwritten." Blockheads, then, of course have none! This is certainly the reason why the Baptists have creeds, and likely the reason we have none! When Mr. Jeter penned the assertion that the "Christian System" is a creed, he must have supposed his readers would be of a class too corrupt to receive it if true; otherwise it is difficult to account for its presence in his book. It is an assertion which we have never met with except in the lowest class of attacks that ’have been made on Mr. Campbell’s views. When we chance with a scurrilous little pamphlet, either denuded or garbed in green or blue, clandestinely circulating over the country against these views, among the first things we expect to meet with on" opening it is the assertion that Alexander Campbell has a creed; but certainly we had no right to expect it in the decent work of a pious clergyman. The term "creed," in its current as well as in its ecclesiastic sense, denotes a Confession of Faith. In this sense and in this only does Mr. Campbell use the term when objecting to creeds. Of this fact Mr. Jeter cannot be ignorant. Why then does he apply the term to the "Christian System"? Does he mean to insinuate that the "Christian System" is a creed in this sense? We shall only add that if a good cause requires its advocates to resort to expedients like this, then the opprobrium of trickery should cease.

Section VII. In the course of his comments on the attack on creeds, Mr. Jeter undertakes to point out what he styles a "great fallacy," which, it would seem, "lurks in our boasted purity of speech." As this "fallacy has never, that we know of, occurred as yet to any of our brethren, we beg leave here to call their attention to it. The following is Mr. Jeter’s language:—"They" (Mr. Camp­bell and his brethren) "do, it is true, insist that their members shall speak of Bible things in Bible terms. To restore a pure or scriptural speech is one of the main objects of the Reformation for which Mr. Campbell pleads. But in their boasted purity of speech there lurks another great fallacy. They do not use Bible terms. The Bible, with a few slight exceptions, was written in the Hebrew and Greek tongues; and they derive their theological terms from a translation of the Bible made by fallible men."

Terms, then, derived from a translation of the Bible are not Bible terms. From this seedy premise the following conclusions result:—

This only proves that he who has resolved that he will never be just has, in the act, resolved that he will be at times extremely foolish.

Section VIII.

Another blunder, of a kind which Mr. Jeter is no less capable of committing than the preceding, occurs on p. 40 of his book, in some strictures he offers on a "discourse" he had somewhere heard Mr. Campbell deliver, which, it seems, was "eloquent, plausible, and sophistical." The subject of the discourse, it appears, was the unity of the church of Christ. Mr. Campbell assumed upon the authority of the Bible that there is "one body.” He then argued that, since the "one body” is the church, the church is hence a unit. But it was not in this that the "sophism" consisted, in pointing out which Mr. Jeter commits his blunder. The term "church" is employed in the Bible in two different senses,—one a more, the other a less, comprehensive sense. When used in the former sense, it comprehends the whole body of Christians since the commencement of Christ’s reign to the present. But, in the latter, it applies only to a particular congregation composed of a limited number of these Christians meeting at some stated place for worship. Now, the "sophism" consisted in this:—Mr. Campbell left his audience to infer that he and his brethren exhaust the meaning of the term in its largest sense, 1:e, that they alone constitute the body of Christ. The following is Mr. Jeter’s language:—"He" (Mr. Campbell) "did not inform us, however, what body is the body of Christ. He trusted in the intelligence and candor of his hearers to infer that the body of Christ is the body that embraces the ’ancient gospel,’ and that has restored the ’ancient order of things.’ "

Now, we shall attempt no formal reply to this. We shall simply deny that it is in the memory of man that Mr. Campbell ever offered the gross insult to his understanding that is here attributed to him. That he may have denied that the Methodist church, or the Presbyterian church, or even the Baptist church, as such, constitutes the church of Christ, either in whole or in part, is what we are ready to believe. The term "church," as already stated, has two, and but two, acceptations in the Bible. In the one, it includes the whole family of the elect since Christ to the present time. In this acceptation it is equivalent to the expression "kingdom of God" in the passage, "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." In the other, it denotes a particular congregation, composed of those who have entered this kingdom, meeting at some stated place for worship, as the church at Sardis. But in neither acceptation will the term apply to any one nor even to all the denominations just named. They are neither collectively the church in the one sense, nor singly a church in the other; nor as denominations are they even part of the church of Christ in any sense. Indeed, whether we view them at large as denominations or consider their individual congregations, one thing is certain, they are neither in the one capacity nor the other known in the Bible, nor recognized by it, as belonging to the church of Christ. A Baptist church of Christ is as unreal a thing as a Roman Catholic church of Christ, and there is as much authority in the Bible for the one as for the other. By this remark we do not mean to compare Baptists as individuals with Roman Catholics Very far from it.

We speak of the denomination only, and of this so far only as it is Baptist; but we do mean that thus far it has no more sanction from the Bible than the Roman Catholic church.

If the term Baptist denotes not something essential to a Christian as a Christian, neither something essential to a church of Christ as such, then it denotes something which is not Christian. It then denotes an attribute, as far as it denotes any, not of a church as a church of Christ, but of a church as distinguished from a church of Christ, and hence something not sanctioned by the Bible. In which case, both what the term denotes and the term itself should be rebated as essential neither to a Christian nor to a church of Christ. But perhaps Mr. Jeter will say the expression "Baptist church of Christ" means no more than the expression "church of Christ." But how can this be? The expression "church of Christ" is certainly equal to itself. And if so, then of course the prefix "Baptist" means nothing, and hence should be abandoned. But, if the expression "Baptist church of Christ" means either more or less, or anything else, than the expression "church of Christ," then the expression "church of Christ" means one thing, and the expression "Baptist church of Christ" another thing. And hence it would follow, since the Bible sanctions only a church of Christ, that it does not sanction a Baptist church of Christ.

Indeed, as already stated, the term "Baptist," whether applied to the individual or the church, denotes something belonging to neither as Christian, and, there­fore, should be disused. But, should it be alleged that it denotes merely the difference between one Christian and another, or between one church and another, then we reply that no such difference is sanctioned by the Bible, and hence we are under no obligation to provide a name for it. On the contrary, we are under obligation to seek to cancel all such differences, as well as all terms denoting them. Now, these differences, whether between one individual Christian and another, or between one church and another, and all terms denoting them, are precisely what Mr. Campbell and his brethren propose shall be abolished. They propose that nothing not essential, according to the Bible, to the character of a Christian, shall be made a bond of union or a condition of fellowship, either among individual Christians or churches of Christ. It is thus that they propose to abolish all sects and sectarianism. But Mr. Campbell does not claim for himself and his brethren that they, as a body, exhaust the meaning of the term the church, nor that they are the only persons who are members of the church. Hence, no apology can be pleaded for Mr. Jeter’s dishonorable insinuation to the contrary. Mr. Campbell concedes to all, no matter where found, who have been, in the true acceptation of the phrase, "born again," that they are members of the church or body of Christ. True, he believes many of these members to be in organizations purely sectarian, and hence unsanctioned by the Bible. And to all such members his counsel is, Come out of these organizations. But Mr. Campbell does maintain that his brethren, as a denomination, are Christian; and that hence, so far as the body of Christ has an earth a denominational existence, they are that body. And this is what he denies to any other and to all denominations in Christendom besides. This is the great distinction which he believes to exist between his brethren, as a body, and all other bodies.

Again, he denies that the individual congregations of his brethren, such as are of good moral character, can, except in the language of envy, ignorance, or fable, be denominated sectarian. On the contrary, he insists that each one of them is, according to the Bible, in the strictest sense of the term, a church of Christ; and that, consequently, so far as the church can be held to have a congregational existence, they exhaust its present meaning.

Both such congregations, and the denomination itself as a body, are composed of members who repudiate everything not essentially involved in the Bible view of a Christian; and who maintain the absolute necessity and importance of all that is. As a body and as congregations they refuse to be bound or governed by any code of laws except the New Testament, or to acknowledge any other names except the names which it imposes. How, then, can either be called sectarian? Mr. Jeter is no more at liberty to apply the term to either than he would be to apply it to the church of God which met at Corinth. We do not say he will not do it: indeed, we know he does; nor have we ground to expect aught better from him. It is a peculiarity of the guilty that they always seek to cover their own crimes by im­puting the same to others. He will certainly call us sectarians.

Section IX. But the sorest and most offensive feature of "Campbellism in its chaos" yet remains to be stated. Mr. Campbell ventured to attack the practice of relating a "Christian experience.” This, together with his "early writings on the subject of experimental religion, gave great pain to the friends of spiritual Christianity." So writes Mr. Jeter. True, Mr. Campbell ventured to attack the practice in question, but on what grounds? Has Mr. Jeter stated them? He has not. Policy dictated to him that what he could not answer it would be better to suppress. Indeed, after what he has written on the subject, there was little necessity to state them; for if we are to believe the subject to be part of Christianity, and to accept his picture of it as true, to deem him its friend and Mr. Campbell its enemy, then truly may it be said that it is not from its enemies, but from its friends, that Christianity suffers its chief disgrace. Let anyone read Mr. Jeter’s own account of "Christian experience," bearing in mind that he is defending it against its most powerful adversary, that he knew when writing his defense that most likely it would have to pass the ordeal of a review by Mr. Campbell; let him then note the things which could not be suppressed and imagine those that are, and he can hardly fail to conclude that, if "Christian experience" is a part of Christianity, then the line which separates the true from the fabulous has never been accurately determined.

We here use the phrase "Christian experience" in the only sense in which it is popularly understood.

Mr. Campbell attacked the practice in question for the following reasons:—1. It is not sanctioned by the Bible. 2. The main point in the experience is a fiction. 3. The practice fosters superstition. Upon each of these reasons it may not be amiss to dwell for a moment.

1. The practice is not sanctioned by the Bible. "This, to a man scrupulously exact in matters of the highest moment, and who cherished a deep reverence for the word of God, would be enough. His conscience would instantly spurn the practice. He could no longer consent to impeach the Divine wisdom by affirming that to be necessary upon which that wisdom has seen fit to be silent. He could not consent to cumber the hearts of his brethren with a sense of duty where the Master has left them free. He could never be induced to set aside the word of God to make room for a mere tradition. And yet all this would give great pain and cause great scandal to the friends of spiritual Christianity!

2. The main point in the experience is a fiction. This point is the sense of forgiveness alleged to be felt by the party at the moment when his sins are supposed to be remitted. In his account of the elements of a "Christian experience," Mr. Jeter thought it wise to suppress this. The meaning of the expression "sense of forgiveness" is concisely this:—that at the instant of regeneration the sinner is sensibly assured that his sins are remitted. But this is something which the Bible does not affirm. Peelings may exist, but they prove not remission; impressions may be made, but they teach not forgiveness. In most instances we may hope the unfortunate victim of this delusion to be sincere. But this alters not the nature of the case. Whether he feigns" the existence of feelings that have no existence, (which, we fear, is not seldom the case,) or adopts the fictitious construction of others of feelings that do exist, (which is perhaps more frequently the case,) the result is the same:—the point assumed to be the evidence of remission is a fiction. No good man of strong mind, and unwilling to be deceived, ever yet heard related what is popularly called a "Christian experience" without feeling himself deeply moved when that part of the farce was approached which was to elicit a declaration of the sense of forgiveness. It is difficult to say which is the greater,—the pity of such a man for the deluded creature who sits before him on the inquisitorial bench to be plied with every silly question which ignorance or impudence can put, or his disgust for the blind guide who conducts the process of torturing the feelings of a subdued and weeping sinner into every imaginable form that is false.

3. The practice fosters superstition. Of the truth of this there is no more unmistakable evidence than the chary concessions of Mr. Jeter. That dreams, visions, sounds, voices, and specters, were formerly, as they are still, common elements in the experiences related, does not admit of being denied. These things were related in public in the presence of large audiences. Many hearing them believed them real. Hence, in "seeking religion" these persons were naturally led to look for the same marvelous things which others had seen. With their superstitious feelings thus highly excited, how easy for them to persuade themselves that they had seen or heard what had either no foundation at all, or none beyond their fancy! Hence, if the father had heard a sound, nothing but a sound would satisfy the son; if the mother had dreamed a dream, the daughter was a dreamer too; and thus the weaknesses of parents became the weaknesses of their children, and the superstition of one generation the superstition of the next. Of these evils Mr. Jeter is content to say, "They were seen, deplored, and opposed by all well-informed Christians long before he" (Mr. Campbell) "commenced his reformation." Not without many a qualification can this be accepted as true. One thing is certain:—that where these "well-informed" Christians are still in the ascendant, no perceptible diminution of the evil has as yet occurred. But we must not dismiss the subject without noticing Mr. Jeter’s attempt to prostitute the Bible to its support. "Philip," he says, "did not baptize the Ethiopian eunuch, who requested baptism, until he had catechized him. True," he continues, "the evangelist propounded but one question to the candidate; or, at least, in the concise narrative furnished by Luke, only one is recorded,—that, under the circumstances, being deemed sufficient."

Well, from Philip’s propounding one question what does Mr. Jeter infer? His modest conclusion is thus stated:—"This example, so far from restricting pastors or churches to this brief and single question,—a question never, so far as we are informed, proposed to any other applicant for the ordinance, in apostolic times,—fairly authorizes them to make such inquiries as the intelligence, known characters, and circumstances of the candidates may appear to require." That is, one question put by an inspired teacher authorizes uninspired "pastors or churches" to put, if they see fit, a thousand, or to require a "candidate" for baptism to relate a Christian experience. When the holy word of God can be thus scandalously perverted by its professed friends merely to serve a purpose, for consistency’s sake let the clamor of Christians against infidel injustice be hushed forever.

But, gentle reader, will you turn to the eighth chapter of the Acts, and read from the twenty-ninth verse to the close of the chapter? You will observe that, on approaching the eunuch, Philip says to him, "Understandest thou what thou readest?" But this is not the "one question” to which Mr. Jeter refers; therefore read on. You are through. Now say whether you have found even one question put by Philip to the eunuch before he would baptize him. No. Such a question is not in the passage. Philip states the condition on which the eunuch might be baptized, but he propounds to him no question. But Mr. Jeter, in his blind zeal to find an example which would justify him in catechizing candidates for baptism, confounds a condition with a question; or, if he has not done this, then he is guilty of inventing for the Bible what it does not contain.

Section X. But Mr. Jeter is in labor to make it appear that Mr. Campbell and his brethren are a "sect." As we have already alluded to this subject, but little more need be added on it here. His language is, "Mr. Campbell now found himself at the head of a sect,—yes, of a sect. The reformers were a sect, according to the definition of Noah Webster:—’SECT: A body or number of persons united in tenets, chiefly in philosophy and religion, but constituting a distinct party by holding sentiments different from those of other men; a denomination."

According, then, to Mr. Jeter and Mr. Webster, we are a "sect." Now, we shall certainly not attempt to deny that there is a sense in which certain men can call us a "sect." Had we lived in the days of the Pharisees, we doubt not they would have called us a "sect." Should we wonder at their doing it now? But it is not Mr. Webster who styles us a sect, but Mr. Jeter, who applies his language to us. Our defense is this:—after the way which some men call heresy, so worship we the God of our fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets. But let us put the logic of Mr. Jeter to the proof. The following is Mr. Webster’s definition of baptism:—”The application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible church of Christ. This is usually performed by sprinkling or immersion." Mr. Jeter, your witness is an honorable man. Is the case made out? If he testify truly against your adversary, pray, sir, what is the effect of his testimony against yourself?

But, again, says Mr. Jeter, "It must be added that the reformers were a sect in the sense in which Mr. Campbell so frequently employed the term. They had all the attributes, and, eminently the spirit, of a sect. Their claim to be considered the church, and, by eminence, the Christian church, was as baseless, and far more preposterous, than the same claim vauntingly set forth by some older and more venerable if not more worthy sects."

We understand Mr. Jeter perfectly, and shall give his paltry insinuation the benefit of a second publication. His meaning is this:—that our claim to be considered the church, and, by eminence, the Christian church,—a claim which has now been explained,—is as baseless as, and far more preposterous than, the same claim vauntingly set forth by the church of Rome, which is, with him, a more venerable if not more worthy sect than we. Within itself this insinuation is of no consequence whatever. Its sole value consists in this:—that it is the truest index to its author’s feelings we have yet seen. Sectarianism, as defined by him, consists, among other things, to use his own language, in "the lack of tenderness and forbearance toward those who dissent from our views." Tried by his own rule, in the light of the foregoing insinuation, and how free from the stain of sectarianism is Mr. Jeter?